Respect Life

Archbishop Chaput on the Death Penalty

Catholic teaching on the death penalty is best understood by viewing it through two lenses: what it is; and what it is not.
The Church’s critique of capital punishment is not an evasion of justice. Victims and their survivors have a right to redress, and the state has a right to enforce that redress and impose grave punishment for grave crimes.

It is not an absolute rejection of force by the state. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.

It is not an idolatry of individual rights — in this case, the rights of the murderer. Catholic social teaching rests on two equal pillars: the dignity of the individual person, and the common good. The right to life of the convicted murderer must be balanced against society’s right to justice and security.

Finally, it is not a false equation of related but unequal issues.

Comments

[Whitcomb]

Archbishop Chaput's further remarks bear restating:

"...John Paul II, writing a decade ago in 'The Gospel of Life,' stressed that 'the nature and extent of the punishment [for capital crimes] must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not to 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 to the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'

"In modern industrialized states, killing convicted murderers adds nothing to anyone’s safety. It is an excess. It cannot be justified except in the most extraordinary conditions. Moreover, for John Paul II, the punishment of any crime should not only seek to redress wrong and protect society. It should also encourage the possibility of repentance, restitution and rehabilitation on the part of the criminal. Execution removes that hope.

"Government has the obligation to embody the highest ideals of a people. As a free people, Americans are better, more decent and more humane than the needless executions we carry out every month. We’re better than the dozens of needless executions we plan to carry out in the months ahead.

"As citizens, our choices and our actions matter, because they create the kind of future our families and our nation will inhabit. What we choose, what we do, becomes who we are. In God’s own words in Deuteronomy:
'I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live' (30:19).

"Choosing against the death penalty is choosing in favor of life. We need to end the death penalty, and we need to do it soon...."

[Dan crawford]

So while, we are perfectly justified in permitting state sanctioned murder, we shouldn't actually do the deed? Is that what the Archbishop is saying? Such moral subtlety makes the mind boggle.

[Donald R. McClarey]

A very good piece by the Archbishop. He addresses straight on the fact that the Church had never opposed the death penalty, justly applied, until the last pontificate. Indeed, many popes, as rulers of the papal states, used the death penalty on many occasions. I disagree with his ultimate conclusion, but at least he doesn't pretend that this is not a shift by the Church.

[Tom Harmon]

Dan,

If you try really hard, you might be able to read Chaput's argument with both more charity and sympathy.

[midwestmom]

If the Church tells me the death penalty is wrong I believe it. This is where the rubber meets the road for a lot of Catholic Republicans.

Having one of our most orthodox bishops write this was no mistake. But when will we see the statement by Cardinal Mahoney on the evils of abortion and contraception?

[Caroline]

So while, we are perfectly justified in permitting state sanctioned murder, we shouldn't actually do the deed?

Not as long as there is a social structure intact to protect society from the criminal. However, that social structure could conceivably so totally disintegrate as a result of nuclear war or other vast catastrophes that whatever society remains will be barely surviving and in no position to maintain the life of a proven murderer. The principle of capital punishment under certain conditions remains as a protection for the common good .

[Caroline]

So while, we are perfectly justified in permitting state sanctioned murder, we shouldn't actually do the deed?

Not as long as there is a social structure intact to protect society from the criminal. However, that social structure could conceivably so totally disintegrate as a result of nuclear war or other vast catastrophes that whatever society remains will be barely surviving and in no position to maintain the life of a proven murderer. The principle of capital punishment under certain conditions remains as a protection for the common good .

[Suibhne]

I continue to struggle mightily with this issue. As Archbishop Chaput and John Paul II both admit, the death penalty per se is not wrong. They claim that the application of it in today's society is wrong. It is a pragmatic argument based on the here and now.

Given the overflowing prison population in this country -- and I mean literally overflowing, as in criminals being put back on the streets -- I find unconvincing our late pontiff's argument that "steady improvements to the organization of the penal system" dispense with the need for applying the death penalty. Even less convincing to me is Archbishop Chaput's contention that Americans are "better than that." This just seems to me like empty scolding.

One of Saint Thomas' arguments for capital punishment (and someone correct me if I am misstating it) was that the murderer, by his action, had chosen to act below his nature (and thus his dignity) and therefore no longer ought to be considered equal to his fellow citizens. In essence, he longer has a "right" to life.

The cathechism today appears to maintain a radical equality amongst the murderer and his victim, ignoring the act that actually makes him unequal to his victim. Insofar as they are, i.e. exist - because simply being is a per se good - murderers share equal dignity with their victims. However, it is their self-willed actions that result in inequality. It appears that the Church would have us ignore the latter to emphasize the former.

[FrankZ]

I wonder if charity and sympathy is the proper standard to apply to what are essentially statements of policy by the USCCB. Chaput is right to acknowledge that the Church's historical acquiescence/support of the D.P. b/c until recently (the last 25 yrs.) the D.P. has played a pretty standard role in our penal system - and in society in general. I don't object to the Church speaking out on issues like the D.P. but I do think such matters should be handled with great caution. Too often we tend to think that our faith creates a clear cut path for us to follow in our policy. However, it is precisely because we have such an intersection of faith and policy that we must tread very lightly in this area. For instance, some have argued that the "image of God" imprinted on man actually tends to favor imposition of death and not life for those guilty of the most heinous crimes. The argument is that since man, as a moral actor, is actually more capable of understanding the magnitude of his crimes it is incumbant upon society to bring that gravity to bear upon him when he intentionally takes the life of another. This, and only this, will serve justice and allow the convicted to fully appreciate the gravity of thier crimes so that they can repent. Societal condemnation teaches the murderor the error of his ways - and condemnation must expressive - not just theorhetical. If we fail to punish the most severe crimes with the harshest punishments than we are guilty to both the perpetrator and society - we rob the criminal of his lesson and we rob society of their voice of condemnation.
We may not find this arguement pursuasive but we should acknowledge that there are differing points of view - even among the faithful. I submit to the gargantuan intellect of our late great Holy Father but at the same time I have a hard time arguing as a matter of policy there is an easy answer to this question. Surely charity and sympathy are useful in the quest for truth but so too is logic and reason. We need them both as a matter of faith and good policy. To accept a teaching without thinking it through - especially a teaching that is pastoral and, therefore, not binding on the conscience, might be abrogating our duty as good Catholics.

[David L Alexander]

"If the Church tells me the death penalty is wrong I believe it."

She hasn't, because she can't, and Archbishop Chaput stops short of claiming that she does. He chooses his words carefully. My problem is when people don't read as carefully, then go around saying "oh, the Church used to say it was okay, but now it's not." This includes a number of priests, and even bishops.

Now, THAT would be wrong.

[Daniel W]

Suibhne:
re: the Church ignoring the inequality caused by the self-willed sinful actions.

Pertinent to this, I think, is the point that JPII makes, repeatedly, in Dives in Misericordia, in that it's not "ignoring" per se, but that Christ showed mercy to mankind by looking past original sin to the dignity that was inherent from the beginning and restoring that dignity, and thus the relationship. In the same way that Christ sought the restoration of the good that was God's relationship with mankind, JPII insists that we all have the same obligation towards each other.

I think this is the thought that really informs his teaching on the death penalty. To boil it down, we all received mercy that healed our wounded dignity, so insofar as it is possible, we should try to apply that to each other as well to restore relationships (and this would include the society's relationship to a convicted murderer as well). That is why the CCC states that it is "better in conformity with human dignity."

That's my $.02.

[Tony A]

What is the deal with Americans and the death penalty? NO other civilized country sanctions it. The United States is in league with such bastions of freedom as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. For me, the answer is very simple: it comes directly from the protestant fundamentalist theology (specifically, the false doctrine of predestination) that so influences American culture. As catholics, we need to stand up to that nonsense.

Tony.

[Sandra Miesel]

Pope John Paul II's judgment that modern penology is so perfect death penalties are unnecessary is simply not sustainable as an observation on the state of the world's prisons. Even within maximum security institutions, prisoners do kill and order killings. Or hostages are taken, acts of terror threatened on their behalf.
I think the late pope very much wanted to impose absolute pacifism on the Church but could not do so.

[FrankZ]

Does faith compel us to punish harshly? Consider the following passage from Romans:

"Let every person be subjected to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, he who resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.... If you do wrong, be afraid, for [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer" Romans 13:1-4.

[George]

Don't forget China is another country that executes its criminals. The U.S. executes more criminals per capita than any other country in the world, including China (which has mobile execution vans).

With more than 2 million adults in prison, we also lead the world in incarcerating people. More than 1% of American males are now in prison as I write this.

Except for the innocent 1-10% (who knows), the executed criminals are of course guilty of heinous, violent crimes. And just three states--VA, FL and TX--often constitute a majority of executions in a given year. These states also have very high violent crime rates, compared to worldwide and U.S. averages.

By the way, U.S. rates of abortions are solidly in the middle compared to the rest of the world. So the use of the death penalty and violent crimes in these three states and the Sunbelt are major anomalies in the overall reduction of violent crimes and punishments (and now abortion)in the civilized world.

[Kevin Miller]

First, that Romans passage simply can't be taken as a statement that our faith compels us to punish harshly.

Second, the mention above of Dives in Misericordia is spot on. It is absolutely essential background for Evangelium Vitae in general, and for the latter's treatment of the death penalty in particular.

Third, I think it's absolutely untrue that we today are not capable of building secure prisons. And the fact that we don't always choose to do so doesn't mean that it's then okay to use the death penalty.

Fourth, I agree that EV doesn't teach that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. But to say that this means it's only making a pragmatic statement is to posit a false dichotomy. Things can be wrong in principle without being intrinsically evil. The relevant principle in this case is that of mercy (and of the metaphysical impossibility of justice without mercy), as per Dives in Misericordia.

[Rich Leonardi]

Kevin,

We've debated this endlessly, but one need not subscribe to a false dichotomy to believe that Pope John Paul II was using his "practical", pastoral voice when issuing his censure of the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae; one need only read the document.

The way he condemns abortion and euthanasia is clear and unambiguous, invoking the language of tradition. That he used a pastoral voice in circumscribing the death penalty was perhaps because he recognized he was bound by that tradition, as Sandra alludes. Regardless, he was a servant, not a master of doctrine.

But don't take my word for it. Read the observations of Cardinal Dulles, Ave Maria's Dr. Michael Orsi, and Catholic Answers' Jimmy Akin.

[Fr. Bryan]

There are two basic points to remember about Church teaching on capital punishment, especially as it is applied in the US. The first is that assuming that the state is a legitamate authority (i.e., not a dictatorship), it has the right, and the responsibility, to protect its citizens from harm. This right includes the use of capital punishment. For this reason, Catholic teaching would not support a total abolition of the death penalty.

However, the second point is that while the state has the right to use capital punishment, it is not an absolute right. Rather, it is a severely limited one. The responsilibity of the state is to protect its citizens from harm. It is not to act as a means of retrobution or revenge. If the state can fulfill this responsilibity by nonletheal means, such as life without parole, then the state is required to follow this course of action, and not use the death penalty.

In terms of the impact of JPII's, and the Church's, position on the death penalty, a ZENIT news report dated July 9 of this year related the results of a recent Zogby poll. It showed that fewer US Catholics now support the use of capital punishment than in past years. The poll was taken in November 2004 and found that 48% of adult Catholics support the death penalty while 47% oppose. The support for capital punishment was even lower amount frequent Mass-goers and younger Catholics (the JPII generation).

Public confidense in the death penalty has also suffered from the release of more than 100 men and women from death row over the last 10 years. In many of these cases, the condemned inmates were found to be actually innocent of the murders for which they are convicted.

[GregK]

I'm not exactly sure what the bishop's comments mean, but it's nice to hear him admit that Christian tradition supports the state's right to use capital punishment. Sometimes that gets obscured.

[GregK]

However, what seems to be consistently missing from contemporary Catholic discussions of the death penalty is the biblical idea that a sentence against a crime is necessary as a matter of justice, and that some crimes require the death of the perpetrator.

For example, the old lex talionis (the "an eye for an eye" thing) allowed for redemption. Rather than poking out the offender's eye, he could pay the price of an eye. Same with a hand. But *not for a life.* There was no sense of a weregild in Hebrew law. Rather ...

Numbers 35:31-35 Do not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is under the death penalty, since he must be put to death. Similarly, if one has fled to his refuge city, do not take ransom to allow him to return and live in the land before the high priest dies.
Do not pollute the land in which you live; it is blood that pollutes the land. When blood is shed in the land, it cannot be atoned for except through the blood of the person who shed it. You must not defile the land upon which you live and in which I dwell, since I, God, dwell among the Israelites.

This passages teaches that murder defiles the land and must be atoned for by the death of the murderer. This has nothing to do with the society protecting itself. It has to do with the requirements of justice.

[Suibhne]

Daniel W:

Thank you for your two cents. I have not read Dives in Misericordia and it's clear that I should.

For years I have been trying to be open to JPII's teaching on the death penalty. I have one close friend who has been most persuasive, especially citing to what Fr. Bryan alludes in his post: the likelihood that our judicial system is very broken.

Like Sandra, I think JPII's "perfect penology system" argument is simply unsustainable. Several years ago while serving a fellowship in the California Senate, my colleagues and I were brought on a tour of the Vacaville prison and mental health facility. At one point we were brought to what used to be the gym/basketball court. I say used to be because it had beem transformed into essentially one giant "barracks." So here you had murderers, rapists, gang members, etc. living together in an environment ripe for real trouble. Of course the inmates were on their best behaviour that day because they knew for whom we worked, but we had been briefed on the frequency of inmate-on-inmate violence (including rape). The non-stop supply of violent movies and pornography certainly didn't help matters. I suspect that the specter of impending execution would be a far greater catalyst to salvation than action movies and porn.

[John]

If I remember it right, the argument of "it's better for one man to die to save the society" was used by the Sanhedrin 2,000 years ago. Which brings me to my brief argument - the inherent flaw in the death penalty is the imperfection of the people imposing it, because then it requires one to judge whether another has "fallen below from human nature and therefore has no more right to live".

I thought Jesus already pretty much disagreed with the death penalty (and other forms of judgment and revenge and murder)?

[Carlo]

Those who are interested will find a very helpful and learned discussion of this issue in the comments to
http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1135

[Daniel W]

Here's another reference to Dives in Misericordia, in relation to GregK's comment about justice:

This is what JPII has to say regarding justice:
Mercy, however, has the power to confer on justice a new content, which is expressed most simply and fully in forgiveness. Forgiveness, in fact, shows that, over and above the process of "compensation" and "truce" which is specific to justice, love is necessary, so that man may affirm himself as man. -p.14

Note the reference to "affirm himself as man." One can almost say JPII built his whole pontificate around the theme of human dignity. He shouted it from the rooftops as much as he could. His whole point was, I think, that man was created in communion with God, and as such had all the dignity that went along with that. Of course sin damaged that, but God saw through the sin to the dignity that was there from the start (just as the prodigal son's father did) and restored the relationship by showing his merciful love. JPII simply wants us humans to start imitating God more. If he can show us mercy when what we really deserve is death, then we should be able to show more mercy with others as well, and be confident that it can be done without violating any norms of justice.

I used to have reservations myself about JPII's statement in Evangelium Vitae about capital punishment, for the very reason that I couldn't see how it could be reconciled with the requirements of justice that the Church has always taught about. But reading DM cast it all in a new light.

Also, interestingly enough, just the other day I read something in the Summa, where St. Thomas said something very similar about mercy giving justice new meaning. But unfortunately it escapes me right now where it is, otherwise I'd provide a quote there as well.

Regarding the state of the penal system in America, it sure seems there's a valid case that JPII wasn't privvy to enough information to make an adequate conclusion. But regarding the issue of justice/mercy/forgiveness, I think he has an awful lot of wisdom to digest, much of which is applicable to the issue of capital punishment.

[Liz]

What irks me is that the death penalty is treated as a gray area. Pro-life = respect for ALL human life. It's a no-brainer to demonstrate that death row criminals are human persons. It's a lot tougher to explain the status of that little blastocyst, who we say shouldn't be destroyed, even for the sake of the rest of society (i.e. for their stem cells). I think we'd all have a lot less explaining to do on all life issues if we would simply reject the death penalty outright.

As far as the Biblical grounds for the death penalty, I notice that the quote given is from the Hebrew Bible and seems to discuss ritual purity more than justice. I believe Jesus said a thing or two about justice (let he who is without sin cast the first stone...) - perhaps it would be better to give priority to the NT's view on this issue?

Finally, at least in the U.S., the death penalty affects more than just the executed criminal (or, God forbid, innocent person). This made very clear in Sr. Helen Prejean's book DEAD MAN WALKING. Someone has to walk the person down the hall. Someone straps them down. Someone injects them, or 'flips the switch.' Can we really say that one individual bearing the responsiblity for killing another is just?

[Suibhne]

John:

Jesus most certainly did not disagree with the death penalty. When Pilate asked Christ if he understood that he had the power to crucify him, Christ did not say, "No, you do not." He said, "You would not have that power unless it were given to you by my Father." Here we have Christ acknowledging the God-given governmental authority to impose the death penalty. What makes this even more striking is the fact that Christ's crucifixion was the single most unjust application of it possible.

Moreover, hanging on the cross Christ did not rebuke the good thief when he said that he and his fellow thief were suffering justly.

Liz:

It's a no-brainer to demonstrate that death row criminals are human persons.

Yes, it is. No one is denying that death row criminals are human persons. But you are missing the point. What I am struggling with is the idea that -- no matter what a human being does, no matter how heinous an act he commits -- he is somehow above being justly executed by the state.

[GregK]

Where did we get this idea that Jesus is against the death penalty? Listen to this, from the man himself.

Mt. 15:3-6 - 'And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? "For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.' "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," he is not to honor his father or his mother[a].' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.'

[Trisha]

Death is easy. Esp when you are not only told the moment--to the second when it will happen but how. It allows preparation time/thinking time/accepting God time/apology time...etc.
What's VERY difficult is seclusion. Completel seclusion. Men went stark mad on Devils Island when, for yrs, they only saw an arm at meal time. For years. You lose the world and all sense of time--it's the ultimate punishment. Middle ground: Chains--lots of chains. And for the rest of your life--you build. You repair and you give by way of being on a chain gang. You wear orange or pink or whatever every day for the rest of your life. No turkey at Thanksgiving, no talking (except stolen whispers) and no benefits. You work--you fix roads, you build old folks homes, you work. No gift of knowing when you die and even picking your own method. No cruel utter seclusion. You take that body that was strong enough to murder and you work it until it's time for God to take you Himself. Amen.

[John]

I stand by my original treatise - if Jesus were here posting on this board, He would be mortified with all the pro-death penalty arguments attributed to Him - by the very same folks who are so staunchly pro-life. But then again, that's just me. Who am I really to say I know WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that I know the mind of God? I am just but a speck in this universe, but I am as important as the world in God's eyes. Who says Joe Schomo who killed 300 people isn't? Do we really know the depth and mystery of God's love and mercy?

It's just that when you kill someone, you take away from that person the possibility of change, hope, repentance.

[John]

I stand by my original treatise - if Jesus were here posting on this board, He would be mortified with all the pro-death penalty arguments attributed to Him - by the very same folks who are so staunchly pro-life. But then again, that's just me. Who am I really to say I know WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that I know the mind of God? I am just but a speck in this universe, but I am as important as the world in God's eyes. Who says Joe Schomo who killed 300 people isn't? Do we really know the depth and mystery of God's love and mercy?

It's just that when you kill someone, you take away from that person the possibility of change, hope, repentance.

[John]

I stand by my original treatise - if Jesus were here posting on this board, He would be mortified with all the pro-death penalty arguments attributed to Him - by the very same folks who are so staunchly pro-life. But then again, that's just me. Who am I really to say I know WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that I know the mind of God? I am just but a speck in this universe, but I am as important as the world in God's eyes. Who says Joe Schomo who killed 300 people isn't? Do we really know the depth and mystery of God's love and mercy?

It's just that when you kill someone, you take away from that person the possibility of change, hope, repentance.

[Suibhne]

Who am I really to say I know WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that I know the mind of God?

if Jesus were here posting on this board, He would be mortified with all the pro-death penalty arguments attributed to Him

[tom faranda]

Some points about being Pro-life and the death penalty.

Almost all Catholics I know who were involved with Operation Rescue type activities - getting arrested at abortion mills - opposed the death penalty ( I can think of only one exception).

A good friend of mine used to say about the death penalty "any society that arrests my wife for opposing abortion has no business executing anyone."

Anyone who was in the courtroom as the mostly white middle class OR protestors got hosed again and again by judges, "you can't use the words abortion, killing, the justification defense, let me point out that this is an issue of trespassing". You'd have to wonder how mostly poor minority defendants, usually with mediocre counsel, were going to fare in a capital case.

[FrankZ]

Tom,

You raise an interesting issue about "justice" in the justice system in America. It may interest you to know that, at least in our system, the most ardent critics of the death penalty are also the most stauch supporters of abortion. Interesting huh? Often it is the "liberals" who favor a heightened notion of individual rights - like the right to counsel for indigent defendants, an expansive right to privacy, and more expansive rights for gays and lesbians. Justice Blackmun, who has stated that authoring Roe v. Wade was one of his proudest moments, also wrote a scathing reveiw of the death penalty (1994) as one of his "Swan Song" opinions before he retired. So, essentially, your rights, and the rights of the poor and minority classes, probably will get more, not less, protection from the same judges that favor abortion but disfavor capital punishment.
I think you are comparing apples and oranges. No who supports the death penalty is arguing that our system is perfect. The problem is that no system created by humans will be. Does that mean we abolish punishment altogether simply because we don't always get it right or because it is difficult? Most "abolitionists" would say no - but death is different. Surely this is true. It is different for the perpetrator, the victim, and society. But this does not mean that the death penalty should for that reason be abolished. I agree with our late Pope when he speaks on theological or theorhetical grounds about justice in the 21st century. But while the death penalty is being debated in the great catholic ivory towers of the world, the people on the ground are still, with increasing frequency, being terrorized by loathsome characters who could care less what you, me, or Pope John Paul II thought about the internal consistency of those who call themselves pro-life but also support the death penalty. The issue is one that yeilds itself to disagreement on the level of theorhetical dialogue even among believers. This, in my opionion, gives it all the more moral and intellectual force when justice is meted out in the context of the worst offenses agains humanity.

[Sandra Miesel]

Kevin, the Federal maximum security prison at Marion IL is about as tight as anything can be under our system of laws, but drug lords still managed to order murders while incarcerated there. A year or so ago an Indiana inmate on Death Row manged to kill a fellow prisoner. We also had a convicted murderer kill in prison to force the state to execute him, vowing to kill more if he wasn't sentenced to death.
Pope John Paul II's comment about the perfection of the contemporary penal system was a sweeping statement meant to apply to the whole world, not just the US, not just First World countries. Taken that way, it's flatly, provably untrue.
And what makes you think he would have approved of life without parole or other harsh sentences? The Vatican worked very hard to get the unrepentent papal assassin sprung from jail in Italy and sent back to Turkey (where he would face a murder charge but likely be freed afterwards in a general amnesty. He did not seem to accept punishment as a proper consequence for crime, despite the disclaimer about protecting society. I will make myself unpopular here by opining that he would have preferred a world where criminals were simply forgiven and sent their way to give yet more people opportunities for suffering.

[Donald R. McClarey]

I really doubt if opposition to the death penalty has anything to do with respect for human life in most cases. The nations in the world that are most pro-abortion tend also to be adamantly against the death penalty. As for myself, I view innocent human life as sacred, but I agree with the view held by the Church for almost 2000 years that the State may justly execute criminals for heinous crimes.

[FrankZ]

Donald,

I think you make a valid point. My problem with the critique of the death penalty currently being authored by the USCCB is not so much that I disagree with thier conclusion. I don't think the debate is a bad thing ... but I resist the timing and the impetus it seems to reflect, i.e. an attempt to score some points with those who favor "progressive" culture. Amazing that the USCCB chose to take a stand for the dignity of the person now... they seem to shy away from the frey at more opportune times - like when people are really listening and the Church's position isn't popular or progressive - but rather very traditional (for instance in the debate on abortion or homosexuality.) I don't resist the Church's pastoral role - I do resist "selective enforcement" that our biships seem to engage in.

[aquinasadmirer]

Tony,

This fall a married couple was sentenced to death for luring people one by one to their deaths. The couple kidnapped, tortured and then killed some children and their parents. I believe that it was seven or eight people in all.

This is in Japan.

Thought you'd want to know.

[tom faranda]

Frank

"the most ardent critics of the death penalty are the most staunch supporter of abortion."
I live in NY - I am very aware ot fhat. Of course you are talkking about politicians - there are plenty of ardent critics of abortion and the death penalty.

"No who supports the death penalty is arguing that our system is perfect... Does that mean we abolish punishment altogether simply because we don't always get it right or because it is difficult? Most "abolitionists" would say no - but death is different. Surely this is true... But this does not mean that the death penalty should for that reason be abolished."

Actually, I think you make a pretty good argument for abolition!

"But while the death penalty is being debated in the great catholic ivory towers of the world..."

I don't follow this - I don't live in any Ivory tower, do you?

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

If the Church tells me the death penalty is wrong I believe it. This is where the rubber meets the road for a lot of Catholic Republicans.

midwesternmom, do you actually think for yourself?

I suggest that you (and the rest of the Catholics on this thread) read Genesis 9: 5-6, in which God demands the execution of murderers because murder is the ultimate descecration of the divine image in humanity. It is also the only proportional punishment for murder.

Proportional punishment (lex talonis, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth") is one of the most fundamental elements of divine revelation, and it can only be done through legitimate civil authority. It's designed to prevent private parties from taking vengeance, thus preventing social chaos and protecting the innocent. Study Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy and you'll see this point.

For those of you who think that Jesus personally abrogated the OT, you're wrong. What Jesus did was replace and fulfill the sacrifices mandated by the Mosaic Law for atonement and redemption with His death on the cross. That is not the same as nullifying the moral imperatives outlined previously by God. Since Jesus is God's Incarnate Word, and since God's Word includes the OT, it would be logically impossible for Jesus to abrogate unilaterally previous revelation. On the contrary, Jesus represents both the OT and the NT in their fullest sense.

If that doesn't persuade you, then riddle me this. Why is it fair or just for a murderer to retain his own life -- even if he spends the rest of it in prison -- after arbrarily taking the lives of people who did him no harm and whom he deprived of the God-given right to enjoy His creation, use the gifts He gave them and be positive influences on society?

The Church's contemporary view of capital punishment is nothing but theological and moral revisionism that contradicts Scripture and Tradition. It's supported only by one papal encyclical, and the tendentious nature in which it deals with the issue reflects secular liberal thought more than Church theology.

I will make myself unpopular here by opining that (Pope John Paul II) would have preferred a world where criminals were simply forgiven and sent their way to give yet more people opportunities for suffering.

Sandra, you are absolutely correct! The late pope's esoteric views on "redemptive suffering" effectively make any Catholic who takes them seriously less sensitive to the plight of the innocent -- unless those innocent fit the theologically correct categories of zygote, fetus, poor person (especially in the Third World) or illegal immigrant.

[Samuel J. Howard]

"What is the deal with Americans and the death penalty? NO other civilized country sanctions it. "

Well there's Japan. oh, and South Korea, and Taiwan...but they're not civilized.

[Daniel W]

I suggest that you (and the rest of the Catholics on this thread) read Genesis 9: 5-6, in which God demands the execution of murderers because murder is the ultimate descecration of the divine image in humanity. It is also the only proportional punishment for murder.

Gen 9:5-6 does call for the execution of murderers. But the thing is, even in the OT, God doesn't always demand the execution of murderers. There is that little detail about putting a mark on Cain to spare his life in Genesis 4, for example. I suppose one can make the argument that it's an entirely different situation, but this is certainly not the only time that God's mercy is revealed in the OT, either.

If that doesn't persuade you, then riddle me this. Why is it fair or just for a murderer to retain his own life -- even if he spends the rest of it in prison -- after arbrarily taking the lives of people who did him no harm and whom he deprived of the God-given right to enjoy His creation, use the gifts He gave them and be positive influences on society?

Here's the riddle I live with every day. I've done some pretty despicable things in my life. Why is it fair or just that I can have any hope for salvation, when the reason for it is the fact that an innocent man - the Son of God, no less - had to die for that to happen. It's not fair at all. What's fair is that I absolutely deserve eternal damnation for my sins. But it is true because God showed mercy, which was his desire to restore the dignity that he intended for me, and right our relationship.

JPII simply takes the above truth and apply it to the sphere of various human interactions as well. I frankly don't see that it's too much of a stretch for him to have done so.

[Suibhne]

Daniel W:

Thanks again for another challenging post:

Here's the riddle I live with every day. I've done some pretty despicable things in my life. Why is it fair or just that I can have any hope for salvation, when the reason for it is the fact that an innocent man - the Son of God, no less - had to die for that to happen. It's not fair at all. What's fair is that I absolutely deserve eternal damnation for my sins. But it is true because God showed mercy, which was his desire to restore the dignity that he intended for me, and right our relationship.

I read this and I think, sure, this is the way individuals ought to act towards one another, to show mercy to those who've done us wrong. But is this the way a government ought to act toward murderers? Is this the proper way to run a judicial system. What I'm getting at is this: can mercy be the proper act of a state? Can the state ignore or sidestep justice in lieu of mercy?

Something that leads me to say no is the the Church's teaching (in the social encyclicals, particularly in Rerum Novarum) that charity (i.e., welfare) cannot be an act of a state; it is solely an act of the Church.

I wonder of there is a common thread here.

[FrankZ]

Tom,

1. Harry Blackmun was a Associate Justice for the United States Supreme Court - not a legislator or a governemental executive. I'm not sure if judges are elected in NY - but they certainly are not for the Supreme Court which means that they are not "politicians" as we understand that term.
2. Harry Blackmun authored Roe v. Wade and yet was an ardent opponent of the death penalty. The question then is how can you and Blackmun have philosophies that are aligned on the death penalty but not be alingned on abortion? The answer, I think, is that the two issue present different questions. They both implicate the dignity of the human person but in different ways. I'm amazed by the articulate defense of human dignity you find there in Supreme Court death penalty opinions. Yet many of those same articulate defenders of human dignity voted to legalize abortion!
3. If you think that the problems with the system are sufficient to warrant abolishing the system altogether I wonder what you would say to this: Ambulances kill thousands of innocent bystanders every year. Should we abolish emergency care?

[Daniel W]

I read this and I think, sure, this is the way individuals ought to act towards one another, to show mercy to those who've done us wrong. But is this the way a government ought to act toward murderers? Is this the proper way to run a judicial system. What I'm getting at is this: can mercy be the proper act of a state? Can the state ignore or sidestep justice in lieu of mercy?
Suibhne, that is an excellent question. In Dives in Misericordia, JPII is, point of fact, primarily addressing mercy as a theological principle, and the duty for mercy to be practiced by individuals. But I think, in article 14, that he really does wish to expand it to include all spheres of human relationships, which of course would include society and the state. It's not his main thrust of the encyclical for sure, but I think it is evident in the text. I'm open to the possibility that I could have read him wrong on this point, but it seems to me that statements such as the following indicate his line of thought:
If Paul VI more than once indicated the civilization of love" as the goal towards which all efforts in the cultural and social fields as well as in the economic and political fields should tend. it must be added that this good will never be reached if in our thinking and acting concerning the vast and complex spheres of human society we stop at the criterion of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and do not try to transform it in its essence, by complementing it with another spirit.

[Daniel W]

Suibhne:
As an addendum, I'm not all that familiar with the themes of Rerum Novarum, but now that you bring it up, I'm extremely interested in what light could be shed on the subject by comparing its themes to JPII's themes...

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

Daniel W., let me direct your attention to Aquinas' remarks about the moral necessity of capital punishment. The first comment links capital punishment with mercy:

"The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain
than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentence. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death, their
heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146)."

The next comment connects capital punishment with the necessity for community protection:

"If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority,
not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men
shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted. (Summa Theologica 11: 65-2; 66-6)."

Keep in mind that Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church. JPII, for all his various strengths, is not.

The necessity of Christ to die to atone for human sin and thus offer redemption can't be equated nor compared with the state's responsibility to protect its citizens and preserve social order. Besides, repentence was never meant to protect the offender from the secular consequences of his actions, be they legal or otherwise. Too many Catholics, unfortunately, think otherwise. They essentially confuse repentance before God with a lack of culpability.

It's ironic that many Catholics who believe in upholding the common good support and promote an essentially individualistic, even narcissistic, vision of capital punishment.

One more point: I believe the Church's current position on capital punishment reflects a growing insensitivity to the legitimate needs of the innocent, an insensitivity that manifested itself in the episcopocracy's flaccid response to the clerical sex-abuse crisis. I'll never forget the response of one woman who lost her daughter-in-law in the Oklahoma City bombing to JPII's letter asking Pres. Bush to grant clemency for Timothy McVeigh:

"Where's my clemency? When do I get some clemency? When does my family get some clemency? When the pope can answer that, we can talk."

That quote from the Associated Press is burned in my memory. It should give pause to every Catholic who supports the Church's essentially abolitionist stance toward capital punishement.

Unfortunately, given the poor catechesis of most Catholics, the tendency of many (cf, "midwesternmom") to let the Church do their thinking for them and the tendency to let admiration for JPII overwhelm their critical thinking processes, it won't.

Consider this quote from the Hebrew Talmud: "Those who are merciful when they should be cruel will be cruel when they should be merciful."

How better to describe the Church's stance on capital punishment, and its failure to respond forcefully in the clerical sex-abuse crisis?

[Rick]

can mercy be the proper act of a state? Can the state ignore or sidestep justice in lieu of mercy?

Good question. I think, strictly speaking, the answer is "no." For civil authorities to not merely mitigate punishment because of extenuating circumstances, but truly forgive, as God does, is presumptuous in the exteme. As the proverb says, to forgive is divine. But the state is not divine — and must not presume to be such.

The better argument against the DP is the one made above: that the state has no right to execute if such is not necessary to protect its citizens.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

The better argument against the DP is the one made above: that the state has no right to execute if such is not necessary to protect its citizens.

Rick, I would not want to live in such a state because in such a state, innocent life is not truly valued. When it comes to murder (and that's the only crime we're really talking about here), execution is the only just punishment. Executing murderers says to the society at large that murder is so heinous a crime that the perpetrator cannot continue to live.

I think many people tend to forget how heinous and destructive murder really is, and how devastating are its effects on loved ones left behind.

Much of JPII's thinking, I believe, reflects his trauma under Nazi and Communist occupation, when the authorities arbitrarily imprisoned or executed anyone whom they felt was a threat. That's entirely different from biblical demands for justice toward both the innocent and the perpetrator, as recorded in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

No matter how traumatic JPII's experience was in oppressed Poland (and we all know how traumatic it was), he doesn't have the right to unilaterally revise centuries of Church teaching. His remarks on capital punishment in Evangelium vitae, as well as his abolitionist activism, demonstrate that revisionism.

Besides, Chaput is talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one had, he says that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil and that the state has the right to use it. On the other, he says it must be outlawed. This is hypocritical gobbledygook that should be ignored.

[Frankly Speaking - But No Longer Frank Z]

I need to clarify something. Apparently, I inadvertently stole someone else's pseudonym so, for the moment, I'm using a different pseudonym until I think of something brilliant and witty to replace my old one... it may be a while.

Also, I wanted to clarify something I stated in a previous post to Tom Faranda.
1. When I mentioned the "liberals" who support abortion but not the death penalty I was speaking of "liberal" Supreme Court Justices. I actually don't like terms like liberal and conservative because I think they are pejorative. But, for all intents and purposes, certain justices are generally understood to be liberal while others are understood to be conservative.
2. As far as the question of whether I am thinking in an ivory tower... Guilty. I'm a student - but not just that. I'm also a person who, regrettably, has intimate personal knowledge of a double murder where the perpetrator was sentenced to death. I don't mention that fact in an accusatory manner, for argumental leverage, or with the intent to invoke sympathy. Rather, I merely want to demonstrate that I approach the issue both on a theorhetical and practical level as a person who has faced it both academically and personally.
3. My question about ambulances might seem unfair but I think it demonstrates a valid point. We really can't dismiss the death penalty based upon "collateral" effects until we've answered the question of whether the penalty is justified in the first place. Only when we have established that it is justifiable in theory can we determine whether it is justified in practice. Why? For the same reason we are justified in creating systems for emergency care even when such systems will inevitably have the collateral effect of the loss of innocent life. If the system is justifiable in principal, like emergency care, then it would require substantial and pervasive collateral damage or corruption to make it unjust in practice. The problem I've seen with many abolitionist arguments is that they start from the premise that capital punishment is wrong in every circumstance and then try to find support for thier premise by making the same argument you made - that the system is racist and corrupt, and therefore, cannot impose the death penalty. A system might have racist or corrupt components yet still be able to administer justice on the whole. The problem of race in capital sentencing has largely diminished but even where some violent murderors get harsher treatment than others I find it hard to believe that they have recieved an unjust punishment for thier crime.
4. If you think that capital punishment is wrong in principal than I have to say that, as many of the posts in this string have demonstrated, there are some pretty powerful historical and theological arguments that could be used to refute your position. They may be wrong... but, of course, as a matter of good argument we have to show, not just state, that JPII's take on capital punishment should be given more weight than that of other great Catholic thinkers such as Thomas Acquinas.

I'm curious to hear your take on my response.

[Vivian]

The question I would have for John Paul II, who I find quite fascinating in his humanistic approach to all subjects , humanism which as prior posters have pointed out was condemned by all Popes (I also am quite amazed that we needed a Pope to write an encyclical on "Theology of the Body")-what his take would be on a convicted murderer who was not repentent for his or her sins? Does he not even know or remember scripture of our Lord on the cross and the "Good thief" and the "Bad thief"? And that punishment as the death penalty is not only scriptural based back to the Old Testament, but prevents the "unrepented" from murdering or maiming another innocent person?

I guess he also felt that way about these horrible priests and Bishops who were pedophiling and were basically shuffled from church to church so they can have a new crop of children to molest. I would like to see Pope Benedict have a day in court, and like is allowed in the courts now, have the families of these abused children confront their assailants and their enablers, and lets see what these Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals would say, or like most thingst that come out of the Vatican now aday, you cant make heads or tails out of what is really being said

[Tom Haessler]

Archbishop Chaput overstated when he said that it is part of the Church's identity to support the death penalty in principle. Very conservative theologians like Germain Grisez, an excellent thinker and defender of the magisterium, has said that when you look at all the data in Tradition, there is no convincing argument that the ordinary universal episcopal magisterium or the papal magisterium have ever spoken on this topic in such a way that the past understanding of this issue could not evolve (or develop) to the point of total exclusion.

To say that Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church and that John Paul II is not is a serious misunderstanding of authority in theology. Doctors of the Church throw light on many questions but do NOT (unless if they are bishops also) have authority to decide a controverted question in theology. If one accepted Aquinas's rejection of the Immaculate Conception today (arguing that HE was a Doctor of the Church and Pius IX was just a pope), one would be a heretic. If Aquinas were part of our discussion he would most definitely support the Holy Father's position with, perhaps, even better arguments.

One aspect of the capital punishment issue that is rarely discussed is the issue of subjective imputability. Numerous passages in the CATHECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH insist that human freedom is quite different than angelic freedom. Our freedom is realized in a complexus of determinisms. There are various impediments to freedom. Some of these diminish the capacity of someone to act freely; others extinguish this capacity (in certain areas). Today there is much greater understanding of the whole issue of mental and emotional illness and its capacity to diminish or abolish the exercise of free will. John Paul II addressed this issue repeatedly during his pontificate (usually in an obiter dicta). Insane people used to be thought to be wicked, possessed, etc. They were incarcerated and often beaten and tortured. Anyone who's had Psych 101 knows that in certain psychoses a person can come off as perfectly normal UNTIL you get on one topic - that they are the heir apparent to the Hapsburg thrown - or whatever. Many criminals (not all by any means) have serious mental illness issues. The attitude of many in the public that the insanity defense is always wrong is an attitude that is incompatible with elementary justice today. Certain other legal systems (like the Italian system) give more attention than our system to a sytematic examination of issues of subjective imputability. As Catholic Christians we need to support efforts to see that an individual is subjectively guilty in a moral sense. It is entirely true that some abuse this in a ridiculous fashion and imagine that no one anywhere has the full use of their freedom. Especially those who understand the importance of family and two parents who love each other and are of opposite gender for the psychological and moral health of children should be able to understand that those who've never had a family in any sense of the word would be deeply damaged and broken human beings who would be expected to have serious impediments to the full use of their free will.

I've been active in the pro-life movement and have never yet met a Catholic in the movement who supported the death penalty. I have read many on line who are pro-life and pro-death penalty, but I've never met such a person in real life. Most Catholics in the pro-life movement that I've met are very supportive of all the positions of the magisterium.

Finally, one more point. Germain Grisez, a Thomistic philosopher and theologian, says that Aquinas' argument on the death penalty is flawed. It's interesting that Aquinas, who restates the classical just war theory, in the section of the Summa devoted not to justice, but to charity. And the question he asks is: Is war ever NOT a sin. He never says that one may intend to KILL in a just war. What he says is that one MAY intend to defend with force even forseeing that circumstances might mean that the force issues in the other's death. But he would see actually intending the death as morally wrong. Intend the defense, but not the death. Specialists on the history of the just war theory point this out repeatedly.

So maybe today (tomorrow is another question) we could ask: Is capital punishment ever not murder?

Tom Haessler

[Tom Haessler]

Just a word about arguments for the death penalty taken from the Pentateuch. Catholics believe that the civil penalties connected with crime in the Torah were abolished (along with the liturgical ones like animal sacrifices). So permeated with changeable aspects are the exact words of the Torah that even in the case of the Ten Commandments it would be quite wrong to say that they are binding on Christians in the exact same sense that they were binding on Jews. This is why the Council of Trent in countering the Lutheran argument that the entire Torah was abolished in Christ answered that the it was heresy to say that there is no sense in which the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians. In so far as the Ten Commandments are a restatement of natural law, they are binding on Christians. But still not in the exact sense that they were understood by the Jews. One of the Ten Commandments legislates an aniconic norm (no images). This is not binding on Christians. Another commandment insists on Saturday (Sabbath) worship; this was changed by the Apostles. The commandment on adultery was thought by the Jews to forbid the use of his property (his wife) by another man. Our understanding of this commandment is very different.

A much better argument for those wishing to defend capital punishment by using the Old Testament would be to point out the passage in Genesis 9 and the surrounding texts about the Noachide Covenant. But the difficulty here is that this Covenant also contains a commandment not to eat rare steak! Jews count seven of the Noachide laws and see them as binding on all Gentiles. But there are many differing listings and understandings.

Those who quote Leviticus and other texts in support of capital punishment are almost never willing to look at how this criminal code was actually applied in the life of the Jewish people by examining the Talmud. In the Mishnah (the legal part of the Talmud), if ALL the judges in a Sanhedrin vote for the death penalty, then the defendant is NOT executed because the judgement is made that only a very prejudiced court could be so myopic as to have only one opinion! There are other passages which say that a court which passes more than one death sentence in a generation is "murderous". In later Talmudic thought, a person would have to be verbally warned that what they were doing was contrary to Torah and could involve the death penalty before a sentence of death could be passed. If a person was caught in adultery, for example, they could not just be executed, they would have to be told that what they were doing was forbidden by the Torah and had a death penalty attached.

In Islamic societies where Jews are allowed to have their own courts the death penalty is and was almost never used.

Tom Haessler

[Tom Haessler]

The mother who said she'd listen to the pope when she got clemency (from the pain connected with her daughter's death in a terrorist attach by Timothy McVeigh) is to be pitied, indeed. But the purpose of the death penalty is NOT to provide therapy for people who've suffered injustice. And experience shows that those who desire the death of the perpetrator do NOT get "closure" (whatever that would mean). But those who've suffered horrible loses who have come around to the point of forgiving the perpetrator do experience a measure of peace already in this life.

Tom Haessler