During my freshman year in college, my assistant professor in Composition 101 once went on a seemingly random rant against what was then a relatively new political action group, the pro-life movement. It happened during a lesson on word choice. The topic was near and dear to my heart, as I imagined myself becoming a great writer one day. The assistant professor’s rant, however, perplexed me.
The Term “Pro-Life”
The instructor’s complaint was that the term “pro-life” was inaccurate and misleading. “How can they call themselves ‘pro-life’ unless they are also against the death penalty?” he demanded. I’m sure he had more to say, but this is the major theme I recall, these many years since that class.
At the time when my teacher criticized pro-lifers for their chosen moniker, I was not sure where pro-life politicians stood on the death penalty. Abortion had been legal for less than a decade, and efforts were primarily to create legislation to protect the unborn. In any case, it was the first time I witnessed an accusation of hypocrisy because of conflicting stances on two different political issues.
To clarify, the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes past use of the death penalty as a means of “safeguarding the common good” in response to grave crimes but then gives arguments against this form of punishment. Citing the dignity of the human person and new, more secure methods of incarceration, the Catechism finds the death penalty “inadmissible,” and calls for its elimination worldwide (CCC 2267).
Thus, while my college professor’s criticism may have made a good point in reference to the early pro-life political action committee, it certainly did not apply to Catholic doctrine. The Church is opposed to both abortion and the death penalty.
Charges of Hypocrisy
Years later, I found myself defending the pro-life cause against another claim of hypocrisy. Some friends on social media claimed that the Church, despite being “pro-life”, doesn’t support new mothers. “You want to force women to give birth but you don’t care what happens to the mother or child afterwards,” was the claim. Who could make such a statement? One need only look at my friend Joan, who runs Life Choices, a pregnancy aid center in New Jersey. Like other efforts organized by Christian groups throughout the country, Life Choices gives tangible help – clothing, diapers, furniture, even housing – to young mothers in need.
Still, some economic policies espoused by conservatives do not favor young families who struggle financially. Outlawing abortion is only part of the pro-life mission. In Christian charity, we ought to vote for economic policies that support families with young children, in addition to demanding laws that protect the unborn.
The Fence Between Conservative and Liberal
Unfortunately, a Catholic in the voting booth may find it impossible to make choices that are compatible with all of Catholic social teaching. We Catholics find ourselves straddling a fence that is both conservative and liberal. Compassion for the immigrant refugee puts us on the latter side while calling for parental rights for moms and dads of gender-confused children labels us conservatives. Catholic social teaching simultaneously advocates against assisted suicide and in favor of immigration reform. It argues for free market policies, and also for efforts to protect the environment (Barron vii). One would be hard-pressed to find a political candidate who fought for all of those policies.
“Both/And” of the Church’s Social Teaching
Catholic doctrine on these varying issues constitutes what Bishop Robert Barron calls the “both/and of the Church’s social teaching” (Barron vii). Catholic social teaching instructs us both to protect life, and to be stewards of the earth; both to value religious freedom and to defend the marginalized from discrimination and bullying.
Notice that Bishop Barron’s term is “both, and” and not “both, but”. To say, “Yes, we protect life, and we are stewards of the earth,” is different than, “Yes, we protect life, but we are stewards of the earth.” The subtle meaning of “but” acts to negate or diminish the first statement. Replying to someone with “Yes, but” indicates that my statement carries more weight, at least by my way of measuring. By contrast, “Yes, and” includes and validates both concepts. “Yes, and” meets people where they are and dignifies them.
Imago Dei
What is the reason for the “both/and” of Catholic social teaching? Mainly, the dignity of each person. We know from our earliest catechism lessons that each human is an imago Dei, made in the image of God (Gen 1:26). This includes the infant, the elderly, the person struggling with temptation, the impoverished, the prisoner, the refugee, the believer and the agnostic.
The importance of recalling our roots in God’s image cannot be overstated. When governments become oppressive, it is because they do not recognize the imago Dei of the individual. The idea that all humans are created equal did not originate with the American founding fathers, nor from classical philosophers of old. It is a biblical truth from Old Testament prophets and the Gospels (Barron viii). Regimes and political movements that sought to eliminate God from their worldview have resulted in humans becoming mere property, at best free agents, at worse servants of the state. When society has seen humans as creations of God for his purposes, they have recognized human dignity.
Overcoming Polarization
One can hope that enough people in modern Western society still recognize each human as a precious creation in the image of God. Even so, polarization has become the norm, with a set of specific issues espoused by each side of the political framework. Why is it that individuals who consider themselves liberal are aligned with gun control and women’s rights, while pro-lifers lean toward parental rights and religious freedom? What makes a conservative citizen bristle when confronted with the idea of climate change? Would it hurt to consent to recycle and switch to environmentally friendly lawn products? When faced with opposition, people tend to become entrenched in their positions.
Considering how a policy encounters the imago Dei in each human may inspire us to look for a possible charitable purpose in the other side’s issues. This is not to say that everyone is right, nor, heaven forbid, that there is no right or wrong. Surely, we cannot bend on our commitment to protect the unborn and the frail elderly. However, we can check for the charitable ends that may be achieved by a policy before rejecting it simply because it is propounded by our political enemies.
The Harmony of Catholic Social Teaching
While the many issues addressed in Catholic social teaching may seem at cross purposes, viewed in terms of each person as an imago Dei, they work in harmony. Pope Benedict XVI points out,
The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others” (Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 51, par. 3).
The dignity of the imago Dei requires us to feed the hungry, respect those who differ from us, conserve the earth’s resources for our neighbors and future generations, ensure justice and freedom, and yes, the ultimate duty of protecting life in all its stages.
Works Cited and Consulted
Barron, Robert. Catholic Social Teaching Collection. Park Ridge, IL, Word of Fire, 2020.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/548/. 10 September 2023.
14 thoughts on “The Unique “Both/And” of Catholic Social Teaching”
Pingback: My Small Part – Novenas & Novellas
“God has given humans free will. A person CAN CHOOSE HELL Isn’t it a matter of dignity that God allows a person to make that choice?
I’m not sure I can agree that executing someone is a relief to their soul. It seems to me that at the moment of execution, if the person REMAINS UNREPENTANT that is when their soul experiences the beginning of eternal anguish.”
With all due respect, you seem confused.
A last point : dignity 1. nobleness; excellence: character which inspires or commands respect.
The catechism may help to clarify my statements regarding free will, lack of repentance for grave sin, and the immortal nature of the human soul.
Regarding “A person can choose hell,” yes, that is shocking. But it’s the result of free will. God will not take away the gift of free will that he has given. He will take our decision seriously. If not, was it really free will, or are we puppets? A fellow author of mine mentions this idea of choosing between heaven and hell in an article here last month: https://catholicstand.com/dont-choose-hell/
Regarding my statement about remaining unrepentant: At the moment of death, if we have not repented our sins, the catechism says we are in peril of eternal punishment. Kill a prisoner before he can repent and his hell begins immediately. That’s the old school eschatological belief.
I’ve heard some reputable scholars saying lately that there is a possibility of an extra chance of mercy at the moment of death, that God will give each of us the opportunity to choose Him after all, despite anything we have done and despite apparent unrepentance. I hope this is so. However, I don’t know of any scriptural basis for it, except that our God is love.
Regarding the definition of dignity, the imago Dei refers to the worth of the individual in light of the fact that he or she is created in the image of God. To remember that, especially when we are feeling down on ourselves, is pretty awesome.
Not everyone has dignity based on God’s design. Sociopaths lake any remnant of a conscience. If God has hell in store for anyone it begs the question of where does the dignity go. The mass killers of today have created an enormous amount of temporal punishment and executing them provides a relief for their soul in light of the spiritual consequences in the hereafter. Protecting society also falls into the category of Justice for victims of heinous crimes. Mercy gone rancid is alive and well for the perpetrator of the horrific massacre by one individual of 70 young persons on an island in Norway in 2012. That killer was sentenced to 21 years and is up for parole in 2033 when he is 53. The lack of a death penalty emboldens many mass murderers who have no fear of the fear they plan to commit.
Ordinary Papist,
We may feel that people who behave horribly have lost their human dignity. However, the Church teaches that every human is created in the image of God. Nothing we do can change that. Even a person who is completely undeserving has the dignity of a creation of almighty God.
How does hell figure into that? God has given humans free will. A person can choose hell. Isn’t it a matter of dignity that God allows a person to make that choice?
I’m not sure I can agree that executing someone is a relief to their soul. It seems to me that at the moment of execution, if the person remains unrepentant, that is when their soul experiences the beginning of eternal anguish. Which provides another reason not to execute the guilty. It denies them time to repent and save their soul.
All of this is besides the main point of my article, of course. The death penalty is a side point. And, as I noted in another response, the Church’s teaching on the death penalty is not binding, so you can believe as you discern.
But the divine spark, the imago Dei in every human — it’s there.
Pro-lifers are more likely than pro-choicers to support the death penalty . . . and also to support wars, torture, cuts in social services including prenatal and postnatal assistance, racist policies, cruelty to migrants, and also to deny the effect of man-made global warming which is of course the most life-threatening issue we face. On every “life vs. death” metric except abortion, pro-lifers are on the “death” side. That is why pro-choicers don’t believe that pro-lifers are sincere.
Captcrisis,
Thank you for reading the article and for showing more examples of polarization in society. We do need to clarify that your statements relate to pro-lifers in the political arena, not in religious communities. As my article points out, the Church is pro-life on the issues that you mention besides abortion. As for sincerity, one could question the sincerity of any politician, as their motivation is likely to be voter support rather than altruistic principles like charity and justice.
Ms. Meo,
Thanks for responding. I didn’t mean to criticize your post, which partly makes the point I was trying to make.
You partially correctly state the truth with following fact:
“To clarify, the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes past use of the death penalty as a means of “safeguarding the common good” in response to grave crimes but then gives arguments against this form of punishment. Citing the dignity of the human person and new, more secure methods of incarceration, the Catechism finds the death penalty “inadmissible,” and calls for its elimination worldwide (CCC 2267).”
But the Catholic Church did more than merely “recognize past use of the death penalty”, the Catholic Church and the Scripture both defended and affirmed the use of the death penalty in some cases!
I believe that recent and new statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a direct contradiction of nearly two thousand years of Catholic moral doctrine! Thus, in my opinion, it follows that either that new statement is incorrect or else the Catholic Church is demonstrated to have reversed an earlier doctrine of faith or morals and thus is shown to have committed at least one error!
Since my abiding faith is that both the Catholic Church and Scripture are protected from teaching error, and the nearly two thousand years of prior Church teaching is undeniable, it logically follows that the either that new statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “that the death penalty is INADMISSIBLE” is an error or the Church itself has erred! For me, there is no doubt that it is the new and contradictory statement that is in error!
I firmly believe that the true doctrine of the Catholic Church is that the death penalty is morally valid and permitted for certain serious crimes and if unavoidable deadly force is permissible in defending human life. What is and was also identifiable in Catholic doctrine, but too often not included in the statements about the death penalty, is the strong admonition to be AS MERCIFUL AS POSSIBLE in response to and in imitation of the mercy shown to us by Jesus.
Thus in respect to his emphasis on and call for greater mercy in the decision of whether or not to use the death penalty, Pope Francis was giving excellent and vital advice.
Jame,
Thank you for the excellent question you raise.
I think you might enjoy reading an article by the late Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, “God’s Justice and Ours” in the publication, First Things, in 2002. He makes similar observations to yours, and it is an excellent discussion of a faithful Catholic’s response to this Church’s teaching.
Justice Scalia quotes Evangelium vitae: “It is clear that, for those [permissible purposes of penal justice] to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” This implies that Church teaching opposes the death penalty in modern times because incarceration is more secure, and society is safe from criminals. Therefore, Church teaching on the death penalty has not really changed; it simply now reflects that the conditions which necessitated the death penalty in the past no longer exist in most cases.
Further, Scalia claims to have been assured by canonical experts that the current Catholic teaching against the death penalty is not a binding teaching. Practicing Catholics must give the teaching thoughtful and respectful consideration, and may ultimately disagree with it, as Justice Scalia, in fact, did.
Regarding your statement, “Deadly force is permissible in defending human life,” yes, of course. This is not what we generally refer to as capital punishment. Rather, it is self defense, or defense of another.
Your excellent point about Jesus’ mercy is the theme in today’s Gospel reading, Mt. 18:21-35.
Actually this is a reply to Mary;s 1:48 PM reply to my post.
I agree with most of Justice Scalia’s quoted remarks, except for his use of the words “except in cases of absolute necessity”.
Moreover, the idea that today’s prisons provide adequate protection is as flawed, as is the belief that today’s justice system provides such adequate protection of the innocent!
Do I really have to cite some of the recent egregious failures?
Nor is it reasonable to ignore the massive cost of even the prisons that we actually do have. There are poor countries in the world that have far more just ways to spend resources than on super security prisons.
You ignore the detail that we get close to the same conclusion that the death penalty is overused: except we get there for significantly different reasons. The valid reason that we are called to show mercy as we have been shown mercy Vs. the false reason that “the dignity of man makes the death penalty inadmissible.” Note also the difference between “rarely” and “never”!
The fallacy in the “dignity” argument will be found in the Scriptural account of Adam and Eve. I trust you are aware that as created, Adam and Eve had a dignity that totally dwarfs that remnant of dignity present in fallen man. Yet God immediately ended their supernatural life and later their natural life for the act of eating a piece of fruit. That act was in direct disobedience of a command given by God, which is what made it so horrendous. There’s also more to be learned from that story.
More “seamless garment” nonsense. You can be against deliberately murdering babies without being in favor of any of the other things on the standard social justice laundry list. If Catholic Social Teaching fails to recognize that, then Catholic Social Teaching is worthless and best ignored.
G.,
Thank you for reading the article.
Since our loving Creator gifted us with free will and intellect, we can certainly be for or against whatever we choose. And our Lord Jesus gave us guidance on the kinds of things that we should be for or against.
Let us agree to recognize each individual as an image of God, whose dignity thereby demands justice and charity.