A reminder of what is really at stake in the debate over Catholicism and the death penalty, from an essay by the late, great Cardinal Avery Dulles. As he saw, a reversal on capital punishment would cast doubt on the credibility of traditional teaching in general (as, I would add,… pic.twitter.com/VTPFMJkWjo
— Edward Feser (@FeserEdward) October 2, 2025
Transcript (my emphases):
The reversal of a doctrine as well established as the legitimacy of capital punishment would raise serious problems regarding the credibility of the magisterium. Consistency with Scripture and long-standing Catholic tradition is important for the grounding of many current teachings of the Catholic Church; for example, those regarding abortion, contraception, the permanence of marriage, and the ineligibility of women for priestly ordination. If the tradition on capital punishment had been reversed, serious questions would be raised regarding other doctrines.
It might be contended that the tradition on capital punishment, unlike some of the other subjects just mentioned, is not infallible and is therefore reversible. Granting but not conceding this point, one might ask what would be needed to reverse it. I believe that competent authority would have to declare that the previous teaching was in error and to show by arguments from reason or revelation why the new doctrine is superior. But Pope John Paul II and the bishops have not said a word against the tradition. In fact, they have appealed to the tradition in proposing their doctrine on capital punishment. From this I conclude that their teaching ought to be understood, if possible, in continuity with the tradition, rather than as a reversal.
If, in fact, the previous teaching had been discarded, doubt would be cast on the current teaching as well. It too would have to be seen as reversible, and in that case, as having no firm hold on people’s assent. The new doctrine, based on a recent insight, would be in competition with a magisterial teaching that has endured for two millennia — or even more, if one wishes to count the biblical testimonies. Would not some Catholics be justified in adhering to the earlier teaching on the ground that it has more solid warrants than the new? The faithful would be confronted with the dilemma of having to dissent either from past or from present magisterial teaching.
A reminder of what is really at stake in the debate over Catholicism and the death penalty, from an essay by the late, great Cardinal Avery Dulles. As he saw, a reversal on capital punishment would cast doubt on the credibility of traditional teaching in general (as, I would add, progressives are well aware – that’s the true reason for their strange obsession with reversing teaching on capital punishment). As Dulles also suggests, in the case of a conflict with the teaching of scripture and tradition, Catholics would be justified in adhering to that older teaching and rejecting the novelty. (The essay is “Catholic Teaching in the Death Penalty: Has it Changed?” in Owens, Carlson, and Elshtain, eds., Religion and the Death Penalty, 2004)
I would add that this line of thought could impact on adherence to the Traditional Latin Mass: suppress it and you effectively signal that the Novus Ordo doesn’t require any level of assent.
In the course of human events, 7:05 was when the sun rose here.
The day brightened considerably at 7:04.
Loading ...
