BAGUIA
(First of two parts)
On the first Sunday of Lent, priests usually explain to their congregations the meaning of the three temptations of Jesus Christ in the desert where he fasted for 40 days between his baptism and public ministry.
This is right and just.
The lure of turning stones into bread, jumping off a temple or bowing to Satan in exchange for all kingdoms embody the seduction of pleasures, honors and power that a Christian must confront with fasting, prayer and alms-giving.
The Christian would also profit from the first Lenten Sunday’s gospel by looking at its account of the tempter’s methods. When he tried to seduce the Christ into throwing himself from the temple’s pinnacle, the devil quoted the 91st psalm.
“‘If you are the Son of God, jump down,’ Satan said, ‘because it is written in the Scriptures: “He has put his angels in charge of you. They will catch you in their hands so that you will not hit your foot on a rock”’” (Ps. 91:11–12).
Scripture can be quoted even with nefarious intent.
It is not mine to judge the intentions of those who use the Bible or Catholic teaching to justify the return of the death penalty in the Philippines. I do, however, offer some guidelines for comprehending the Catholic position.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime — by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm — without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’”
To elaborate, the holy fathers, Saint John Paul the Great, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis consistently preached against the death penalty.
In a homily in Missouri in 1999, Saint John Paul said, “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”
At the Vatican in 2011, in a general audience, Pope Benedict told the Community of Sant’Egidio, “I express my hope that your deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty and to continue the substantive progress made in conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order.”
“Indeed, nowadays the death penalty is unacceptable, however grave the crime of the convicted person,” Pope Francis said in a video message to the sixth world congress against the death penalty in 2016. “It is an offense to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person; it likewise contradicts God’s plan for individuals and society, and his merciful justice. Nor is it consonant with any just purpose of punishment. It does not render justice to victims, but instead fosters vengeance.”
My fellow Cebu Daily News columnist, the civil lawyer and multi-awarded veteran broadcaster Ruphil Bañoc, asserted in his corner “Straight to the Point” that papal statements like these are mere good opinions worthy of respect.
“The pope,” he said, “is infallible only on matters of faith and morals and when he is speaking ex cathedra; but not in everything he does and says.”
This line of thought that limits the scope of infallible Catholic pedagogy was lamented by Saint John Paul in 1995.
That different degrees of authority in teaching exist, Saint John Paul said, “does not authorize people to think that pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the magisterium require irrevocable assent only when it presents them with a solemn judgment or definitive act.”
The catechism is a teaching document. It is, as Saint John Paul wrote, “a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.”
To require a Catholic’s assent, the catechism does not need ex cathedra formulations like the ones used by Blessed Pius IX in those instances of extraordinary magisterium when he infallibly proclaimed the Blessed Virgin Mary’s immaculate conception and assumption into heaven.
The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council and Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith speak of the “ordinary and universal magisterium” outside a solemn judgment or definitive act. This refers to God’s grace of shielding from error the Pope and bishops in communion with one another whenever they teach authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals, agree in one judgment and propose the matter as something to be held definitively by the faithful.
When Pope Francis — picking up from the catechism and from his predecessors — and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines that is united with him preach against the death penalty in a homily, general audience, video message, pastoral statement or other avenues, they exercise “ordinary and universal magisterium.” They require the Catholic faithful’s assent, not a redaction or analysis of ecclesiastical documents tantamount to an alternative magisterium that sows confusion among the faithful.
(To be continued)
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
