Episode 42: Year A – 23rd Sunday of Ordinary Time
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on two details that are relevant for doing apologetics. One is found in the second reading, which is taken from Romans 13:8-10. The relevant topic is capital punishment and lethal self-defense. The second is found in Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel, which is taken from Matthew 18:15-20, and relates to the nature of the Church as a visible and hierarchical society.
Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here
Speaker 1:
This is the Sunday Catholic Word, a production of Catholic Answers, the only podcast to look at the Sunday mass readings from an apologetics perspective.
Karlo Broussard:
Hey, everyone. Welcome back to the Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday mass readings and pick out those details that are relevant for doing apologetics, for explaining and defending our Catholic faith. I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers and the host for this podcast. In this episode, we’re going to focus on three details that are relevant for doing apologetics. One is found in the second reading, which is taken from Romans 13:8-10. The relevant topic is lethal self-defense. The second is found in Jesus’s teaching in the gospel, which is taken from Matthew 18:15-20, and relates to the nature of the church as a visible and hierarchical society.
Let’s get started with the first detail in the topic of self-defense. Paul writes in Romans 13:10, “Love does no evil to the neighbor, hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.” This comes as the conclusion of Paul’s teaching that what we owe everyone is love and how the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves fulfills the commandments of the old covenant that pertain to neighbor, fulfills the commandments of the 10 commandments, that pertain to neighbor. Commandments four through 10. Now, some might interpret this teaching of Paul to mean that we can never, regardless of the circumstance, deliberately take the life of a human being.
This, of course, would exclude capital punishment and even lethal self-defense. Two things that traditionally have been accepted by Catholics as morally legitimate. But is this the case? Well, I’m going to argue no. If we take Paul’s command to do no evil to neighbor in an absolute sense without qualification, well, then we’d have to exclude a host of other activities that we normally take to be okay. Consider, for example, physically detaining someone who’s about to jump off a bridge to commit suicide. Considered in and of itself, that act of detaining the person is an evil because it prevents a person from exercising their bodily autonomy and freedom.
But surely, we wouldn’t say such an act is immoral. The reason is that when considered as an act of preventing a person from jumping off the bridge to commit suicide, we clearly see that such an act is not an evil, because the act takes on the form of suicide prevention, which is a good thing. Here’s another example. When a doctor opens a person’s chest to do heart surgery, the physical act of opening the chest is a physical evil considered in and of itself. But we know that this action is not immoral and thus contrary to love of neighbor, because when considered as a whole we recognize it’s a medical act, given that the end goal is heart surgery and restoration of health.
If we were to interpret Paul’s command to do no evil to neighbor in an absolute sense, we’d have to say that these previous two activities are contrary to love. But the actions that I just spoke of are not contrary to love, therefore, we shouldn’t interpret Paul’s command in an absolute sense. Now, how does this apply to capital punishment and self-defense? Well take capital punishment. The killing of the person considered in and of itself is an evil for the person. But what considered by reason as an act of just punishment, the punishment is proportionate to the crime, that’s to say it has the nature of a good action and thus is not contrary to love of neighbor.
The same line of reasoning applies to lethal self-defense. The act of killing the aggressor is an evil for the aggressor considered in and of itself. But when considered by reason as an act of self-defense, assuming there are no other means to defend self, the act is a good act and thus not contrary to love of neighbor. That action of the lethal blow, the act of killing the person takes on the very form of the act of self-defense, which is a good action. So, Paul’s command to do no evil to neighbor doesn’t exclude justified capital punishment and justified lethal self-defense, because such actions when considered as a whole are not evil actions. They are indeed consistent with love of neighbor.
Now granted that’s a huge topic and I’m opening a can of worms here with this. And it would require further investigation to defend these claims with more rigor and to go deeper into it. But I think what I said here suffices to show that Paul’s command to do no evil doesn’t exclude justified capital punishment and justified lethal self-defense. At least it’s a sketch as to the path we would take to begin responding to this objection. Let’s now turn to the gospel reading taken from Matthew 18:15-20. Great passage here for apologetics. Here’s what we read, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listened to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on there shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on there shall be loosed in heaven. Again, amen, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they were to pray, you shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father. For where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.” The detail that I want to focus on here is verse 20, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Some Protestants use this verse to challenge the Catholic belief that the church is in the words of the Second Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution on the church lumen gentium, a visible organization and a society structured with hierarchical organs. That’s quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 771.
The argument usually goes something like this, since the church is where Christ is and Christ says He’s present, where Christian believers are present, the church must be merely an invisible community of believers who are united by grace and not a visible hierarchical institution. To begin, it’s important to note that we as Catholics don’t deny the invisible dimension of Christ church. It’s true that the church consists of believers who are united to Christ via sanctifying grace. What we reject is the idea that Christ church is not a visible hierarchical institution. We believe this is something that’s essential to Christ’s church and thus in need of defense. Now, concerning Jesus’s teaching here, these words come by way of a conclusion to His preceding instructions about how to deal with the sinner among the brethren, there in verses 15 through 18. And these instructions reveal the visible nature of the church.
Consider, for example, Jesus is teaching that a Christian can be separated from the Christian community for refusal to accept the church’s judgment reveals the visible nature of the church. And by the way, all of this is in my book, Meeting the Protestant Challenge: How to Answer 50 Biblical Objections to Catholic Beliefs. In one of the chapters there, I deal with this objection from Matthew 18:20 and provide this response here. So, continuing here, so getting back to what we’re talking about, note how in Matthew 18:15, Jesus instructs his disciples to approach the sinner personally and try to win them over. If the sinner refuses, then the disciples must take one or two others with them to try and convince the brother, there in verse 16. And if two or three are unable to win over the brother, Jesus says, what? There in verse 17. Tell the church. And if he refuses to even to listen to the church, treat him as a gentile and a tax collector.
The first thing to note is the gravity of this consequence. Gentiles were non-Jews and consequently weren’t beneficiaries of the blessings of God’s family. Jewish tax collectors were considered traitors because they were assisting the very enemy that Jews were praying to be delivered from, namely the Romans. So, Jesus is saying that he who disobeys the church is considered an outcast, a non-beneficiary of the new covenantal blessings of God’s family and a traitor. That’s a pretty serious consequence, which suggests that the church’s decision is to be taken very seriously. Moreover, it argues against the idea that the church is merely invisible. How can Jesus’s church not have visible boundaries of membership? If Jesus is saying that disobedient members can be cast out, you can’t be cast out of something that doesn’t have demarcated boundaries of membership.
And Jesus ain’t just talking about a local membership, local community, membership in a local community. He’s talking about membership in the universal church, man. And so, this is clear indication of the visible nature of Christ’s universal church. There is a visible boundary of Christ’s church that can demarcate one who is within it and one who is out of it. Another element in Jesus’s instructions that reveals the visible nature of the church is the apostles’ authority to bind in loose. Jesus tells the disciples gathered, whatever you bind, inert shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose there shall be loose in heaven. There in Matthew 18:18.
In Jewish tradition, this language denotes judicial authority, deciding what was forbidden or allowed according to the law. But rabbis were also said to bind and loose when they would pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person, thus excluding or restoring a person from or to membership in the faith community. Now, how could the church be merely invisible when Jesus clearly invests it with judicial authority, which necessarily entails visible membership within the community? Also, how could the church exercise that judicial authority to excommunicate someone if there were no visible boundaries of membership in it?
Of course, the church couldn’t exercise such judicial authority to excommunicate if there were no visible boundaries. Since the church does exercise that judicial authority invested to it by Christ, there must be visible boundaries of membership within Christ’s universal church. For our purposes here of defending the visible nature of the church, it’s also important to note the parallels that exist between Jesus’s instructions for the church’s governing activity in Matthew 18:15-17. And Moses’s instructions for Israel’s governing activity in Deuteronomy 17:6-12. Deuteronomy 17:6-12 spells out the decision-making process for Israel in this way. “On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses, he that is to die shall be put to death. A person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death and afterward the hand of all the people.” So, you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.
Continuing, “If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns which is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God will choose. And coming to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place, which the Lord will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you according to the instructions which they give you and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the verdict which they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord, your God or the judge, that man shall die. You shall purge the evil from Israel.”
Notice the parallels with Christ’s instructions in Matthew 18:15-17. One, there’s a governing body that has authority to make judgments on certain matters. Two, there’s a need to employ the testimony of two or three witnesses. Three, obedience to the authoritative judgment is necessary. And four, there are severe consequences for not obeying the proper authoritative judgment. These parallels strongly suggest that the new Israel, the church, is just as much a visible society as the old Israel was. Just as the old Israel was not merely an invisible body of persons faithful to Yahweh, neither is the new Israel merely an invisible body of persons faithful to Christ.
Now, there’s one last thing to note with regard to the visible and hierarchical nature of the church. When read within its immediate context, the two or three gathered in Jesus’s name in verse 20 can be applied to the governing body who gather in the name of Jesus, with Jesus’s authority to bind and loose. The two or three gathered that Jesus speaks of in verse 20 seems to be identified with the two of you spoken of in verse 19. “If two of you, talking to the apostles here, agree on earth about anything they ask, it’ll be done for them by my Father in heaven.” It’s likely that two of you in verse 19 refers to those who bind and loose in verse 18, since Jesus says in verse 19 that the Father in heaven will do for them that which they agree upon on earth.
This is similar language to what Jesus says in verse 18 concerning the church, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loosen on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Therefore, it seems the two or three gathered that Jesus speaks of in verse 20 refers to those who bind and loose in verse 18. And given this connection, it’s plausible to read Jesus’s statement in verse 20 to mean that when the church convenes to tackle difficult matters and pronounce judgments in his name, that is with His authority, He will be with them, ensuring that whatever they, the two or three gathered in his name bind in loose on earth is bound and loose in heaven. Bible scholar, Jay McEveley explains the argument this way in his book, An Exposition of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, fourth edition, Benziger Brothers 1898, page 331.
Jay McEveley writes this, some connect this verse 19 with a verse 18, as if it meant to prove that whatever they shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. And because he is in the midst of them, binding and losing, as if he said, since the aid of heavenly light is necessary for the right government of the church. Therefore, if two of those charged with the government of the church agree upon anything pertaining to the exercise of the keys, they shall obtain it of his Father. “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, representing his name in power for giving the church, there he is in the midst of them hearing their prayers, judging, decreeing with them, governing the church with them.
Therefore, rather than disproving the visible nature of the church, when read in context, Matthew 18:20 actually supports the visible nature of the church. Finally, the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is an example of how the early church followed Jesus’s prescription when it came to doctrinal matters. Luke tells us in Acts 15:1-2, that Paul and Barnabas, “Had no small dissension and debate,” with those Jewish converts who were teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation. And in order to settle the debate, Paul and Barnabas were appointed to go and meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. In other words, they took it to the church just as Jesus told them to do.
So, the readings for this upcoming 23rd Sunday of ordinary time gives us year A that is, gives us plenty of stuff to reflect on when it comes to doing apologetics. It has details that involve conversations about the moral legitimacy of capital punishment and lethal self-defense, along with conversations about the visible and hierarchical nature of the church. As always, my friends, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well. Also, if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, Mr. Sunday podcast, go to shop.catholic.com. And by the way, when you tell your friends and invite them to subscribe, they can do so at sundaycatholicword.com. I hope you have a blessed 23rd Sunday ordinary time. God bless you all.
Speaker 1:
Thank you for listening to the Sunday Catholic Word. Find more great shows by visiting catholicanswerspodcasts.com or just search for Catholic Answers wherever you listen to podcasts.