Quo vadis?

IN HIS encyclical Evangelium Vitae, the Pope pits that ``Gospel of Life'' against a ``culture of death'' that he sees overshadowing the developed world. Even those who disagree with him on specific questions will find the moral thrust of what he has to say on such matters as euthanasia compelling and characteristically clear. On one question, however, confusion has crept in. Early press reports suggested that Cardinal Ratzinger said a small paragraph in the encyclical, concerning the death penalty, was such a ``development'' of Catholic teaching that a passage in the recent Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church would have to be rewritten. Was the Church recalling a defective product, one approved only months before by the Pope himself? Not that the new Catechism is without difficulty on the subject of capital punishment. In one section, #2266, it reaffirms the traditional view, held since the Council of Trent, that the death penalty is a legitimate punishment for the state to inflict, ``commensurate with the gravity of the crime.'' However, another section, #2267, offers the admonition -- less doctrinal, because it speaks of what is to be ``preferred,'' rather than what is strictly required -- that we should employ ``bloodless means'' of punishment when possible. Thus the tension: it is acceptable to execute because a person deserves it as a matter of justice, and the state may do so, but it is good and preferable to be merciful, because the ``dignity of the human person'' invites it. The fact that these remarks are eminently Christian does not make them any less confusing as practical and political advice.

With the new admonitions from the Pope in Evangelium Vitae, moreover, liberal Catholics -- often weak on its far clearer teachings about abortion, artificial contraception, and euthanasia -- have seized on John Paul's brief remarks to argue (as, indeed, he does) that there are almost no circumstances, thanks to a reorganization of the penal system, in which it is right to carry out the death penalty. Oh, the irony of such respect for papal authority at the National Catholic Reporter!

With all respect to the Pope, however, this generalization about the penal system appears cryptic and unsatisfying. What exactly has changed in prisons in recent years? Very little. One gets the impression, moreover, that irrespective of prison conditions, the Pope is sweeping the entire teaching about capital punishment under a rubric of ``self-defense.'' That is, capital crime may be punished with only the force necessary to protect ourselves, the public, lest we fall into the sin of vengeance; and capital punishment is not ``necessary'' where there is life imprisonment. But this is a prudential judgment -- and one that does not seem supported by the evidence. Life imprisonment has always been available. Murder rates have been rising rapidly in Western societies at a time when it has been the main or sole punishment for murder. Indeed, convicted murderers quite often murder again either in prison, or on parole, or if they manage to escape. We are more, not less, in need of effective ``self-defense.''

For most Americans, this is the very stuff of democratic debate, and they will either cite or contradict the Pope as it suits them. For Catholics, however, a particular problem arises. In the traditional teaching, self-defense is a matter of justice, not of mercy, even for states. Is the Pope now saying, with doctrinal authority, that only the mercy of life imprisonment is just? At first reading, this seems to be a replacement, not a development, of a doctrine Catholics have understood, based on teachings from Trent to the Universal Catechism, as declaring that the state acts ``justly'' in capital punishment. Or is he speaking prudentially? In which case, Catholics are free to take a different view after prayer and reflection. Perhaps the Vatican will in due course bring to this matter the same clarity exhibited in the rest of the encyclical.