What Does the Catholic Church Believe? Pt II - Capital Punishment
Many who take exception to the Catholic Church's clear and comprehensive opposition to abortion challenge pro-life Catholics and Protestants to renounce their (presumed) support for the death penalty. This stems from two powerful drives in response to the Church's moral clarity on abortion---to paint the Church as hypocritical and to change the subject.
What Is the Catholic Church's Teaching on Capital Punishment?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Edition) discusses capital punishment directly, though not in a manner likely to comfort death penalty opponents to the level that her position on abortion nourishes enemies of abortion.
A footnote here references Luke 23:4-43 as scriptural justification for the above:
It is no surprise, then, that the Catholic position on the death penalty would be a nuanced one. After all, the Christian faith was founded when the Roman state put an innocent man to death, and yet Christ's mission was to go to the cross. Without capital punishment, there is no Calvary. Without Good Friday, there is no Easter. Without death, there is no resurrection. The Catholic position on capital punishment, therefore, is complicated.
Death penalty opponents put forth several good arguments against the practice which are consistent with Catholic teaching: the risk of slaying the innocent makes the danger of committing state-ordered murder a very real moral hazard; the finality of the act allows neither for rehabilitation nor for correction of error; giving the state the power of life and death over its subjects corrupts officials; there are alternate means of rendering criminals harmless to society, such as lifelong incarceration. These are all worthy points.
And yet, the Catholic Church is not impervious to the need to seek justice in this world as well as the next, and to protect innocents from those who would harm them. For grave acts, grave punishment is warranted. The trick, then, is to plot the path of the greatest good in meting out this punishment.
A two-millenia-old institution is not as squeamish in its infliction of punishment as modern-day death penalty opponents tend to be. Severe and painful punishments have been sanctioned by the Catholic princes and clergy in the past; practices we would surely deem more cruel and unusual than the hangman's noose, the electric chair, the gas chamber, or the lethal injection table. When such state-ordered punishment has met the proportionality test, it has been supported by the Church as just. When it has not, it has been decried as excessive and unjust.
So as we shall see when we discuss the Catholic Church's position on war in an upcoming post, the Church does not oppose the death penalty in any and all circumstances, as it does with abortion, but holds that it should be a last resort, and prompted not by a desire for vengeance but for an inability to otherwise protect society from an offender's attacks upon it. Moreover, it is implied in the passage above that the death penalty would be warranted (when warranted at all) for murderers and (possibly) traitors; those whose criminal acts imperil the very lives of their neighbors. The punishment must fit the crime.
Summary
The Catholic Church is a bulwark in support of life and human dignity. The destruction of human life by the state is a perilous act but may be a morally just one when the gravity of the crime is great and where alternative methods of protecting society from the offender are not effective, at which point the application of the death penalty would serve the greater good. Unlike the Church's stance on abortion, however, the Church does not condemn all capital punishment, nor do those who engage in the process excommunicate themselves in the commission of the act. The Church draws a distinction between the death penalty and murder, a distinction not present within the Church's teaching on abortion.
There is therefore no equivalence between abortion (the murder of an innocent) and the death penalty (the slaying of the guilty).
That said, the modern state has many means at its disposal to ensure the guilty do not threaten the lives of the innocent again. It should avail itself of these means prior to capital punishment, which should both be reserved for the gravest crimes and used as a last resort.
Implications
One thinks immediately of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein, executed in Iraq a few weeks ago. A case could be made that, given the sectarian violence in the country and the fiercely loyal sentiments of the Tikriti in particular, the only way to guarantee Hussein would not return to power or murder was to execute him. Exile would keep the danger of rescue or negotiated return alive, and would further imperil his jailers, for they would surely be targeted for assassination by his followers, as his judges and prosecutors and jury members were.
As a Catholic, and as a supporter of the death penalty, I have a moral obligation to temper my own relief at the execution of people like Timothy McVeigh or Saddam Hussein. While part of my support is due to the fact that the dead can no longer harm the living, part of it has frankly also been a desire to see the monsters get their due in this world, as in the next. It is surely a sin to indulge vengeance in this fashion. Saddam Hussein was no monster, but an evil, twisted, murderous man. As tempting as it would be to exclude him from the human race, the tragedy is that he was a man, as we all are, and we men are capable of horrible acts indeed. We must be vigilant to ensure that in meting out justice as we see it to such men, we do not replace the monster on the gallows with the monster in the mirror.
What Is the Catholic Church's Teaching on Capital Punishment?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Edition) discusses capital punishment directly, though not in a manner likely to comfort death penalty opponents to the level that her position on abortion nourishes enemies of abortion.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
A footnote here references Luke 23:4-43 as scriptural justification for the above:
4: And Pilate said to the chief priests and the multitudes, "I find no crime in this man."
5: But they were urgent, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place."
6: When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean.
7: And when he learned that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time.
8: When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him.
9: So he questioned him at some length; but he made no answer.
10: The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him.
11: And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him; then, arraying him in gorgeous apparel, he sent him back to Pilate.
12: And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other.
13: Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,
14: and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was perverting the people; and after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him;
15: neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Behold, nothing deserving death has been done by him;
16: I will therefore chastise him and release him."
18: But they all cried out together, "Away with this man, and release to us Barab'bas" --
19: a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city, and for murder.
20: Pilate addressed them once more, desiring to release Jesus;
21: but they shouted out, "Crucify, crucify him!"
22: A third time he said to them, "Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no crime deserving death; I will therefore chastise him and release him."
23: But they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified. And their voices prevailed.
24: So Pilate gave sentence that their demand should be granted.
25: He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, whom they asked for; but Jesus he delivered up to their will.
26: And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyre'ne, who was coming in from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it behind Jesus.
27: And there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented him.
28: But Jesus turning to them said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.
29: For behold, the days are coming when they will say, `Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck!'
30: Then they will begin to say to the mountains, `Fall on us'; and to the hills, `Cover us.'
31: For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?"
32: Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him.
33: And when they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left.
34: And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." And they cast lots to divide his garments.
35: And the people stood by, watching; but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, "He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!"
36: The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him vinegar,
37: and saying, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!"
38: There was also an inscription over him, "This is the King of the Jews."
39: One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
40: But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41: And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong."
42: And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
43: And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
It is no surprise, then, that the Catholic position on the death penalty would be a nuanced one. After all, the Christian faith was founded when the Roman state put an innocent man to death, and yet Christ's mission was to go to the cross. Without capital punishment, there is no Calvary. Without Good Friday, there is no Easter. Without death, there is no resurrection. The Catholic position on capital punishment, therefore, is complicated.
Death penalty opponents put forth several good arguments against the practice which are consistent with Catholic teaching: the risk of slaying the innocent makes the danger of committing state-ordered murder a very real moral hazard; the finality of the act allows neither for rehabilitation nor for correction of error; giving the state the power of life and death over its subjects corrupts officials; there are alternate means of rendering criminals harmless to society, such as lifelong incarceration. These are all worthy points.
And yet, the Catholic Church is not impervious to the need to seek justice in this world as well as the next, and to protect innocents from those who would harm them. For grave acts, grave punishment is warranted. The trick, then, is to plot the path of the greatest good in meting out this punishment.
A two-millenia-old institution is not as squeamish in its infliction of punishment as modern-day death penalty opponents tend to be. Severe and painful punishments have been sanctioned by the Catholic princes and clergy in the past; practices we would surely deem more cruel and unusual than the hangman's noose, the electric chair, the gas chamber, or the lethal injection table. When such state-ordered punishment has met the proportionality test, it has been supported by the Church as just. When it has not, it has been decried as excessive and unjust.
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not preclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm---without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself---the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." (John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, 56.)
So as we shall see when we discuss the Catholic Church's position on war in an upcoming post, the Church does not oppose the death penalty in any and all circumstances, as it does with abortion, but holds that it should be a last resort, and prompted not by a desire for vengeance but for an inability to otherwise protect society from an offender's attacks upon it. Moreover, it is implied in the passage above that the death penalty would be warranted (when warranted at all) for murderers and (possibly) traitors; those whose criminal acts imperil the very lives of their neighbors. The punishment must fit the crime.
Summary
The Catholic Church is a bulwark in support of life and human dignity. The destruction of human life by the state is a perilous act but may be a morally just one when the gravity of the crime is great and where alternative methods of protecting society from the offender are not effective, at which point the application of the death penalty would serve the greater good. Unlike the Church's stance on abortion, however, the Church does not condemn all capital punishment, nor do those who engage in the process excommunicate themselves in the commission of the act. The Church draws a distinction between the death penalty and murder, a distinction not present within the Church's teaching on abortion.
There is therefore no equivalence between abortion (the murder of an innocent) and the death penalty (the slaying of the guilty).
That said, the modern state has many means at its disposal to ensure the guilty do not threaten the lives of the innocent again. It should avail itself of these means prior to capital punishment, which should both be reserved for the gravest crimes and used as a last resort.
Implications
One thinks immediately of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein, executed in Iraq a few weeks ago. A case could be made that, given the sectarian violence in the country and the fiercely loyal sentiments of the Tikriti in particular, the only way to guarantee Hussein would not return to power or murder was to execute him. Exile would keep the danger of rescue or negotiated return alive, and would further imperil his jailers, for they would surely be targeted for assassination by his followers, as his judges and prosecutors and jury members were.
As a Catholic, and as a supporter of the death penalty, I have a moral obligation to temper my own relief at the execution of people like Timothy McVeigh or Saddam Hussein. While part of my support is due to the fact that the dead can no longer harm the living, part of it has frankly also been a desire to see the monsters get their due in this world, as in the next. It is surely a sin to indulge vengeance in this fashion. Saddam Hussein was no monster, but an evil, twisted, murderous man. As tempting as it would be to exclude him from the human race, the tragedy is that he was a man, as we all are, and we men are capable of horrible acts indeed. We must be vigilant to ensure that in meting out justice as we see it to such men, we do not replace the monster on the gallows with the monster in the mirror.
posted by Teflon at 3:16 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I read this book and my views changed on many issues. here is something I wrote about about it: Who And Where Is Dennis Fritz now, You may say after reading John Grisham's Book "The Innocent man", Grisham's First Wonderful non-fiction book. The Other Innocent Man hardly mentioned in "The Innocent Man" has his own compelling and fascinating story to tell in "Journey Toward Justice". John Grisham endorsed Dennis Fritz's Book on the Front Cover. Dennis Fritz wrote his Book Published by Seven Locks Press, to bring awareness about False Convictions, and The Death Penalty. "Journey Toward Justice" is a testimony to the Triumph of the Human Spirit and is a Stunning and Shocking Memoir. Dennis Fritz was wrongfully convicted of murder after a swift trail. The only thing that saved him from the Death Penalty was a lone vote from a juror. "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham is all about Ronnie Williamson, Dennis Fritz's was his co-defendant. Ronnie Williamson was sentenced to the Death Penalty. Both were exonerated after spending 12 years in prison. Both Freed by a simple DNA test, The real killer was one of the Prosecution's Key Witness. John Grisham's "The Innocent Man" tells half the story. Dennis Fritz's Story needs to be heard. Read about how he wrote hundreds of letters and appellate briefs in his own defense and immersed himself in an intense study of law. He was a school teacher and a ordinary man from Ada Oklahoma, whose wife was brutally murdered in 1975. On May 8, 1987 while raising his young daughter alone, he was put under arrest and on his way to jail on charges of rape and murder. Since then, it has been a long hard road filled with twist and turns. Dennis Fritz is now on his "Journey Toward Justice". He never blamed the Lord and solely relied on his faith in God to make it through. He waited for God's time and never gave up.
Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors
by Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
(contact info, below)
October 1997, with subsequent updates thru 5/07
SEE ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT
The new Roman Catholic position on the death penalty, introduced in 1997, is based upon the thoughts of Pope John Paul II, whose position conflicts with reason, as well as biblical, theological and traditional Catholic teachings spanning nearly 2000 years.
Pope John Paul II's death penalty writings in Evangelium Vitae were flawed and their adoption into the Catechism was improper.
In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal Catechism to reflect Pope John Paul II's comments within his 1995 encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). Therein, the Pope finds that the only time executions can be justified is when they are required "to defend society" and that "as a result of steady improvements . . . in the penal system that such cases are very rare if not practically non existent."
This is, simply, not true. Murderers, tragically, harm and murder, again, way too often.
Three issues, inexplicably, escaped the Pope's consideration.
First, in the Pope's context, "to defend society" means that the execution of the murderer must save future lives or, otherwise, prevent future harm.
When looking at the history of criminal justice practices in probations, paroles and incarcerations, we observe countless examples of when judgements and procedures failed and, because of that, murderers harmed and/or murdered, again. History details that murderers murder and otherwise harm again, time and time again -- in prison, after escape, after improper release, and, of course, after we fail to capture or incarcerate them.
Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers.
Therefore, the Pope could err, by calling for a reduction or end to execution, and thus sacrifice more innocents, or he could "err" on the side of protecting more innocents by calling for an expansion of executions.
History, reason and the facts support an increase in executions based upon a defending society foundation.
Secondly, if social science concludes that executions provide enhanced deterrence for murders, then the Pope's position should call for increased executions.
If we decide that the deterrent effect of executions does not exist and we, therefore, choose not to execute, and we are wrong, this will sacrifice more innocent lives and also give those murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again.
If we choose to execute, believing in the deterrent effect, and we are wrong, we are executing our worst human rights violators and preventing such murderers from ever harming or murdering again - again, saving more innocent lives.
No responsible social scientist has or will say that the death penalty deters no one. Quite a few studies, including 10 recent ones, find that executions do deter.
As all prospects for negative consequence deter some, it is a mystery why the Pope chose the option which spares murderers and sacrifices more innocent lives.
If the Pope's defending society position has merit, then, again, the Church must actively support executions, as it offers an enhanced defense of society and greater protection for innocent life.
Thirdly, we know that some criminals don't murder because of their fear of execution. This is known as the individual deterrent effect. Unquestionably, the incapacitation effect (execution) and the individual deterrent effect both exist and they both defend society by protecting innocent life and offer enhanced protections over imprisonment. Furthermore, individual deterrence assures us that general deterrence must exist, because individual deterrence could not exist without it.
Executions save more innocent lives.
Therefore, the Pope's defending society standard should be a call for increasing executions. Instead, the Pope and other Church leadership has chosen a position that spares the lives of known murderers, resulting in more innocents put at risk and more innocents harmed and murdered -- a position which, quite clearly, contradicts the Pope's, and other's, conclusions.
Contrary to the Church's belief, that the Pope's opinion represents a tougher stance against the death penalty, the opposite is true. When properly evaluated, the defending society position supports more executions.
Had these issues been properly assessed, the Catechism would never have been amended -- unless the Church endorses a position knowing that it would spare the lives of guilty murderers, at the cost of sacrificing more innocent victims.
When the choice is between
1) sparing murderers, resulting in more harmed and murdered innocents, who suffer through endless moments of incredible horror, with no additional time to prepare for their salvation, or
2) executing murderers, who are given many years on death row to prepare for their salvation, and saving more innocents from being murdered,
the Pope and the Catholic Church have an obligation to spare the innocent, as Church tradition, the Doctors of the Church and many Saints have concluded. (see reference, below)
Pope John Paul II's death penalty stance was his own, personal prudential judgement and does not bind any other Catholic to share his position. Any Catholic can choose to support more executions, based upon their own prudential judgement, and remain a Catholic in good standing.
Furthermore, prudential judgement requires a foundation of reasoned and thorough review. The Pope either improperly evaluated the risk to innocents or he did not evaluate it at all.
A defending society position supports more executions, not less. Therefore, his prudential judgement was in error on this important fact.
Furthermore, defending society is an outcome of the death penalty, but is secondary to the foundation of justice and biblical instruction.
Even though Romans and additional writings do reveal a "defending society" consideration, such references pale in comparison to the mandate that execution is the proper punishment for murder, regardless of any consideration "to defend society." Both the Noahic covenant, in Genesis 9:6 ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."), and the Mosaic covenant, throughout the Pentateuch (Ex.: "He that smiteth a man so that he may die, shall be surely put to death." Exodus 21:12), provide execution as the punishment for unjustifiable/intentional homicide, otherwise known as murder.
These texts, and others, offer specific rebuttal to the Pope's position that if "bloodless means" for punishment are available then such should be used, to the exclusion of execution. Pope John Paul II's prudential judgement does not trump biblical instruction.
Most telling is the fact that Roman Catholic tradition instructs four elements to be considered with criminal sanction.
1. Defense of society against the criminal.
2. Rehabilitation of the criminal (including spiritual rehabilitation).
3. Retribution, which is the reparation of the disorder caused by the criminal's transgression.
4. Deterrence
It is a mystery why and how the Pope could have excluded three of these important elements and wrongly evaluated the fourth. In doing so, though, we can confirm that his review was incomplete and improper.
At least two Saints, Paul and Dismas, faced execution and stated that it was appropriate. They were both executed.
The Holy Ghost decided that death was the proper punishment for two devoted, early Christians, Ananias and his wife, Saphira, for the crime/sin of lying. Neither was given a moment to consider their earthly punishment or to ask for forgiveness. The Holy Ghost struck them dead.
For those who erroneously contend that Jesus abandoned the Law of the Hebrew Testament, He states that He has come not "to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17-22. While there is honest debate regarding the interpretation of Mosaic Law within a Christian context, there seems little dispute that the Noahic Covenant is still in effect and that Genesis 9:6 deals directly with the sanctity of life issue in its support of execution.
(read "A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World" by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).
"In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). (Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000)
Saint Pius V reaffirms this mandate, in the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), stating that executions are acts of "paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment." ("Thou shalt not murder," sometimes improperly translated as "kill" instead of "murder"). And, not only do the teachings of Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine concur, but both saints also find that such punishment actually reflects charity and mercy by preventing the wrongdoer from sinning further. The Saints position is that execution offers undeniable defense of society as well as defense of the wrongdoer.
Such prevention also expresses the fact that execution is an enhanced defense of society, over and above all other punishments.
The relevant question is "What biblical and theological teachings, developed from 1566 through 1997, provide that the standard for executions should evolve from 'paramount obedience' to God's eternal law to a civil standard reflecting 'steady improvements' . . . in the penal system?". Such teachings hadn't changed. The Pope's position is social and contrary to biblical, theological and traditional teachings.
If Saint Pius V was correct, that executions represent "paramount obedience to the [Fifth] Commandments, then is it not disobedient to reduce or stop executions?
The Church's position on the use of the death penalty has been consistent from 300 AD through 1995 AD. The Church has always supported the use of executions, based upon biblical and theological principles.
Until 1995, says John Grabowski, associate professor of Moral Theology at Catholic University, " . . . Church teachings were supportive of the death penalty. You can find example after example of Pope's, of theologians and others, who have supported the right of the state to inflict capital punishment for certain crimes and certain cases." Grabowski continues: "What he (the Pope now) says, in fact, in his encyclical, is that given the fact that we now have the ability, you know, technology and facilities to lock up someone up for the rest of their lives so they pose no future threat to society -- given that question has been answered or removed, there is no longer justification for the death penalty." (All Things Considered, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, 9/9/97.)
The Pope's position is now based upon the state of the corrections system -- a position neither biblical nor theological in nature. Furthermore, it is a position which conflicts with the history of prisons. Long term incarceration of lawbreakers in Europe began in the 1500s. Of course, long term incarceration of slaves had begun thousands of years before -- meaning that all were aware that criminal wrongdoers could also be subject to bondage, if necessary - something that all historians and biblical scholars -- now and then -- were and are well aware of.
Since it's inception, the Church has issued numerous pronouncements, encyclicals and previous Universal Catechisms. Had any biblical or theological principle called for a replacement of the death penalty by life imprisonment, it would have been revealed long before 1995.
There is, finally, a disturbing reality regarding the Pope's new standard. The Pope's defending society standard requires that the moral concept of justice becomes irrelevant. The Pope's standard finds that capital punishment can be used only as a vehicle to prevent future crimes. Therefore, using the Pope's standard, the moral/biblical rational -- that capital punishment is the just or required punishment for murder -- is no longer relevant to the sin/crime of murder.
If defending society is the new standard, the Pope has decided that the biblical standards of atonement, expiation, justice and required punishments have all, necessarily, been discarded, with regard to execution.
The Pope's new position establishes that capital punishment no longer has any connection to the harm done or to the imbalance to be addressed. Yet, such connection had always been, until now, the Church's historical, biblically based perspective on this sanction. Under a defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to their punishment. Executions can be justified solely upon that punishments ability to prevent future harm by the murderer.
Therefore, when considering executions in regard to capital murder cases, a defending society standard renders justice irrelevant. Yet, execution defends society to a degree unapproachable by any other punishment and, therefore, should have been fully supported by the Pope.
"Some enlightened people would like to banish all conception of retribution or desert from our theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by doing so they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it?" (quote attributed to the distinguished Christian writer C. S. Lewis)
Again, with regard to the Pope's prudential judgement, his neglect of justice was most imprudent.
Some Catholic scholars, properly, have questioned the appropriateness of including prudential judgement within a Catechism. Personal opinion does not belong within a Catechism and, likely, will never be allowed, again. I do not believe it had ever been allowed before.
In fact, neither the Church nor the Pope would accept a defending society standard for use of the death penalty, unless the Church and the Pope believed that such punishment was just and deserved, as well. The Church has never questioned the authority of the government to execute in "cases of extreme gravity," nor does it do so with these recent changes.
Certainly, the Church and the Pope John Paul II believe that the prevention of any and all violent crimes fulfills a defending society position. There is no doubt that executions defend society at a level higher than incarceration. Why has the Pope and many within Church leadership chosen a path that spares murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives, when they could have chosen a stronger defense of society which spares more innocents?
Properly, the Pope did not challenge the Catholic biblical and theological support for capital punishment. The Pope has voiced his own, personal belief as to the appropriate application of that penalty.
So why has the Pope come out against executions, when his own position -- a defense of society -- which, both rationally and factually, has a foundation supportive of more executions?
It is unfortunate that the Pope, along with some other leaders in the Church, have decided to, improperly, use a defending society position to speak against the death penalty.
The Pope's position against the death penalty condemns more innocents and neglects justice.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
These references provide a thorough rebuke of the current Roman Catholic Church teachings against the death penalty and, particularly, deconstruct the many improper pronouncements made by the US Bishops.
(1)"The Death Penalty", Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio,
in a blog (replace dot) domid.blogspot(DOT)com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
titled "Amerio on capital punishment "Friday, May 25, 2007
NOTE: Thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment by a faithful Catholic Vatican insider.
(2) "Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty", at
homicidesurvivors(DOT)com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx
(3) "Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective" at
www(DOT)sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/capital_punishment.htm
(4) "The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)", by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 2003
www(dot)st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4
(5) "MOST CATHOLICS OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?", KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers, March 2, 2004
www(dot)catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
(6) "THOUGHTS ON THE BISHOPS' MEETING: NOWADAYS, VOTERS IGNORE BISHOPS" , KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER, Catholic Answers,, Nov. 22, 2005
www(dot)catholic.com/newsletters/kke_051122.asp
(7) Forgotten Truths: "Is The Church Against Abortion and The Death Penalty", by Luiz Sergio Solimeo, Crusade Magazine, p14-16, May/June 2007
www(dot)tfp.org/crusade/crusade_mag_vol_87.pdf
(8) "God’s Justice and Ours" by Antonin Scalia, First Things, 5/2002
www(dot)firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2022
(9) "The Death Penalty", by Solange Strong Hertz at
ourworld(DOT)compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/death2.htm
(10) "Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says", Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987. The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.
copyright 1997-2007 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharp(at)aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.
Post a Comment
<< Home