It was announced last week that Pope Leo XIV will be declaring St. John Henry Newman to be a Doctor of the Church. As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, the Church proclaims someone to be a Doctor on account of “eminent learning” and “a high degree of sanctity.” This combination makes a Doctor an exemplary guide to matters of faith and morals. To be sure, the Doctors are not infallible. Their authority is not as great as that of scripture, the consensus of the Church Fathers, or the definitive statements of the Church’s magisterium. All the same, their authority is considerable. As Aquinas notes, appeal to the authority of the Doctors of the Church is “one that may properly be used” in addressing doctrinal questions, even if such an appeal by itself yields “probable” conclusions rather than incontrovertible ones (Summa Theologiae I.1.8).
Indeed, though the Doctors of the Church are not individually infallible, it would be absurd to suppose that they could all be wrong on some theological issue about which they are in agreement. For given their high degree of sanctity, how could all of them be wrong about some matter of Christian morality? Given their eminence in learning, how could all of them fall into error on some point of doctrine or scriptural interpretation? Given that they are formally recognized by the Church as exemplary guides to faith and morals, how could they all collectively lead the faithful into grave moral or theological error?
Consistency with the consensus of the Doctors has, accordingly, been regarded by the Church as a mark of orthodoxy in doctrine. For example, in 1312 the Council of Vienne defended a point of doctrine by appealing to “the common opinion of apostolic reflection of the Holy Fathers and the Doctors” (Denzinger section 480). Also relevant is Tuas Libenter, in which Pope Pius IX stated:
[T]hat subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith… would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith…
[I]t is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but… it is also necessary to subject themselves… to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure. (Denzinger sections 1683-1684, emphasis added)
Here, Pius IX held the consensus opinion of Catholic theologians to have such a high status that even if opposed views are not strictly heretical, they nevertheless “deserve some theological censure.” Now, the Doctors of the Church are the theologians on whom the Church has placed a special stamp of approval, putting them forward as models. It stands to reason that if there is a consensus among them on some thesis of faith or morals, that is powerful evidence that it must be correct.
Now, consider the topic of capital punishment. Even if we just confined ourselves to scripture, or to the consensus of the Fathers of the Church, or to the consistent teaching of the popes down to Benedict XVI, there can be no question whatsoever that the Church has taught irreformably that capital punishment can be licit in principle. That is not to deny that some of the Fathers and some of these popes have recommended against using it in practice, but the point is that even they acknowledged that it is not intrinsically wrong to inflict the death penalty. Joseph Bessette and I demonstrate this at length in our book By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment. I have also done so elsewhere, such as in my Catholic World Report article “Capital Punishment and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium”.
All the same, it is useful to consider what the Doctors of the Church have said on the matter, because they too are in agreement that the death penalty can in principle be a legitimate punishment. This would be a powerful argument for the liceity of capital punishment, even if we didn’t already have scripture, the Fathers, and two millennia of papal teaching. Adding the Doctors to the witnesses on this matter puts icing on the cake, as it were, highlighting the futility of thinking that this is a teaching the Church could reverse. The Doctors who have addressed the topic of capital punishment include St. Ephraem, St. Hilary, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Peter Canisius, St. Robert Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus Liguori. (The earliest of these thinkers are, of course, Fathers as well.) All of them agree that it can be morally legitimate in principle, even those among them who recommend against using it in practice. (See the book and article referred to above for the details.)
We can now add St. John Henry Newman to this consensus. The death penalty was not a topic Newman said a great deal about, but what he did say is important. For example, in Lecture 8 of Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England, Newman cites the following example of the way a practice can be embodied in the tradition of a nation like England rather than in explicit law: “There is no explicit written law, for instance, simply declaring murder to be a capital offence, unless, indeed, we have recourse to the divine command in the ninth chapter of the book of Genesis.” (This statement is from a longer passage first written when Newman was a Protestant, which he quotes in order to comment on it. As he immediately goes on to say about the passage, “I see nothing to alter in these remarks, written many years before I became a Catholic.”)
Newman’s reference here is to Genesis 9:5-6, which states:
For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.
Newman understands this passage to be an “explicit written law… declaring murder to be a capital offence,” and one that holds of “divine command.” Note that this is diametrically opposed to modern attempts to reinterpret this passage as merely a divine prediction that murder would as a matter of fact lead to retaliation. For Newman, God is not merely predicting but indeed commanding that murderers should be slain, and as a matter of punishment. And here he is, of course, simply reiterating what the traditional understanding always said.
In a series of letters to his nephew, Newman addressed questions about whether the Church has behaved in an immoral way over the centuries. Among the points he makes are that one must distinguish between, on the one hand, the state’s having the power justly to punish offenders with death, and on the other hand, specific cases where this power was used in a cruel manner. He writes:
It is on the Inquisition that you mainly dwell; the question is whether such enormity of cruelty, as is commonly ascribed to it, is to be considered the act of the Church. As to Dr. Ward in the Dublin Review, his point (I think) was not the question of cruelty, but whether persecution, such as in Spain, was unjust; and with the capital punishment prescribed in the Mosaic law for idolatry, blasphemy, and witchcraft, and St. Paul’s transferring the power of the sword to Christian magistrates, it seems difficult to call persecution (commonly so called) unjust. I suppose in like manner he would not deny, but condemn, the craft and cruelty, and the wholesale character of St. Bartholomew’s Massacre; but still would argue in the abstract in defence of the magistrate’s bearing the sword, and of the Church’s sanctioning its use, in the aspect of justice, as Moses, Joshua, and Samuel might use it, against heretics, rebels, and cruel and crafty enemies.
Note first that Newman says that capital punishment is “prescribed” in the Mosaic law for various offenses, and that such killing is to be understood “in the aspect of justice.” This should, of course, be obvious enough to anyone who reads the first five books of the Old Testament, but occasionally people will suggest that the Old Testament merely permits the death penalty without actually commending it. Clearly, Newman would have no truck with such sophistry.
The second thing to note is Newman’s allusion here to Romans 13:3-4, which says:
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
This has traditionally been understood as sanctioning capital punishment, and Newman clearly has this interpretation in mind when he refers to “St. Paul’s transferring the power of the sword” and “the magistrate’s bearing the sword, and of the Church’s sanctioning its use.” With this passage too, death penalty opponents sometimes propose strained reinterpretations, but Newman would not agree with them.
But there is more to be said. For note that Newman refers, specifically, to “St. Paul’s transferring the power of the sword to Christian magistrates.” This too is part of the traditional understanding, and yet another thing that modern day abolitionists sometimes resist. For it is sometimes proposed that, even if the death penalty is licit as a matter of natural law, its use is not compatible with the higher demands of specifically Christian morality. Newman would clearly reject this claim as well. Again, he holds that St. Paul’s teaching authorizes the use of capital punishment for Christian rulers in particular, not merely for states governed only by natural law.
In short, we now have the testimony of yet another Doctor of the Church that the liceity of the death penalty is the teaching of Genesis 9 and Romans 13, and that this teaching is a matter of Christian morality no less than of natural law. This directly contradicts those who claim that the Church could teach that capital punishment is intrinsically wrong, or that scripture merely tolerates rather than sanctions it, or that it is contrary to the higher demands of the Gospel even if it is consistent with natural law.
Now, Newman is best known for his theology of the development of doctrine. Could claims like the ones we’ve just seen him reject nevertheless be justified by Newman’s own criteria as “developments” of Church teaching on the death penalty? Clearly not, because Newman, like St. Vincent of Lerins (the other great theologian of doctrinal development), insists that a genuine development can never contradict past teaching. Newman writes:
A true development [of doctrine], then, may be described as one which is conservative of the course of antecedent developments being really those antecedents and something besides them: it is an addition which illustrates, not obscures, corroborates, not corrects, the body of thought from which it proceeds; and this is its characteristic as contrasted with a corruption… A developed doctrine which reverses the course of development which has preceded it, is no true development but a corruption. (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 5)
Suppose you say “All men are mortal, and Socrates is a man.” If I add “So, Socrates is mortal,” I have said something that can be said to be a development of what you said, because it follows logically from what you said. It adds something, insofar as it says something you did not yourself say. Nevertheless, what it adds was already implicitly there in what you said, and I have simply drawn it out.
By contrast, if I added something like “So, all men are redheads,” I could not be said to have developed what you said, because my addition in no way follows from what you said, and indeed has nothing at all to do with what you said. Even more obviously, if I added either “Some men are immortal” or “Socrates is immortal,” I would not only not have “developed” what you said, but, on the contrary, I would have reversed and contradicted what you said. For the claim that “Some men are immortal” directly contradicts your statement that “All men are mortal.” And the statement “Socrates is immortal,” though it does not explicitly contradict what you said, does contradict what was implicit in your remarks.
Similarly, to say that the death penalty is intrinsically wrong, or that it is not sanctioned by scripture, or that it is never permitted by the higher standards of Christian morality, would contradict and reverse what scripture and tradition have consistently said. Hence, to teach such things would, by Newman’s criteria, not count as a development of doctrine, but rather as what he calls a “corruption” of doctrine that attempts to “correct” rather than corroborate it, and which “obscures” rather than illuminates it.
Newman, then, gives no aid and comfort whatsoever to Catholics who would like a doctrinal reversal on this matter. On the contrary, his words clearly condemn them.
(Editor’s note: This essay was first posted, in slightly different form, on the author’s blog on August 6, 2025. It is posted here with the kind permission of the author.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Dear Dr. Feser,
Thank you for this exposition of what St. John Henry Newman taught about capital punishment. His view was fairly standard for Catholic theologians of the 19th century. There were, though, some of this time, such as Blessed Antonio Rosmini (1797–1855), who advocated for the restriction and the eventual elimination of capital punishment. (See The Philosophy of Right, vol. 6, footnote to no. 2508).
Even if a saint is recognized as a Doctor of the Church, this does not mean we should accept everything he or she taught. After all St. Thomas Aquinas, in his ST III, q. 27, art 2, ad 2, denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary: “Sed beata virgo contraxit quidem originale peccatum, sed ab eo fuit mundata antequam ex utero nasceretur” [But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb]. Aquinas believed that Catholics should follow the teaching of the Church over that of Doctors of the Church. St. John Paul II, in Pastores Dabo Vobis (1992) no. 55, footnote 174, cites two passages of Aquinas on this point: “We have to be more on the side of the authority of the Church than on that of Augustine or Jerome, or any other doctor” (Summa Theol. 11-11, q. 10, a. 12). And again: “No one can shield himself with the authority of Jerome or Augustine or any other doctor against the authority of Peter” (ibid. I-II, q.11, a. 2 ad 3).
You cite Pius IX’s letter, Tuas libenter, from the 1957 translation of Denzinger. The translation is not inaccurate, but it lends itself to believing that Catholics are bound to follow the consensus of theologians and not the Magisterium. In the actual text Pius IX’s teaches that an act of divine faith is not limited to what has been defined by express decrees of ecumenical councils or Popes but also “to those matters which are handed on as divinely revealed by the ordinary Magisterium of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world and, therefore, are held, by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians, as belonging to the faith” (ideoque universali et constanti consensu a catholicis theologis ad fidem pertinire retinentur). The Latin, ideoque, in this context means “and therefore” or “and for that reason” or “and on that account.” It indicates that the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians follows AS A RESULT OF the universal and ordinary teaching of the Magisterium. The 2012 translation of Denzinger published by Ignatius Press translates ideoque as “for that reason” to make this point clear (see Denz.-H, 2079).
I know you and others claim that the theoretical liceity of capital punishment has been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Pope Francis did not specifically address this issue in his revision of the CCC, 2267 or in his 2020 encyclical, Fratelli Tutti. Instead he notes that,
“There is yet another way to eliminate others, one aimed not at countries but at individuals. It is the death penalty. Saint John Paul II stated clearly and firmly that the death penalty is inadequate from a moral standpoint and no longer necessary from that of penal justice. There can be no stepping back from this position. Today we state clearly that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible’ and the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide. ” (Fratelli Tutti, 263).
Even if there was a consensus among Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church that capital punishment is theoretically licit, there is nothing to stop the Church from now teaching—in light of a coherent doctrinal development and a deeper understanding of human dignity—that the death penalty is an inadmissible form of punishment. This is now the teaching of the Church expressed in a major papal encyclical, and it requires religious assent of will and intellect according to Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, 25 and canon 752 of the Latin Code of Canon Law.
I know some people claim that what is taught by popes in encyclicals or their ordinary magisterium does not demand assent. Pope Pius XII explicitly rejected this view in no. 20 of his 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis:
“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who hears you, hears me’ [Lk 10:16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians” (see Denz.-H, 3885).
With regard to Newman and obedience to the pope, it’s important to take note of what he says in his Letter to Lady Simeon of 10 November 1867:
“I say with Cardinal Bellarmine, whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biased. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.
This text and other important writings of Newman are cited in this excellent 2017 post by Dave Armstrong: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/12/rebuking-popes-catholic-obedience-popes.html
It’s wonderful that St. John Henry Newman is being declared a Doctor of the Church. It’s sad, though, that some are using him to support opposition to authentic magisterial teachings.
Truthfully I can’t imagine why Christians would want to support the death penalty. Or why those who are distrustful of the state to count votes or educate their children would then want to give it the power over life and death.
How could Christians not support the death penalty? It’s a matter of justice for the victims.
“…I know you and others claim that the theoretical liceity of capital punishment has been infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Pope Francis did not specifically address this issue in his revision of the CCC, 2267 or in his 2020 encyclical, Fratelli Tutti.”
That’s the most important line in Mr. Fastiggi’s comments. The not-much-missed pope’s style of deliberate ambiguity will forever haunt and limit his influence over ongoing Catholic thought.
We will see where Pope Leo comes down on all of this, but I expect he will not avoid the crucial questions that Dr. Feser and others raise, and that he will speak with Augustinian clarity and seek to address the specifics of the objections rather than dodge and feint and refuse dialogue the way Francis did with many things, often operating from within a fog of ambiguity and seeing any questioning of his statements as if it were a personal insult.
Do note that Mr. Fastiggi’s rant is just so much question-begging. He doesn’t bother to cite or otherwise engage with Catholic sources which address a situation where an official ecclesiastical pronouncement (which does not even claim to be infallible) contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, or contradicts Catholic teaching definitively taught by the Church, either through an extraordinary divine pronouncement or through its “ordinary and universal magisterium.” All the cited ecclesiastical texts address the duty to submit to ordinary teaching which, while not infallible, does not contradict infallible and definitive teaching. This ordinary teaching may be objectively incorrect, but it requires some sort of respectful assent. That’s not true of ordinary teaching which contradicts an article of faith or the clear teaching of Scripture. Such ordinary teaching can be heretical, and no Catholic — indeed, no human being — can be required by God to assent to heresy.
It is also possible that all these self-serving papal pronouncements which appear to brook no disagreement are themselves simply wrong — popes claiming for themselves a degree of authority they simply do not have — and may be safely disregarded by Catholics. “The pope cannot be disagreed with because he says he can’t be disagreed with” is a circular proposition. Circular propositions cannot command the assent of a rational animal.
We read: “ST. JOHN PAUL II stated clearly and firmly that the death penalty is inadequate from a moral standpoint and no longer necessary from that of penal justice.”
What he actually stated was a prudential judgment, not a doctrine: “Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases [‘the extreme of executing the offender’] are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (“The Gospel of Life,” 1995, n. 57).
Four points:
FIRST, St. John Paul II used this prudential judgment as a segue to his greater point (likely intended for a European Union audience where the death penalty is already prohibited as a condition for EU membership): “If such great care must be taken to respect every life, even that of criminals and unjust aggressors, the commandment ‘You shall not kill’ has absolute value when [!] it refers to the INNOCENT PERSON [italics]. And all the more so in the case of weak and defenseless human beings, who find their ultimate defense against the arrogance and caprice of others in the absolute binding force of God’s commandment” (n. 57).
SECOND, the word “inadmissible” is precipitously imprecise in clarifying whether it merely tightens a prudential judgment or—as you gratuitously pontificate—formally teaches/informally implies/ stretches/obfuscates/or merely signals something subjectively more? When asked about “The Gospel of Life,” Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles did clarify, thusly:
RATZINGER: “Clearly the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles…but has simply deepened (their) application…in the context of present-day historical circumstances” (National Review, July 10, 1995, p. 14; First Things, Oct. 1995, 83). In a July 2004 letter to the luminary and former-cardinal McCarrick—a letter intended for all of the bishops but which came to light only when later leaked to the press—he wrote: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia….There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
DULLES concluded that traditional teachings on “retributive justice” and “vindication of the moral order” are not reversed by John Paul II’s strong “prudential judgment” regarding the use of capital punishment. The pope simply remained silent on these teachings. (“Seven Reasons America Shouldn’t Execute”, National Catholic Register, 3-24-02).
SUMMARY: Why does the mud-wrestling term “inadmissible” feel so much like a familiar ghostwriter’s facile “spontaneous, informal, non-liturgical” blessings (!) in the widely rejected “Fiducia Supplicans”?
The really shocking thing is that all the discussion about not applying the death penalty (particularly in the Catechism) makes no reference to mercy and forgiveness.
If capital punishment were not sometimes just, that would be the end of the story. Even in situations where it is just, though, it comes down to a balance between the powerful necessity to be as merciful as possible and the need to be prudent in pursuing the temporal common good.
Thank you ; but not easy to accept as you receive that “last phone call “ from a friend before his execution. I have been there!
How old were you when you learned life is not always easy?
There are certain things that should not be easy. Amputation is another example. Whether it is right or wrong is a completely different question than whether it is easy.
I’m very sorry to hear that Br.Jacques.
I’ve visited a correctional facility and kept in touch with inmates, too.
There’s a very moving BBC series about prisons “Time”. I’ve almost finished the 3rd episode. It’s very much about Christian forgiveness and Catholic teaching. Which is rather surprising.
The message seems to be that a choice to not forgive has a ripple effect that can go on much further than we realize. And forgiveness works in the same way.
God bless you.
Inadmissible is not equivalent to prohibited, because what inadmissible implies is conditional – that according to conditions it’s admissible.
That is why John Paul II couched his opposition to the death penalty as congruent with existing conditions such as the security of modern penal institutions.