NCR Review: Juding the Death Penalty

Here is a review of two books on the death penalty that appeared in National Catholic Reporter.

Philokalia

My first book has just been published: The Philokalia: The Eastern Christian Spiritual Texts -- Selections Annotated and Explained (SkyLight Paths, 2006: ISBN 1594731039). It lists for $16.99, but Amazon has it for $11.04.

The Philokalia is the great spiritual classic of Eastern Orthodox Christainity. It has been published in English in four volumes, with a fifth volume of supplementary materials due out within a year. Because the size of the work can be intimidating to first-time readers, I have taken selections from the four published volumes and added notes and commentary to help introduce the reader to the world of the Philokalia.

The selections are organized thematically in seven chapters: (1) Repentance; (2) The Heart; (3) Prayer; (4) The Jesus Prayer; (5) The Passions; (6) Stillness; and (7) In the End: Theosis. There is an introduction and a list of suggestions for further reading.

The book is a part of the Illuminations series from SkyLight Paths, which presents edited and annotated editions of spiritual classics from the major world religions. The series includes an edition of another Orthodox classic, The Way of a Pilgrim. SkyLightPaths has also republished The Monks of Mount Athos (formerly O Holy Mountain) by the late Trappist monk, Father Basil Pennington.

Christian Worship and Capital Punishment

Dr. Tobias Winright (a Roman Catholic moral theologian) and I coauthored a pamphlet on what Christian worship might have to say about the death penalty. It was published by The Ekklesia Project and is available as a free download.

Can War Ever Be Just?

Can war ever be just? Or to put the question more practically, is it morally permissible for Christians to fight in a war? The Roman Catholic moral tradition going back as far as the fourth century after the birth of Christ has held that it is possible for Christians to engage in war justly, but that tradition may soon be changing. The source of that possible change is someone unexpected – Pope Benedict XVI. In this article I will address the development of the Church’s teaching on just war over the centuries, and then outline what the current pope has had to say on the issue of just war.

How has the Church viewed Christian participation in warfare? The primary source of her teaching on this and all other theological issues is the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels. His teaching was unquestionably a nonviolent one, and early Christian bishops and theologians believed that our discipleship required us to refuse to do violence. The 3rd century Apostolic Tradition attributed to Hippolytus required that candidates for baptism forswear violence: “A soldier in command must be told not to kill people; if he is ordered to do so, he shall not carry it out. Nor should he take the oath. If he will not agree, he should be rejected. Anyone who has the power of the sword, or who is a civil magistrate wearing the purple, should desist, or he should be rejected.”

Once the Roman Empire recognized and then supported the Church, however, some theologians began to re-think the Church’s opposition to war. St. Ambrose of Milan (ca.339-397), who had been agovernmental official before entering the Church, began to teach that, under certain conditions, it was morally permissible for Christians to take up arms. His position grew more influential with its adoption by his protégé, St. Augustine of Hippo (ca. 354-430), and it reached its now classic formulation in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas (ca.1225-1274). In short, it holds that Christians may fight in war under certain circumstances. First, a nation may go to war only if certain conditions are met (these are called the jus ad bellum criteria – “justice in going to war”). Second, the war must also be conducted under certain conditions (the jus in bello criteria – “justice in war”).

A contemporary just war theorist has identified the following jus ad bellum criteria: (1) “The cause must be just; in other words, responding to a grave public evil, such as unprovoked aggression or threat to the human rights of entire populations.” (2) “The authority waging the war must be legitimate, duly constituted in service to public not private goods.” (3) “The intention motivating the war must be right, objectively aiming to promote the common good, not a hidden agenda.” (4) “Success must be probable, not a futile effort that does little more than destroy lives and resources on both sides.” (5) “The overall war effort must be proportional; in other words, the achievable good must outweigh the destruction that the war itself causes.” (6) “War must be the last resort, coming only after exhaustive attempts to resolve the conflict by peaceful means.”

The jus in bello criteria are: (1)“Non-combatants are to be immune from harm, military forces may never target civilians directly, and must make every effort to avoid indirect harm as well.” (2) “Specific military campaigns must also be proportional, employing no more force than necessary to meet military objectives.” (3) “Intention must continue to be right, subjectively motivated by a desire for peace withjustice, not vengeance or hatred.”

These criteria make it clear that the Church’s just war tradition is not an endorsement of war, but a set of principles for assessing whether and under what conditions Christians may engage (morally) in combat. Naturally, the current war in Iraq has stimulated a great deal of reflection among theologians of all Christian traditions, much of it on whether the U.S. satisfied the requirements of going to war justly and on whether the U.S. is conducting the war justly. Most moral theologians have found that the present war does not satisfy several of these criteria.

A new element in the debate is over whether the tradition holds that there is a presumption against war. Some current proponents of just war theory believe that there is not any such presumption; instead, they believe, there is a presumption against injustice, which a war might seek to remedy. I believe the answer is found in St. Thomas’ treatment of just war in his Summa Theologiae, the Second Part of the Second Part, Question 40. The first and obvious clue is the question itself: “Whether it is always sinful to wage war.” The question itself may be the work of a later editor, but the phrasing fits the content of Q. 40. Indeed, St. Thomas does not discuss war under the heading of justice – the virtue one might reasonably expect it to fall under – but under the heading of sins against charity.War falls between his discussion of “schism” and “strife.”

We find confirmation of this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., which discusses just war in the context of the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves and specifically under the heading of“Safeguarding Peace.” The Catechism speaks first of the importance of peace, and then of the importance of avoiding war, saying that “the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war” (§2307), andthat “All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war” (§2308). It acknowledges the right of governments to “lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed” but adds, “The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy” (§2309).

So why might Pope Benedict XVI be interested in amending the Catholic tradition on war? The first clue is his choice of a papal name. The last pope to bear that name, Benedict XV, was popularly known as“the peace Pope.” Justin Cardinal Rigali confirmed that the Pope told the College of Cardinals that he chose the name because “he is desirous to continue the efforts of Benedict XV on behalf of peace. . . throughout the world.”

While it is early in his papacy, we do have various statements he made as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.We know that he joined Pope John Paul II in condemning the U.S. war in Iraq asunjust. On more than one occasion, the Cardinal declared the war would be unjust because “the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save.” In this he was following a settled principle of the just war tradition – “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition” (§2309).

Moreover, he made it clear that the idea of a “preventive” war is contrary to Catholic just war teaching. Because some American Catholic supporters of the present war have nonetheless argued for the legitimacy of preventive war, the Pope might wish to revise the Catechism to make the Church’s teaching more explicit.

The principal reason for thinking a change might be in the offing were remarks (then) Cardinal Ratzinger made at a press conference two years ago in which he discussed possible changes to the Catechism: “the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it isstill licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’” (May 2, 2003). This is not really a change in the tradition but a concern already addressed in the Catechism: “The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating” whether a war may be considered just (§2309). While no reasonable person would say that the U.S. has intended to kill noncombatants in Iraq, the nature of the warfare and its weapons has meant a staggering loss of innocent life. Such an outcome has always been considered to be a violation of the criteria for conducting a war justly.

If Pope Benedict XVI promulgates in his papacy the understanding he has had of the just war tradition in recent years, it will not be a change in the Church’s teaching but its application to the realities of war in our time.We may expect that he will do nothing other than to seek to make real in the life of the Church the teaching of Christ that concludes the Catechism’s treatment of war:“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God’ (Matthew 5:9).

Why Study the Liturgy?

Someone recently asked me the question “Why study the history of the liturgy?” It is not an uncommon question, although it is perplexing to hear it from Catholics. After all, Vatican II reminded us all that the Eucharist “is the source and summit of the Christian life” (Lumen gentium 11; Catechism of the Catholic Church 1324). Even so, many Catholics – lay and ordained – see the study of the Church’s liturgy as something of a frill, rather than an essential. Even the theology faculties at many Catholic colleges and universities see having a liturgical theologian on their staff as a low priority. One distinguished Catholic university I know has 24 full-time theologians on their staff, but not a single one of them specializes in the liturgy. Rather than speculate as to how we got to where we are in all this, however, I will simply give my own answer to the question asked:Why study the history of the liturgy?

In short, we need to study the historical and theological development of the liturgy in order to understand where we come from, where we are now, and where we might be going. To flesh this out, I will point to one example – the role of the words of institution in the Mass (Christ’s words spoken at the Last Supper – “This is my body…. This is my blood.”). This issue has been important in the history of the Church, and not just to theologians.

A lack of historical knowledge and understanding was a major cause of the Reformation. Martin Luther and other Reformers made a number of false assumptions about the Catholic Mass of the 16th century. They believed that the Catholic Church had radically distorted the ancient liturgy, polluting it with what they believed were all sorts of unbiblical ideas and practices. This led most of the Reformers not only to dismiss very early elements of the Eucharist, such as sacrifice and real presence, but also to gut the structure of the liturgy itself. One such move was Luther’s reduction of the anaphora (also known as, among others, the eucharistic prayer, the canon of the Mass, the Great Thanksgiving) to little more than the words of institution.

Thanks to the work of liturgical scholars, we now know what Luther and the Reformers did not know. The re-discovery of many eucharistic liturgies of the first millennium of the Church’s history has shown us not only that the anaphora was the very heart of the Eucharist rather than some late accretion, as Luther supposed, but that he was even wrong in supposing the words of institution to be the necessary element in the Mass.

This might surprise you. Generations of Catholics have been told something similar to what Luther believed. It has been commonplace in Catholic theology for centuries that Christ’s words of institution, spoken by the priest, are “consecratory,” i.e., they are what change the elements of bread and wine into the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. Meanwhile, the Eastern Christian traditions (Catholic and Orthodox) have tended to see the epiclesis, i.e., the invocation of the Holy Spirit over the elements, to be consecratory.What change has taken place, and why?

First, liturgical theologians have come to understand the anaphora (which is Greek for “offering”) as consecratory. Typically, the anaphora is an extended, unified prayer containing a number of elements (usually 11) such as the sursum corda (“Lift up your hearts,” etc.), the Sanctus (“Holy, holy, holy….”), the institution narrative (containing Christ’s words on institution), the anamnesis (the remembering of Christ’s death and resurrection), the offering (of the consecrated Gifts back to God), the epiclesis (the invocation of the Spirit on the elements and the assembly), intercessions, and a closing doxology (praise to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This means that to isolate any one of these pieces as the essential or consecratory element of the anaphora is a mistake. Today, therefore, the Church would say that the whole prayer of the anaphora is consecratory, and has said so in a variety of documents.

Second, as to the identification of the words of institution as consecratory, liturgists have long known that the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, which originated in Edessa (in northeastern Syria) and which is one of the oldest liturgies of the Church (and one that is still in use by some Eastern Christians), does not contain the words of institution. As Fr. Robert F. Taft, S.J., has written, “On what legitimate theological and ecclesiological basis could Rome argue than an apostolic church whose ancient principal anaphora had been in continuous use since time immemorial without ever being condemned by anyone – not by any father of the Church, nor by any local or provincial synod, nor by ecumenical council nor catholicos nor patriarch nor pope – on what basis would one dare to infer that such an ancient apostolic church had never had a valid eucharistic sacrifice?”

The issue of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari was settled by the Church’s magisterium in 2001 by its Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist Between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. The document’s purpose was to “assure Catholics [who] receive Communion consecrated at an Assyrian Eucharist using the Anaphora of Addai and Mari that they are receiving the one true body and blood of Christ.” The document’s authority is beyond question, as it was “approved by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Pope John Paul II himself.”

So has the Church changed its mind about the words of institution being consecratory? Yes and No. Yes in the sense that we no longer see the words spoken by Christ as a formula of consecration to be repeated by the presider at the Mass to “confect” the sacramental body and blood of Christ. But in another sense it has not changed its mind. By re-reading her own tradition, the Church has recovered its earlier thinking on the matter. For when we carefully study what the early writers on this issue had to say, the fourth-century theologians St Ambrose of Milan and St John Chrysostom of Constantinople, we discover that they were not affirming a formula of consecration. What they were saying is that the words of institution are consecratory in that, as Fr. Taft writes, our Lord’s “pronouncing of them at the Last Supper remains efficaciously consecratory for every Eucharist until the end of time.” Thus even in the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, which contains no institution narrative, it is nonetheless the words of Christ spoken at the Last Supper that are consecratory.

So why do we study the history of the liturgy? We do so to better understand how both our practice and theological understanding of the liturgy has developed and changed over time.We do so because a lack of such understanding sows confusion and discord, as it did in the Reformation.We do so in order to understand why we celebrate and teach the way we do about the Mass of today.We do so because the Eucharist is nothing less than “the source and summit of the Christian life.”

Ecumenical Bioethics

A review of Gilbert Meilaender's Bioethics: A Christian Primer and Body, Soul and Bioethics, in the Fall 1996 issue of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity.

Recovering Ethics

A review of Vigen Guroian's Ethics after Christendom: Toward an Ecclesial Christian Ethic in the Fall 1995 issue of Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity.