Mr. Joch writes about three mistakes: China, oaks during exhortation Amoris laetitia, and the death penalty. 

Francis, what were his mistakes?

Roman Joch

I don’t have much to say about China. Mr. Joch mentioned Cardinal Zen, Posture these days, and other cardinals who defended the agreement with China. Since neither Mr. Joch nor I has read the agreement, it is probably useless to count how many cardinals are for and against, or which one of us is willing to believe. Therefore, I prefer to move on to the problems from the texts.

Amoris laetitia and dubia

Mr Joch criticizes some of the wording in Amoris Laetitia as ambiguous. He also blames the Pope for not answering the cardinals’ doubts. Even if we omit the fact that the cardinals, for some reason, published their dubious findings less than two months after they were sent, perhaps the cardinals chose an unfortunate form of discussion. They only wanted a yes or no answer from the Pope. This is the usual procedure for oaks. 

We can see the problem already with the first dubia: cardinals ask whether people in irregular situations who live together as spouses can receive absolution and receive the Eucharist. However, in his exhortation, Pope Francis shows at length that in considering this question, one must distinguish the condition of these people, take into account mitigating circumstances, and examine whether the people in question are really in a state of mortal sin and whether they cannot be in a state of grace. 

So, it is not possible to say yes or no in all cases. However, when the cardinals ask the Pope for just this, the Pope has nothing to answer them.

Finally, it can also be seen in the oaks sent to the Pope by the slightly changed line-up of cardinals, also in connection with the synod on synodality. The Pope did not answer yes or no to those either, and he tried to show a distinction. 

Maybe this bothers someone; they want to be clear, and they don’t want any ifs. However, as the Latin statement says, bene docet qui bene distinguit – is well taught by one who distinguishes well. This approach is well known to Thomas Aquinas readers, who build the vast majority of his answers to questions on the distinction, so Dante also creates it in his Divine Comedy. Let’s speak:

Because he’s even deeper under the fool,
who, without distinction, just plano húta
In agreeing or denying such:
Because they often collapse until they lie,
What a quick opinion they admit to the world,
because simultaneously, the mind is shackled with feeling.

(Raj, 13, 115 – 120)

Pope Francis also wanted to apply this distinction. Dubies that allow only yes or no to be answered do not appear to be the best tool for such a discussion. Therefore, it seems that the Pope did not answer precisely for this reason, and when he answered, he did not answer yes or no.

Capital punishment and human dignity

The second „literary“ topic is the death penalty. Mr. Joch does not like the Pope’s argument that we better understand human dignity today. Mr. Joch asks whether the Pope understands human dignity better than St. Paul, St. Augustine, Vol. Thomas Aquinas or Kant.

This suggestive question is perhaps best answered by examining what these holy men say about the death penalty.

Saint Paul does not say anything directly about the death penalty. But death penalty advocates quote Paul’s words from the Epistle to the Romans:

After all, she [moc vladárov] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, then fear, for it is not in vain that he carries the sword; she is God’s servant, the executor of anger on the one who does wrong. (Rim 13, 4)

That’s it. Saint Paul speaks these words in the context of submitting to worldly power (v. 1 and 5), namely „not only for fear of anger, but also for conscience“ (v. 5). So St. Paul mentions „meč“ in the context of another topic. He doesn’t discuss it much; he mentions it as a fact that his sheep have to take into account, but they don’t do much with it. That’s why he doesn’t even have much reason to criticize him.

Moreover, the question is whether St. Paul has the death penalty in mind here and whether he does not use the word sword in general as a symbol of punishment or coercion. When Christ said that he did not bring peace but the sword, he understood this term as family disputes (Mt 10, 34 – 35).

But let’s face it, St. Paul means the death penalty. We will say that if he does not criticize him, why should we? Just look at another topic, slavery. St. Paul devotes himself to this much more, he commands slaves to obey their masters and commands masters to treat slaves humanely (Ef 6, 5 – 9), not to set them free. True, in individual cases, he asks for dismissal, he does not command (Flm 8 – 16). But does this mean that we should not have a principled problem with slavery when St. Paul did not?

The situation is similar to St. Augustine. A fleeting remark in another context with unclear binding and the opposite personal practice. V God’s state Augustine discusses the sack of Rome and mentions how some holy women committed suicide for fear of rape. He rejects such a solution, contrary to the order You shall not kill. And just marginally notes: 

Therefore they did not act against the commandment »Nonkillesh« those who waged wars at God’s command or who, because they had power from the state or office according to the laws of God, that is, according to the command of the most just reason, they punished criminals with death. (God’s state I, 21)

It continues about Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, Jephthah’s sacrifice of his own daughter, and Samson’s death together with his enemies. Therefore, there is also the question of whether Augustine even talks about the death penalty in all states or only in Israel, which alone followed the „ laws of God,” which would also indicate the placement of this mention among other Old Testament events.

Augustine’s position on the death penalty is also illustrated by the fact that this influential bishop mixed in with the competencies of civil authorities and asked them for clemency for several death row inmates.

Thomas Aquinas already deals with the death penalty in more detail. In the context of human dignity in this punishment, it states:

When a person sins, he deviates from the order of reason and thus falls away from human dignity (, thanks to which a person is naturally free and is for himself) and in a certain way falls into animal slavery, to handle it as it is helpful for others (Theological sum II-II q. 64 a. 2 ad 3). 

So this is what Pope Francis seems to mean when he says that today we know more about human dignity. One does not lose it even when one sins, even though perhaps Saint Thomas claimed otherwise.

The death penalty and its need

Mr. Joch rightly says that Pope Francis does not claim that the death penalty is always wrong, only that it is inadmissible. In this teaching, Francis follows the teachings of his predecessors, especially John Paul II, who only called for the death penalty in case of extreme necessity and questioned its need in practice. 

Pope Francis only sharpened his wording: since there are other ways to punish criminals, the death penalty is inadmissible because it hurts human dignity.

The claim of unnecessaryness or inadmissibility inevitably alludes to the jealously guarded competence of secular superiors before clerics who would like to interfere in everything (a, therefore, they are even more suspicious than always suspected civil servants). However, it also seems questionable whether this is so suspicious in this case. 

The states that rely the most on the death penalty are countries such as China or North Korea, about whose judgment in the fair administration of public affairs, Mr. Joch already expressed doubts in the article about Pope Francis. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Somalia follow. ( Other countries, such as Russia, have a moratorium on the death penalty, but rely on other ways to remove threats to their regime.)

However, to avoid a global search of the death penalty states, a separate chapter consists of the United States, which is also why this topic is a topic. In this context, two approaches to this punishment are worth noting. Is the death penalty to protect the public or for the criminal to receive fair retribution? Mr. Joch also takes us from protecting society in times of war to punishing assassins and ends with Chesterton’s bon mot about hanging politicians. 

In his consideration of the death penalty, Thomas Aquinas is more for the first option. According to Aquinas, the death penalty is for the protection of the community. Although he also discusses the second option (Theological sum II-II q. 11 a. 3) and has some understanding of it, Christian society, in his opinion, practices mercy, and the death penalty is ultimately for the protection of the community (Theological sum II-II q. 64 a. 2 co). 

On the contrary, American supporters of the death penalty refer to the statement from the Book of Genesis 9, 6: „ Whoever sheds human blood, let man shed his blood, because in God’s image I created man.“ ( Kant) sees it similarly. However, it seems that this and similar provisions „nie canceled, but fulfilled“ Christ in the speech on the mountain, when he rejects the law of retribution „oko per eye, tooth per zub“ (Mt 5, 38). Many requests for remission of the death penalty from Saint Augustine can also be seen in this light.

I hope I have been able to show at least a little that Pope Francis’s actions, with which Mr Joch has a problem in his conscience, are not really mistakes. They follow the best in the Church’s tradition: careful discernment in difficult issues and the fight for human dignity, which is also manifested by mercy to the greatest sinners.