Not Development but Doctrinal “Progress”— By Leaps and Bounds

If the Gospel forbids the death penalty, then not only St Paul, but countless Popes, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church also betrayed it.

From One Peter Five

By Fr Serafino Lanzetta 

"If the Gospel forbids the death penalty, then St. Paul himself betrayed the Gospel."

In his Super Hanc Petram: The Pope and the Church at a Dramatic Moment in History—a book highly praised by such figures as Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Roberto de Mattei, Eduardo Echeverria, Philip Lawler, and José Antonio Ureta—Fr. Serafino Lanzetta seeks to offer a profound theological analysis of the foundations of Jorge Bergoglio’s theology and of his acts and words as Pope Francis. At a time when we are still grappling with the legacy of the last pontificate, Fr. Lanzetta’s work shines with ongoing relevance as arguably the best theological synthesis yet written on the topic. The publisher, Os Justi Press, has given OnePeterFive permission to share chapter 5 with our readers, concerning the change to the Catechism on the death penalty, and its roots in Teilhard de Chardin’s evolutionary paradigm as contrasted with Newman’s understanding of doctrinal development.—Editor

On May 11, 2018, the Holy Father, in an audience granted to the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved a new version of no. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, concerning the doctrine on the death penalty. With this rescript, the new teaching entered into force on the same day as its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, August 1, 2018 .[1]

The pontifical rescript affirms first of all that “recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.” It does not specify what “for a long time” means; in truth, it is not only a chronological but also a kairological time: Sacred Scripture offers a clear foundation for this teaching, present in the Church Fathers and repeated by the constant Magisterium of the Church. We will not dwell on this but refer the reader to an exhaustive article, which explains this doctrinal development well.[2]

This “long time” has now come to an end, because, continues the rescript:

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

This being the case, the new teaching is presented: “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”[3]

What is astonishing here is the manner of reasoning: premised upon a new chronological time, it is said that “the Church teaches in the light of the Gospel….” Nonetheless, in reality, the Church in this instance means simply one single speech by Francis against a constant doctrine, which obtained ever since the beginning of Christianity, starting with St. Peter (1 Pet 2:13–14) and continuing up to John Paul II[4] and the previous formulation of the Catechism. Even more surprising is the Letter to the Bishops of the CDF, which goes so far as to affirm that “the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine.” Solely on the basis of the renewed awareness of the dignity of the human person, present especially in John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitæ, as well as in some speeches by Benedict XVI (both of which aimed at eliminating the application hic et nunc of the death penalty, but not its moral liceity), it is asserted that what Francis has ordered is a “coherent development of Catholic doctrine.” However, in reality, Evangelium Vitæ did not intend to abrogate the ratio of capital punishment, but only to show its inappropriateness in the present social context, while obviously specifying that the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” absolutely forbids the killing of an innocent person. However, here, the assertion of continuity rests solely upon the support of merely the two popes who preceded Francis, and in spite of the fact that his new teaching is not in logical alignment with their own teaching on the issue. Now, what about all the other popes? What has happened to Scripture—for example, to Romans 13:4?[5]

What, then, does “a coherent development of Catholic doctrine” mean? What we wish to bring to the reader’s attention is the following: are we confronted in this case with development in the theological sense or rather with progress in the technical-scientific sense? Before reflecting on the scope of the concept of “development” in opposition to its counterfeit versions, it is important to briefly examine the thought of an author who, having recently returned to favor, is now riding a new wave of popularity, and can help us understand the structure of the CDF speech. The author is the French Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955).

Teilhard de Chardin adds a peculiarity all his own to Darwinian evolutionism, namely the union of matter and spirit in the evolutionary process. To put it more clearly, he presents the idea that matter, through a process of becoming, produces the spirit, because it thus comes closer and closer to perfection, which is hominization and finally Christification. For Teilhard de Chardin the “Spirit” (a word he writes with a capital letter, as he does for some technical concepts, such as “Evolution,” “Cosmic Life,” etc.) is the product of matter, “emerges within matter as its master,”[6] and is in fact precisely this “Spirit which now evolves.”[7] We are not robbed of our soul through the inexorable process of material evolution, but, on the contrary, the energy that emanates from the evolutionary process is spiritualized; it advances towards the constitution of itself as freedom.

For Teilhard, freedom is the product of matter that evolves and becomes spiritual. Evolution therefore goes towards a future at the summit of which there will be the full revelation/transformation of the cosmic Christ. Once we arrive at the complete unity of the evolutionary process, Christ will reveal Himself as the Omega Point. At that point, man will be more than man, that is, what Teilhard de Chardin dubs the “ultra-human” will be established.

We can rest assured: the social and industrial system does not rob us of our soul, because the latter emanates from energies which are beneficial and increasingly spiritualized forces. And only if we reach the heart of the “Noosphere” (another key word in Teilhardian vocabulary) can we hope to attain the fullness of our humanity.[8] The Noosphere, according to Teilhard, is the terrestrial sphere of the thinking substance. The closer we approach it, the closer we approach the fullness of our humanity.

The man who busies himself solely with the search for Revelation remains lost in emptiness and uncertainty; worse still, this bustling pursuit extinguishes in him the sacred fire of the “Search” (another capitalized word).[9] Religion, which attempts to reject nature, appears to be something alien to mankind. Religion no longer delights in that life which continues to govern the bodies and souls of her baptized children.[10] These people, whom religion seeks to sanctify in a jealous way, are hearing another voice, that of Mother Earth who first nursed them. First Mother Earth, and then religion. The latter, if it wants to thrive, must remain faithful to the primordial calls of the first mother. Therefore, it is a religion which is natural, and in some way rises as a canticle of the earth.[11]

Moreover, Teilhard unites evolution with the Cross and Redemption, transforming the latter into a symbol of the arduous labor of evolution. According to traditional interpretations, suffering is first and foremost a punishment, an expiation. However, in Teilhard’s Cosmic Life, contrary to this view, the main idea that is derived from suffering is that of development. Suffering “is primarily the consequence of a work of development and the price that has to be paid for it. Its effectiveness is that of an effort. Physical and moral evil are produced by the process of Becoming: everything that evolves has its own sufferings and commits its own faults. The Cross is the symbol of the arduous labour of Evolution—rather than the symbol of expiation.”[12]

Prudently, what was then the Holy Office published a Monitum on the works of Fr. de Chardin, saying that in philosophical and theological matters they abound in ambiguities and even errors that offend against the Catholic faith. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Pontifical Council for Culture, led by Cardinal Ravasi, during the plenary assembly held in Rome from 15 to 18 November 2017, asked, in a letter to the pope, for this Monitum to be revoked. The main argument of the letter is that the Holy Office’s preoccupation “has simply been surpassed by reality, because our current knowledge about the origin of man and the Bible has gone beyond the polemics that form the basis of the Monitum.”[13] As is clear, Teilhard’s key principle, namely continuous and perfective evolutionism, has also been fully adopted by the Pontifical Council for Culture. According to Antonio Livi, who echoes the criticisms which had been formulated by Étienne Gilson, Teilhardian speculation leads to a materialistic panchristism “that interprets Christological dogma—centered on the salvific events of the Incarnation and Redemption—in terms absolutely incompatible with the essential contents of divine revelation.”[14] This position is also confirmed by Manfred Hauke, who adds that the confusion between nature and grace in Teilhard favors secularization. The work of the French Jesuit, in Hauke’s view, has a strong tendency to panpsychism and pantheism: Teilhard is one of the fathers of the New Age.[15]

From this brief analysis of Teilhardian ideas we can draw some food for thought about our own time, especially regarding the tendency toward an inexorably evolutive vision of Christian doctrine. Teilhard de Chardin says that evolution is a continuous, unstoppable process which, precisely in its flow, goes towards greater perfection, towards an Omega Point, Christ in all and for all. Evolution is necessary and its best product is always the final one, the most updated. The latest period, though ephemeral, is always an improvement upon the preceding one and the latest result unquestionably better. Destined to be surpassed as soon as possible by the flow of events and its interpretation, this flow, however, is the reason for everything. To not “go with the flow” means to willingly bring about one’s own death or perhaps, in more theological terms, to abandon the mainstream. Teilhard’s evolutionary (and interpretive) process therefore inexorably advances onward without ever looking back. What came beforehand was necessary only for the sake of what has come to be, and this, in turn, will give way to what is to come. When everything is reabsorbed into this idea of a cosmic Christ, or rather of a Christian “Cosmic Life” (the Omega Christ being the religious trait of a process of matter, which moves towards intelligence and spirit, and thus towards God), the process will cease and hence only then might this process of becoming be assuaged.

This notion appears to be quite widespread today, and quite popular in the Church among prelates and theologians. What is newer is always better. It is not simply the pursuit of novelty that captivates, but rather the idea that in the new, in the present becoming, there is a better awareness. A new pope abrogates a previous papacy, abrogates a missal, establishes a new practice, inaugurates a new tradition, or rather a new way of understanding tradition. In other words, there is a continuity of becoming, rather than a continuity of being. Becoming precedes being and Heraclitus triumphs over Parmenides.

In reality, it is a question of making peace between Parmenides and Heraclitus, saying that being and becoming are both relevant, but that there is no becoming without being and that becoming is not the surpassing of being, but its development or its corruption. When we move from the metaphysical to the theological sphere, it is clear that there certainly cannot be a “becoming” understood as a mutation of substance, but only either a legitimate doctrinal development or a degeneration in matters of faith and morals. For there to be a true development, it must be organic, linear, faithful to its beginning in all subsequent phases; otherwise it would be an adulteration, a counterfeit of the original idea.

The work of St Vincent of Lérins, a Father of the Church, is particularly suitable in this situation. He is among those who have stated with stark precision when a truth can be considered part of the deposit of faith revealed by God. In his work Commonitorium, written in 427, four years before the Council of Ephesus (431), he indicates a very precise rule that fixes the terms of catholicity:

In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.[16]

Specifically in his instruction about the reality of consent (the quod ab omnibus creditum est), St. Vincent tells us that at least “all priests and doctors” must be in agreement. It is certainly not a material unanimity but a moral one, seen in the perspective of the adherence of all to the faith that precedes this same consensus. Faith, precisely by preceding consent, establishes it in a firm way. Faith comes before consensus in the Church. This consensus is therefore not simply aimed at seeking the adherence of a majority, even if defined as collegial. The adherence that creates consensus is given by the act of faith in the doctrine taught by virtue of its being proposed always and everywhere. Always, that is, from the Apostles onwards; everywhere, that is, in all the Churches where the same Gospel has been proclaimed. The union of quod semper and quod ubique understood in a diachronic way, so as to be linked through the Apostles to the Lord Jesus who came among us, facilitates the quod ab omnibus, unanimous consent. This is something to reflect on even more in our day when it seems that synodality is proposed as the foundation of ecclesiality and therefore universality. The synchronic moment is made to stand against the diachronic one and thus risks remaining isolated from the entire development of Christianity. Both of these moments are necessary, connected in that “everywhere, always, by all.” Let us say it once again: the “everyone” of today must be the “everyone” of always and everywhere. There is no need to convoke multiple synods to understand this; there is need simply to live in accordance with the traditio fidei.

St. Vincent of Lérins is echoed by Tertullian, who enunciates a similar principle that welds together the constant transmission of the Gospel and the apostolic succession: “Quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed traditum.”[17] All that is unanimously maintained by the many Apostolic Churches, which have received the same Gospel, is not erroneous but transmitted. Where the many local churches preserve the unity of the faith transmitted, there is the Tradition of the Church. Therefore, where the geographical multiplicity of Churches preserves and teaches a different doctrine, the latter is no longer transmitted but erroneous: it is a corruption of doctrine.

This brings us to the present. Is the development attributed to the doctrine being taught— from Amoris Lætitia to the abolition of the doctrine of the death penalty at the recent Youth Synod— understandable from the point of view of St. Vincent of Lérins and Tertullian, or is it instead a matter of doctrinal leaps and bounds, at times involving discontinuous leaps rather than linear continuity? Should we not speak instead of doctrinal “progress” rather than of development? And here the term “progress” is understood in the sense of the Enlightenment: the commitment of reason to improve the personal and social life of man. In this way doctrinal progress echoes, in fact, the techno-scientific progress of development towards higher and more complex forms of life in order to achieve greater economic, political, and social freedom. Is it not true that the new formulation of the Catechism, changing the teaching on the death penalty, hinges above all on a renewed social awareness of the dignity of the human person? What does this renewal consist in if, up until John Paul II, the liceity of capital punishment (and therefore admissibility, even if in extremis) had always been taught? Evidently the new cultural paradigm (Enlightenment) is what underlies the whole system. Above all, the new concept of punishment (only medicinal), which cancels and nullifies the other two aspects (vindictive and exemplary), borrowed from the Enlightenment thinker Cesare Beccaria (and followed by the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham),[18] rather than from the canonical and theological tradition, puts in place a new personalist, and no longer essentialist, approach to the death penalty.

We need a theological concept which again clearly specifies what development is and what, in contrast, alteration is—that is, progress understood as the accommodation of religious ideas to the standards of technical and scientific advancement. The following quotation from John Henry Newman’s famous work can assist us in this regard:

The highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated to the world once for all by means of inspired teachers, could not be comprehended all at once by the recipients, but, as being received and transmitted by minds not inspired and through media which were human, have required only the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation.[19]

“Unity in type, characteristic as it is of faithful development”: by “type” Newman means the external expression of an idea.[20] The unity or preservation of the type refers to the fact that, even when the external expression of an idea may change, the idea always remains the same, otherwise this would entail its corruption. Let us limit ourselves to the following question: is there preservation of the same type in the doctrine on the death penalty between the previous Catechism and its new formulation? No, because it is contradictory to affirm that it has now, out of the blue, become inadmissible, whereas Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are in unanimous agreement to the contrary. If this were not the case, it would have been impossible to arrive even at its penultimate formulation: affirming that its legitimacy (and therefore its admissibility, even if only as extrema ratio) is founded upon the natural moral law, which is the expression of the divine law. To put it in Newman’s terminology, we should say that we are faced with the corruption of a doctrine and not with its development.

How ought we to react to this distorted way of teaching Catholic doctrine? There is only one way: to return to the truth of the traditio apostolica, to rediscover its indispensable function for the Faith and its axiological value for theology. A faith and a theology without tradition are like that blind man in the Gospel, who claims to be guiding another blind man (cf. Lk 6:39). We would like to close these reflections with a thought by St. John Henry Newman: “Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicaea and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John.”[21] How many years have passed for our popular religion between the end of the Second Vatican Council and 2023?[22] And are we really sure that chronological time is always better?

Photo by Tomasz Kluz on Unsplash

---

[1] For the Pontifical Rescript and the Letter to the Bishops of the CDF, see: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/0556.pdf.

[2] Cyrille Dounot, “Une solution de continuité doctrinale. Peine de mort et enseignement de l’Église,” in Catholica 141 (2018): 46–73.

[3] Pope Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting promoted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization, October 11, 2017, in L’Osservatore Romano, October 13, 2017, p. 5.

[4] See Dounot, “Une solution de continuité doctrinale,” 56ff.

[5] To the point that Card. Journet could write: “If the Gospel forbids States to apply the death penalty, then St. Paul himself betrayed the Gospel,” L’Église du Verbe incarné, t. 1, La hiérarchie apostolique (Saint-Maurice: Édition Saint-Augustin, 1998), 575, cited in Dounot, “Une solution de continuité doctrinale,” 46.

[6] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Writings in Time of War (London: Collins, 1968), 78; original French edition: Écrits du temps de la guerre (1965).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man (London: William Collins Sons & Co., 1964), 190–91; original French edition: L’Avenir de L’Homme (1959).

[9] Teilhard, Writings in Time of War, 83. See also 221: through an interweaving of material and spiritual forces, the world goes towards personalization, which is a necessity for the “Universe” (another word in capital letters).

[10] Teilhard, Writings in Time of War, 86.

[11] It is no coincidence that Francis’s encyclical letter Laudato Si’ no. 83 (footnote 53) cites Teilhard.

[12] Teilhard, Writings in Time of War, 71.

[13] “Sul ‘monitum’ del 1962 riguardante Teilhard de Chardin,” www.cultura.va/content/dam/cultura/docs/comunicatistampa/CS23nov10Teilhard.pdf.

[14] “Il pancristismo materialistico di Teilhard de Chardin,” https://cooperatoresveritatis.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/il-pancristismo-materialistico-di-teilhard-de-chardin.pdf.

[15] See Die Tagespost, December 8, 2017.

[16] St. Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, 2.6.

[17] Tertullian, De præscriptione hæreticorum, chap. 28. We contextualize this Tertullian principle in our comments on Tradition as the “rule of faith.”

[18] See Dounot, “Une solution de continuité doctrinale,” 71.

[19] John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (London: James Toovey, 1845), 27.

[20] Newman, 58. Alongside this first fundamental “note” for probing true development, distinguishing it from the corruption of an idea, Newman enumerates six others: continuity of principles, power of assimilation, logical sequence, anticipation of its future, conservative action, perennial vigor.

[21] Newman, 5.

[22] [That is, the year when Fr. Lanzetta’s book Super Hanc Petram was first published in English.—Ed.]