Full transcript
0:01Father James Martin , a Jesuit and leading progressive of the Church , has just written that the Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible because every person possesses a dignity bestowed by God . Even a murderer , even a mass murderer , or someone who harms children . And he added that Catholics who reject Pope
0:22Francis's position in this case are not just rejecting Francis's statement , but the entire magisterium of the Church , because this opinion of Francis has allegedly already been written into the catechism , and opposition to the death penalty is , according to Father Martin , no new doctrine , but — according to him — it has always been this way in the
0:42Church . And that already sounds very suspicious , because do the greatest criminals really deserve to continue living ? And this question unfortunately returns with great force also in Poland in light of what is currently happening in our schools . But let's start with
1:04this statement by Father Martin , because indeed Father Martin is right about a simple fact . Yes , today's catechism really says that the death penalty is inadmissible from a Catholic's point of view . And yes , this is the work of Francis . It was he who , in 2018 , formally approved the new wording of point 2267 of the catechism
1:25and ordered it to be introduced into all editions . So this was not some remark tossed out on a plane , or an interview , or some unfortunate statement by Pope Francis , some private opinion of his . We have grown accustomed to that throughout his pontificate . No , no . Here it was thought out , systematic , and actually
1:44introduced into catechisms around the world . He changed the wording of John Paul II's catechism in this regard . And what is more , it did not end with Francis's death , because Leo XV has already confirmed this wording of the catechism several times during his pontificate , for instance in April of
2:04this year during a message for the commemorations in Illinois , and he also said that human dignity does not disappear even after committing the most serious crimes . And therefore the death penalty is inadmissible . One cannot , therefore , seriously refute Father Martin's arguments here by
2:24saying that this was just another private idea of Francis . That one shouldn't pay attention to it because , well , it was as it was , right ? But there is also Father Martin's assertion that the Church has actually always taught the same thing . As if for a dozen centuries it hadn't yet known how to express it properly . Well , no . The
2:44Church has not taught this until now . And here , indeed , the real problem begins . Why is Father Martin suddenly returning to the death penalty at all ? Well , after all , it wasn't the situation in Polish schools that prompted him to do this . No , of course not . It's about the current situation
3:03in the United States , where Pete Hegseth , the Secretary of Defense — or now , as it is actually called in the United States , the Secretary of War — announced that a certain criminal , who committed , no , crimes against members and soldiers of the US military , that
3:24not only will he be executed , sentenced to death , but it will also be broadcast publicly on the internet as a live stream . And here Father Martin wrote that turning an execution into a television spectacle is morally repulsive , and well , I agree with that .
3:45I also really don't like the idea of live-streaming the killing of another human being . I believe that there are certain boundaries . Regardless of how one views the death penalty , this is a flaunting of brutality , of murder , of taking a life . I don't think it should
4:05be widely available on the internet , but one thing doesn't necessarily follow from the other . That is to say , our position on the death penalty doesn't mean we have to be for or against it being broadcast online or on television . No. Because the fact that one must not rejoice in someone's death does not mean the state can never
4:27justly sentence a person to death . Just as a court sentencing a murderer to life imprisonment should not be driven by hatred . It should not rejoice or revel in it , yet it takes away his freedom for the rest of his life , which is also a very , very harsh punishment . So the question in this case is not
4:45whether it is permissible to seek revenge , but what is a just punishment ? And here , of course , it is very easy to talk about some abstract convicted person , but it is harder if we put ourselves in the shoes of those truly affected . If we are talking about a man
5:05who walked into a school and deliberately murdered children , or a terrorist who kills dozens of random people , a serial killer , a person who kidnaps and harms a child . We know that such things happen , and unfortunately , they have even been happening in Poland recently . And I am intentionally reaching for such extreme situations
5:23here . Because I understand that it is only in their case that we truly consider the death penalty . And yes , Catholic doctrine says : " A person who has committed the most heinous crime does not cease to be a human being . " God loves every human being . A Christian cannot regard even a criminal
5:43as an animal destined for extermination . Therefore , it is forbidden to torture another human being , regardless of everything . It is forbidden to deny him the possibility of repentance . He can convert even until his very last breath . So we should — and this is probably the hardest part — desire the conversion and salvation of even such a
6:05person . But there is a big " but " : does it really follow from this that his dignity prevents the state from imposing the death penalty ? And that is not at all obvious , because significantly , even the current catechism , the one already revised by
6:26Francis , does not reduce punishment to protecting society and rehabilitation . The point preceding the one revised by Pope Francis states that legitimate authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties proportionate to the gravity of the crime , and the primary purpose of punishment is to redress the
6:47disorder caused by the offense . And only then do the security of others and the rehabilitation of the offender come into play . This is a very traditional Catholic view , for punishment is not revenge , but it is not therapy either . It exists because a person has committed an evil , and justice demands
7:08a response proportionate to the guilt . And , of course , the Fifth Commandment immediately comes up in this discussion . People love to throw it around , saying , " But look , dear Catholics , the fifth commandment says ' thou shalt not kill ' , " and indeed , in Polish , it
7:29sounds absolutely as if God has forbidden any conscious causing of a person's death . But the Hebrew original sounds different . There we have the verb * ratsach * , which refers to the killing of a person . But it is very
7:50often rendered in translations as " murder " rather than " kill . " And that is why modern translations , for example , English versions of the Holy Scripture , often have it written as " You shall not murder , " not " You shall not kill . " And that is a fundamental difference . Of
8:10course , let's not say that one Hebrew word solves the entire debate , but the meaning is essential . The Decalogue does not establish an absolute prohibition against every taking of human life . Moreover , the context of the Bible itself is crucial here , because the very Mosaic Law that
8:30contains the verb * ratsach * — which we should translate as " do not murder " — in that same context , provides for the death penalty . The Bible also acknowledges war , defense against an aggressor , and even accidental causing of death . So , if the fifth commandment meant simply , " A human being may not ,
8:52under any circumstances , take the life of another , " then a significant portion of biblical legislation would simply become internally contradictory . And , in fact , we have an echo of this even in the current Catechism , because point 2261 — which is again a few points before the one revised by Francis —
9:12speaks of the prohibition against killing the innocent and the righteous , but a moment later , it recognizes the right to legitimate defense and the duty of authorities to protect society from an aggressor . There is , therefore , a fundamental difference in Catholic doctrine . ... between the murder of an
9:33innocent person and killing an attacker in defense of one's family , the death of an opponent in a just war , or an execution carried out by a final legal sentence . And of course , one may believe that the state today should not employ the latter , and that is what the whole discussion is about , but one
9:52cannot pretend that all these acts are the same moral act in the Christian tradition , because they are not . They are not , they never were , and even today they are not , even after that change to the Catechism by Pope Francis . And now , let us reflect for a moment on what the Bible says about the death
10:09penalty itself . Not just about killing , but about the death penalty . And it turns out that after the flood , God says to Noah : " Whoever sheds human blood , by humans shall their blood be shed , for in the image of God has mankind been made . " And what is particularly interesting here ? The
10:28justification is not the lack of dignity of the murderer . The justification is the dignity of the murdered victim , which stems precisely from the fact that man was created in the image of God . So , we have a complete reversal of what the current discussion is centered around . And of course , someone might say : " That is the
10:47Old Testament . " Well , yes , the Old Testament , but first of all , it is not the case that for us , the Bible is only the New Testament ; rather , as Father Professor Chrostowski repeatedly emphasizes , the entire Old Testament should be read Christologically , both as preparation for the coming of Jesus
11:05and as preparation for the proper reading of the New Testament . Furthermore , we do not find any simple statement in the New Testament that , with the Gospel , the state has lost the right to capital punishment . Saint Paul , in the 13th chapter of the Letter to the Romans , speaks of authority which — and here is a quote — does not bear
11:26the sword in vain and is an agent of justice to bring punishment on the wrongdoer . But that is not all , because then there is tradition , and that is Tradition with a capital T. And as far as I know , Pope Francis has not abolished the significance of this tradition , so we should look at it as
11:46well , especially since the picture then becomes even more unambiguous , as Saint Augustine in " The City of God " directly considers the fifth commandment " thou shalt not kill " and explains that it does not apply to those executing just law by the authority of legitimate power . Such a man , Augustine says , does
12:06not act as a private killer , but as an executor of public justice . And Saint Thomas Aquinas follows a similar path . In the " Summa Theologica , " he argues that public authority is permitted in certain situations to deprive a criminal of life in order to protect the common good . So , we have the
12:25opinions of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas here . Besides Saint Paul , they are arguably the greatest thinkers in the entire 2,000 - year history of Christianity and the Catholic Church . I think it is worth looking also at what they had to say , and not only at what Pope Francis says . Therefore , one
12:46cannot claim that the Catholic moral tradition has from the beginning considered the death penalty a violation of the fifth commandment . And there are more cases , for that matter . It is not just about Augustine and Thomas . But , for example , the Roman Catechism , which was developed after the Council of Trent and issued by
13:05order of Saint Pius V , also explicitly explains when discussing the fifth commandment that the prohibition against killing does not include legitimate civil authority , to which the right to punish the guilty and protect the innocent has been entrusted . And what is more , it argues that the just use of this power serves the purpose of the fifth commandment ,
13:25because it is meant to protect the lives of others from violence . This is also an interesting perspective , isn't it , that we are saying here : " Yes , the death penalty serves to fulfill the fifth commandment , to protect the lives of others . " And looking at all of this , I have a huge problem with the smooth
13:45talk of Jesuit Father James Martin about how it was always about the same thing in the Church , and that the Church just needed time to understand it more fully . Well no , that’s not how it was . It is one thing to develop a practical opposition to the death penalty , and quite another to claim its
14:03moral inadmissibility . It’s not as if mercy was discovered in 2018 during the pontificate of Pope Francis , nor was human dignity discovered then either . These are concepts that have existed in the Catholic Church since its very beginning . And let’s be honest , these
14:23concepts were contemplated by the greatest minds of the Christian tradition , much greater than those who carried out the latest revision of the Catechism of the Catholic Church . For centuries , great doctors , popes , and official church catechisms did not question the fundamental admissibility of the death penalty . And yes , a big
14:46turn occurred under John Paul II , but that is also important . Even John Paul II never questioned the fundamental admissibility of the death penalty . In Evangelium Vitae , the Pope certainly strongly limited the possibility of using the death penalty and wrote that it should be used only in cases of
15:08absolute necessity , when society cannot be effectively defended otherwise . And he added that thanks to the development of current penal systems , such cases are rare , but he did not say they are impossible . Yes , that was a shift , but let’s note exactly what John Paul II did not say . He did not say that the
15:30death penalty is in itself a moral evil . He did not say that every execution violates the inalienable dignity of the human person . He did say that if society can be defended without killing the guilty party , then the state should choose that method . So that reasoning left some space for the application of the death penalty . And that is also how
15:53point 2267 read , which was changed only by Francis . Yes , because in 2018 a new edition appeared , and the catechism admits something important there . For a long time , the death penalty was considered an adequate response to some grave crimes and an admissible , albeit
16:13extreme , means of protecting the common good . But then this same catechism points to a greater awareness of human dignity . That is exactly what I have a problem with , because I showed you this here in the previous argument . It is not about the awareness of human dignity in any of the previous popes or
16:31doctors of the Church . No , that was not the point at all . It’s as if this greater awareness of human dignity is introduced only by Pope Francis , as if saying he discovered it , that only now does he somehow know what human dignity really is , and reaches the current conclusion , which reads : the death
16:49penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person . That is how the current catechism reads . And the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith later confirmed , because there were obviously inquiries , that this is indeed an authentic development of doctrine in this area , which remains in continuity with the earlier magisterium
17:08. And this is exactly where the greatest intellectual difficulty arises for me , because what does " inadmissible " mean ? If Francis says that the death penalty is inadmissible today , we primarily have a judgment concerning the circumstances , because he says it is inadmissible precisely because the modern state is able to safely isolate a criminal . And of course , in a stable
17:29Poland , in Germany , or even in the United States , one can lock a person up in a high-security prison for the rest of their life . Society no longer needs to kill to protect itself from them . And such an argument is very easy to reconcile with the position of John Paul II . But not all countries are
17:47stable , and we do not always have that possibility . What about in a country engulfed in war ? What about in a state that has collapsed and lacks a secure prison system ? What about in a situation of complete disintegration of state structures ? And yet , this is happening today . Look , for example , at
18:03Haiti , where the state has practically ceased to exist . If the reason for the inadmissibility is the conditions of the modern penal system , then the argument is conditional by nature . But if we say that the death penalty is inadmissible because by its very nature it violates the inviolable dignity of
18:23the person , then the question becomes much more serious , because man had exactly the same dignity in the times of Augustine , or in the times of Saint Thomas , or in the 15th century , when the catechism I told you about was created , and he had it in the 90s too , when the Catechism of John Paul II was
18:40created . So one cannot reduce this entire difference to the statement : " Well , now we have finally discovered in 2018 that a criminal is truly a human being and has his own dignity . " The Church , the Church knew this before . The Church knew this from the very beginning . Look at the Good Thief and
19:02the Bad Thief . It is not as if this was discovered by Pope Francis . And that is precisely why this formulation by Francis also sparked a serious theological debate . And it is not because all the critics dream of gallows . I personally am closest to the view of John Paul II , that the death
19:23penalty should indeed be left for extreme cases , when society cannot be defended in any other way . So the debate here regarding what Francis did is not because all the commentators are somehow bloodthirsty and dream of killing criminals . It is about the fact that the development of doctrine cannot
19:45mean a simple reversal of a previous moral principle . And that is unfortunately something we have had during the pontificate of Pope Francis . And not only in this case . After all , you see now , I am also telling you here on the channel about what the debates are regarding Amoris Laetitia in the wake of that exhortation . And of course
20:08, there are very strong arguments against the death penalty . Well , the biggest one is the possibility of a mistake . The state can be mistaken , a court can be mistaken , witnesses lie , police officers make errors , expert reports can be false , new DNA evidence may emerge , and so on . All of this is
20:24true . That is why I believe that what John Paul II said in the realities of the 20th century is wise . To leave it as the death penalty , as a total last resort , when there is no other way . And this , of course , would also be very easy to reconcile with the traditional
20:40teaching of the Church , because John Paul II did not break with it . But now , perhaps the most important theme emerges : the theme of obedience . So , must I be obedient to Pope Francis and the new catechism ? And here , a Catholic
21:01attached to tradition , to orthodoxy , should be very careful not to fall into the trap that he often accuses progressives of . Of picking and choosing from the magisterium only what suits them . That is why I stressed so strongly that this change from 2018 is not Francis's private opinion . It is a
21:23new text of the catechism confirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and currently confirmed also by the Leo XV . So one cannot honestly say , " Francis has made something up again , and it doesn't concern me . " It does not concern you , but one must immediately add the second half . It is
21:42also not a dogma ; it is not an ex cathedra definition . It is not a teaching presented as a revealed truth that must be accepted by an act of divine and Catholic faith . We know that the authentic magisterium of the Pope , even when he does not speak ex cathedra , is owed our religious submission of
22:01intellect and will . We even have this written in the Code of Canon Law . Therefore , it is not — well , it does not have the weight of a Facebook post , but at the same time , an authentic magisterium does not always mean an infallible and definitive magisterium , and this distinction is fundamental .
22:22And interestingly , the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger reminded us of this very clearly . The instruction * Donum Veritatis * directly considers the situation in which a theologian encounters serious and well-founded difficulties in accepting a magisterial teaching that does not have an irrevocable character . Of
22:44course , this does not give the right to contemptuously reject the Church's teaching , but it admits that such difficulties can exist and require further reflection , loyalty , and dialogue with the magisterium in unity with the Church . This is very far from both extremes . " The Pope has spoken , discussion is over , " but also very far
23:05from " I don't like the Pope , so I don't care . " No , this is precisely framing the matter honestly as a discussion and debate within the Church , in unity with the Church . Let us return , then , to Father Martin's initial quote . Is he right or is he wrong ? I will say this :
23:24he wrote it cleverly , because he can rightfully say today that the Church today teaches against the death penalty , but he cannot say that it was always this way . He shouldn't have turned this into a narrative where the Church has essentially always taught the same thing , just slowly finding the right words for it . No , no . The history is
23:42much more complicated . I would even say that history is much more clearly against what Father Martin wrote . But in the end , let's imagine an extreme case . There is no doubt regarding the perpetrator's guilt . There is footage , there are witnesses . DNA confirms it , and the perpetrator himself confesses . He entered a school and murdered
24:02children in cold blood . And I'm not asking if you would want to watch his execution afterward , or if we should hate him . That's not what this is about at all . I am only asking if carrying out the death penalty against him would be a moral evil in itself , an attack on his human dignity ? Today's catechism
24:21answers : Yes , the death penalty is inadmissible even in such a case . Pope Francis reaffirmed this very interpretation just this year , so a Catholic should take this teaching very seriously , but at the same time , we are
24:43allowed to say that for the vast majority of Catholic history — in fact , for all of Catholic history , except for the last eight years — the answer was different , because back then the Church said : " A murderer is also a human , he also has a soul , he too can convert and has his dignity , but nonetheless ,
25:00legitimate authority can in certain circumstances take his life as a punishment for the gravest crimes . " And that is why the dispute here does not boil down to a choice between merciful " cool Catholics " and bloodthirsty supporters of execution under the
25:21banner of Catholic orthodoxy . No. The question is much deeper . Does human dignity exclude the very possibility of the death penalty ? Perhaps the 2018 phrasing went further than the continuity of Catholic doctrine allows . We know that in the unity of the Church
25:43and within the Church , we can discuss this . We are allowed to do so by , among other things , the document I cited earlier by Cardinal Ratzinger and Saint John Paul II . But such things cannot be resolved with a Facebook post or a James Martin tweet . And we certainly won't answer this honestly by
26:03pretending that there is no significant difference between the Tridentine Catechism , the Catechism of John Paul II , the stance of Saint Thomas or Augustine , and Francis's point 2267 , because there is a significant difference and Catholic intellectual honesty requires that we not sweep it under the rug . And finally , I would
26:26like to show you our latest book . A book I am truly proud of . I translated it myself , selected the illustrations for it , and it is titled " Women of the Church . " In this book , you will meet extraordinary women without whom the history of the Church simply wouldn't exist . These are saints , queens ,
26:46mystics , missionaries , but also mothers or simply women who were brave and faithful to the end . In this book , in " Women of the Church , " you will also find many Polish themes . It was an extraordinary discovery for me that the history of the Church simply cannot be written without Poland . We have here ,
27:06for example , Queen Saint Jadwiga , Saint Faustina , or Zofia Kossak , but we also have lesser-known , moving stories of Polish women who truly changed the world . This is a beautifully published , richly illustrated book to read , to look at , and to gift to someone close to you for years to come . Let us
27:26remember that the gift season is approaching , so do not put off this purchase . Order " Women of the Church " today in our online store at www.bialykruk.pl . >> Amidst the night , that buys roads to the world . You are the hope that never
27:51fades away . I know , my heart awakens only by your side .