One can be a good Catholic and support the death penalty
While I oppose the death penalty, there is nothing in the teachings of the Catholic Church that requires me to do so.
So, Catholics and Non-Catholics alike, please stop attempting to equate the death penalty with abortion, euthanasia, birth control, embryonic stem cell research, and the like; because that dog ain’t gonna hunt.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Thank you Steve for the link. I had thought, that while it was not dogma, that the church disappoved of the the death penalty. That may just be my local priest and my reading of church actions, but will be looking into it over the weekend.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:17 pm
very brief research turned this up.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Mark L, from that very document:
In these pastoral reflections,
we do not offer new teaching or doctrine but rather
hope to help Catholics better understand and apply
this teaching in our own time and situation.
This accurately reflects the tone of the document as a whole. Like Feddie, I tend to agree with their conclusions, though I think they do a disservice to the doctrine they admit to not touching in failing to engage it in any serious way. Frankly, I this is one major reason that politically conservative, orthodox, intellectual Catholics have written off the USSCB’s opinion on the matter. (Note that every modifier on “Catholic” is important there.)
I much prefer a more philosophical approach that takes the old tradition seriously, like that of Avery Cardinal Dulles. He speaks directly to the philosophical and moral-theological deficiencies of approaches like the USSCB’s (which I like to call, “Let’s all hug and not kill people”) (when I’m feeling a little snarkier, I might add an “mmmKay?”).
March 31st, 2006 at 3:22 pm
The Church has, historically, shown deference to the state’s prerogative to enforce the death penalty. JPII’s belief that capital punishment was categorically immoral, except in some bizarre circumstance which was inconcievable to mortal reason, was entirely his own. It was not a reflection of church tradition or teaching.
I’m not an anti-death-penalty absolutist, and I don’t think Church teaching forces us to that conclusion. But it’s definitely an area where people of good will and well-formed Catholic conscience can disagree. Using it as a stick to batter conservative Catholics just unveils the ignorance of the person doing the battering.
March 31st, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Once again, it all comes down to whether you believe the Catholic Catechism is a cafeteria-style menu from which you can pick and choose.
While the Catechism does leave an exception for extremely rare cases where execution is absolutely necessary to protect the innocent from harm, it is clear that US-style capital punishment is out of the question.
If you believe (as the Church does) that the Catechism must be accepted in its entirety, then your position is untenable.
March 31st, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Sage:
JPII’s belief that capital punishment was categorically immoral, except in some bizarre circumstance which was inconcievable to mortal reason, was entirely his own. It was not a reflection of church tradition or teaching.
Whoops! There goes Papal infallibility…
March 31st, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Oh, and Sage, maybe you should re-read the Catholic Catechism. Specifically, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, Subsection I, part 2267. It’s not just the Pope’s opinion, but part of the official Catechism of the Church, which, according to the prologue, is “an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety” which “should be seen as a unified whole.” Not, as some would seemingly have you believe, a pick-and-choose menu of beliefs and values.
March 31st, 2006 at 4:31 pm
tgirsch-
Wrong. The Catechism is only binding to the extent the underlying pronouncements that make it up are binding. I really fail to see why you are unable to grasp this simple fact.
March 31st, 2006 at 4:41 pm
You gota be kidding me. One opinion that goes agaisnt the entire gist of Catholic opinion — including the Catechism and the last Pope — and thats your justification? And his argument is nothing more than “Oh, we USED to allow it!”, as if the Church is some object set in stone for all time, as if God did not give us the capacity to use our wisdom to grow and learn and realize that we were mistaken in the past. The whole argument is a rejection of the very gift of brains and empathy and the capcity for growth as individuals and as people that God blessed us with.
I guess the Bishops spend so much time opposing the death penalty is becasue italisn TV sucks and they need something to don on their Friday nights.
March 31st, 2006 at 4:56 pm
tgirsch-
Do you actually believe that what I said has any relevance whatsoever to papal infallibility? If you do, then you have no idea what papal infallibility actually is, and you certainly have no business insructing me about what constitutes dogma and what doesn’t. The teaching Magesterium encompasses more than the pronouncements of a single recent pope, and it is a plain fact that JPII’s theology on this matter is something of a departure from centuries of common Catholic belief and practice. Every word the man wrote cannot be taken to be infallible, and it must be judged according to the extent to which it is in keeping with the recieved teaching and traditions of the Church–the judgment doesn’t flow in the other direction.
That doesn’t mean that his understanding is mistaken, at least not necessarily. But it does mean that Catholics in perfectly good standing are free to disagree with him (I am confident more than one doctor of the Church would find it subject to serious revision).
Finally, there’s no sense castigating me as some sort of cafeteria Catholic–the fact that most bishops today happen to oppose the death penalty means less to me than the fact that most of them throughout history have not. We shall have to see whether I am right or wrong, but it is simply false that I am a heretic or “dissenter” for holding the same belief that most any Catholic has ever held, namely, that capital punishment is not categorically immoral.
March 31st, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Umm, so if the Catechism isn’t the authoritative description of the Catholic faith, then what is?
I’m beginning to wonder if maybe you’re one of those “Mel Gibson Cathloics” (which is to say “not Catholic”).
Sage:
Nobody here is arguing that capital punishment is categorically immoral. It’s clearly both moral and allowable to the extent that it’s absolutely necessary to protect the lives of the innocent. The sanctity of life applies to all human life, including criminals.
As to Papal Infallibility, I was wrong on that count; I thought that JPII was speaking ex cathedra when he made that pronouncement, and he was not. Still, an encyclical carries a tremendous amount of weight, and the classification of the death penalty I described is now part of the Church’s Catechism (which, according to Steve, is in no way shape or form to be confused with Church doctrine… It’s really something they publish because they were bored, and to confuse those of us not as able to read between the lines as he is).
March 31st, 2006 at 5:16 pm
I understand that papal infalibility does not apply to everything the pope says or does, but only to certain pronouncements that are clearly marked to be covered by infalibity.
As a non-Catholic, I bought a copy of the Catechism out of curiosity. And I knew, regardless of what the cover said, the Catechism did not cover *every* doctrine of the Catholic church. It probably covers nearly all the doctrines, but I’m sure an industrious student could find something that didn’t make it in. The Catholic church does have 2000 years of tradition and teaching to go by, after all. I can’t see how that would fit in a single book.
March 31st, 2006 at 5:28 pm
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not… with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
(now Pope Benedict XVI)
2004 Letter to US Bishops
For the record, though, I oppose the death penalty in our current state.
March 31st, 2006 at 5:47 pm
tgirsch-
You are awful close to being banned. You are flatly misrepresenting what I said, and I am certainly not going to sit back and have someone who holds the policy positions that you hold attempt to question my dedication to the Catholic faith or binding teaching. In short, sir, you have no idea what you’re talking about, so I’d shut my mouth were I you.
My point is simple. The Catechism is a compilation of many Church pronouncements, some of which are binding and some of which must be accorded great respect but are not binding.
I have personally come to the conclusion that PJPII was right about the death penalty, but that doesn’t make me more Catholic than Justice Scalia, who does not share my view.
March 31st, 2006 at 7:00 pm
One of the main reasons I do not support the death penalty is because is selectively applied. For instance, can someone tell me why the BTK killer can kill 10 people over a 30 year period and just get life in prison? While Karla Faye Tucker can clearly change her life by becoming Christian and still be executed. Also, why can Aldrich Aimes, John Walker et. al. engage in espionage which endangers this wonderful country of ours and just get life in prison? Finally, how can the Menendez brothers get life for murdering their parents and forcing us to watch their trial turn into an ephisode of the Oprah show? With these desparities I can not not support the death penalty. That and I do not think it deters anyone.
March 31st, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Excellent points, Jon C. I’m a real hawk on law & order issues, but to be perfectly honest, a puddle would form at my feet were I actually a juror in a capital murder trial.
March 31st, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Mr Dillard: “My point is simple. The Catechism is a compilation of many Church pronouncements, some of which are binding and some of which must be accorded great respect but are not binding.”
I think it needs to be clarified what “binding” and “must be accorded great respect” mean, to proceed with any discussion of these matters. Those who say they are faithful sons and daughters of the Church and yet oppose e.g. Humanae Vitae claim to make just that distinction, or, at least, some of them used to.
When the Catechism avers that “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent’”–precisely so as to leave the convicted person the opportunity to repent–it seems to me that those who favor the use of the death penalty need to do much more to make their case than to claim that there is “n o t h i n g in the teachings of the Catholic Church that requires” its non-use.
March 31st, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Steve — your first paragraph was on Catholic teachings, but the second was on the analogy. From a purely logical (leaving the religion discussion) position, I certainly can understand the critique of pro-death penalty anti-abortion position. While they are not equal in my mind, it does seem to lessen the committment to a culture of life (part of the reason why I have become anti-death penalty). Thoughts or reaction?
March 31st, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Jonathan,
I was going to hold back on this post but you brought up a point that I wanted to comment on. I work on a capital murder trial team and just today started jury selection for a death penalty trial to begin in June. JohnInMontgomery, of the 700 plus potential jurors that came down today, thankfully, none soiled themselves or our carpet. My D.A. does not seek the death penalty in every capital murder case. We do, in your words, selectively apply it. In our community, it is reserved for the badest of the bad and starts with a solid case in the guilt phase. There are a number of factors that support our decision to seek death but there are two very important ones…. the defendant’s history of violence and the future dangerousness of the defendant. Remember, these people are still a danger to guards and inmates in an institutional setting. Because some in the system receive mercy and others don’t, is not (in my opinion) a reason to toss the death penalty. Each case has its own unique characteristics and we analyze each accordingly. Deterence is not part of our analysis…it is simply a condition that exists that influences some not to misbehave. I do understand the struggle some folks have with selective application but a certain amount of latitude is required. I could go on and on about that but I’ll leave it there.
As a protestant I have thought through the theological issues and I sleep fine. The prosecutor that I work with is a devout Catholic and has, likewise, found our mission compatible with our faith. As for Steve’s post, we seem to be on the same page.
March 31st, 2006 at 10:30 pm
JPII’s belief that capital punishment was categorically immoral
But JPII didn’t believe that and it’s very rude to put words in his mouth or thoughts in his mind.
April 1st, 2006 at 2:10 am
Steve:
You are awful close to being banned.
Oh, the horror! I’m sorry that someone who unashamedly supports policies (war) that result in unnecessary innocent deaths unashamedly calls an entire party and its supporters “the Party of Death” can’t himself bear the thought that someone might somehow misrepresent his positions or paint his motives in a negative light. What’s that you’ve got in your eye, there?
Then again, given my strong preference for people who would rather engage in honest debate than empty, inflammatory rhetoric, I might save you the trouble and simply ban myself.
You are flatly misrepresenting what I said
Not quite. I followed what you said through to its conclusion. Your position implies that the Catholic Catechism is not authoritative (at least not completely), open to debate (at least in parts), and not a “unified whole” (as the Catechism itself says it is). You’ve basically argued that you can be a Catholic in good standing while openly opposing the Church on official Church doctrine, at least in some areas.
The only alternative you have is to argue that the Church has no official position on capital punishment, which is hard to square with the Catechism. Or, even more mystifyingly, that the Catechism is not the offical doctrine of the Church, which would seem to contradict the Catechism itself.
To my mind, at least, support for capital punishment is in direct conflict with the Church’s official position on the sanctity of life.
The Catechism is a compilation of many Church pronouncements, some of which are binding and some of which must be accorded great respect but are not binding.
Which I might actually buy, if you could show me where in the Catechism it actually says that. Or if you could show me a bulletproof method by which one could tell which is which.
Setting Catholicism aside for a moment, I don’t even think it’s possible to support the death penalty (at least not as implemented in the US) and be a good Christian, considering Matt 7, John 8 (which is more profound than many people give it credit for), and the fact that the New Testament never (to my knowledge) condones or endorses execution.
April 1st, 2006 at 6:27 am
“Although Cardinal Bernardin advocated what he called a “consistent ethic of life,” he made it clear that capital punishment should not be equated with the crimes of abortion, euthanasia, and suicide. Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed in Evangelium Vitae (1995) that “the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.” But he wisely included in that statement the word “innocent.” He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty.”
Concerning the US Bishops statement on the death penalty:
“The statement was adopted by a vote of 145 to 31, with 41 bishops abstaining, the highest number of abstentions ever recorded. In addition, a number of bishops were absent from the meeting or did not officially abstain. Thus the statement did not receive the two–thirds majority of the entire membership then required for approval of official statements. But no bishop rose to make the point of order.”
All quotes from:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html
April 1st, 2006 at 6:34 am
Romans 13 can certainly be read to allow for the death penalty.
Jesus also mentions it in the beginning of Matthew 15, appealing to its place in the Jewish law in an argument he is having with the Pharisees. Given how completely licit the death penalty was in the Jewish tradition (and in the Christian tradition until recently), it seems odd that Jesus quotes it seemingly with approval, and certainly without any hint of condemnation.
This isn’t to say there isn’t a strong argument against the death penatly on philosphical grounds. Robby George and Germain Grisez were against it even before JPII’s encyclical. But I think it is a sign of fair-mindedness to acknowledge that the more recent doctrine is in tension with the tradition, and the scriptural case, if anything, leans the other way
John 8, and Matthew 26:52 can be read to support the abolitionist position if one assumes that Jesus’ actions are accompanied by the unspoken corralary, “Oh, and you should know that by these actions I’m setting down a new teaching and rule for all time and places, for governments as well as individuals, because the death penalty is unjust.” Given how accepted the practice was in Jewish culture and law, the burden is on the abolition side to explain how Jesus’ silence on explicitly overturning the law supports abolition rather than individual cases of mercy (especially given Matthew 15). I have a hard time understanding how those who interpret Jesus as an abolitionist on the death penalty through these verses keep any property given how they should also read the account of the young ruler in Matthew 19.
Matthew 7 if interpreted that way dissolves far more than the death penalty. People love to quote Matthew 7 as if Jesus doesn’t go on to say that the reason we take the log out of our own eye is to be able to see clearly in order to take the speck out of our brother’s, and concludes that we ought not throw our pearls before pigs.
Might I ask how we know who the pigs are without judgment? Quoted less is John 7:24, “Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment.” The “do not judge” meme read in isolation is a thin reed to rely on.
April 1st, 2006 at 6:56 am
tgirsch-
Repeating the same lie over and over again won’t make it true. The bottom line is that the Catholic Church does not require its members to oppose the death penalty.
Now, I agree with you that the death penalty should be abolished for the reasons you cite, as well as others. But the Church doesn’t require me to hold this belief. And even the Catechism makes this clear. Just compare the section on the death penalty with the one on abortion. The Church knows how to be unequivocal on an issue, and the language used with respect to the death penalty makes clear that it is not an issue on which Catholics must all agree.
That having been said, I do not think that a Catholic can be bloodthirsty about the death penalty. And that’s a problem many supporters of the DP have (in my experience). When you listen to some of them discuss the DP, it becomes clear that they’re really not interested in justice, but vengence.
So, I certainly think there’s room to criticize some pro-DP Catholics, but it varies from case-to-case.
April 1st, 2006 at 9:48 am
Christians embracing orthodoxy can differ on the DP and argue about it ’til the cows come home. However, the Scripture and my conscience have been sufficient to guide me on this issue. I offer up some thoughts from the Christian Research Institute on capital punishment…
“As J. Daryl Charles, former Scholar-in-Residence at the Wilberforce Forum of Prison Fellowship in Washington D.C. aptly put it:
To suggest that the ultimate human crime should not be met with the ultimate punishment at the hands of the civil authorities is not compassion as some would have it; rather it is moral prostitution of the highest order. If a person cannot be made to answer for a capital crime, then everything in the world is arbitrary and nothing is certain.
In other words, when mercy overshadows morality the consequences are massive. A culture unwilling to uphold the death penalty for someone [Karla Faye Tucker] who has confessed to murdering two people in cold blood is a culture that is willing to compromise the sanctity of human life. Charles also points out that while capital punishment is scandalous to the secular mind, it is central to the biblical mindset.”
Another short piece at…
http://www.equip.org/free/CP1303.htm
April 1st, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Steve:
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the importance of the Catechism, then. About the only thing the Catechism “makes clear” is that abortion is a more egregious crime than other kinds of killing, not that you needn’t agree with the Catechism on those other kinds (specifically capital punishment).
Then again, there are different sorts of Catholics, and maybe the Church I grew up in was (ironically) more conservative than yours. I learned that the Catholic faith was to be accepted as a whole or you couldn’t rightly consider yourself Catholic (a big part of why I no longer do).
Defensor:
I don’t think Matthew 15 means what you think it means. Jesus neither condemns nor condones the death penalty; he uses that as an example to illustrate the hypocrisy of his accusers.
As to John 8, if Jesus weren’t trying to teach a lesson, he could have given the “correct” answer: the commandment prohibits murder; there’s nothing in Jewish Law to prohibit execution.
On Matt 7, you’ve almost got it right, and in fact you even state it correctly, but miss the important lesson: you remove the plank from your own eye so that you can help remove the speck from your neighbor’s — in other words, to show him the correct way and rehabilitate him — not so that you may then judge your neighbor for the speck (i.e., punish him).
That’s part of the beauty of Matt 7, and a big part of what the Catholic tradition embraces — every effort must be made to reform, to rehabilitate, and it’s never to late to repent. The death penalty makes all of this impossible.
April 1st, 2006 at 12:38 pm
“…every effort must be made to reform, to rehabilitate, and it’s never to late to repent. The death penalty makes all of this impossible.”
Believe me, as long as the appellate process takes in DP cases….they have plenty of time to repent.
April 1st, 2006 at 12:40 pm
tgirsch-
i am not saying that one can ignore, disregard, or fail to take seriously any section of the Catechism. my point is simply that the Catechism doesn’t represent the fullness of the Church’s teaching on the DP.
April 1st, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Proximo–But if its centrality to the Biblical mindset motivates you, then you must support the death penalty for a lot more besides 1st degree murder, no?
April 1st, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Jay,
There are perhaps other hideous crimes beside capital murder worthy of a death sentence. Indeed, in our history the State has sanctioned the DP for other serious offenses. There is a current proposal to apply the DP in cases involving repeat child sex offenders… to wit: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1767640&page=1
I am not an expert on crimes against children but the criminal justice folks that are tell me that these offenders just can’t be fixed. Many think the DP would be appropriate. But, Jay, I think the current reality is this…. the resolve to apply the DP for any offense is gradually eroding regardless of how I would like to see it applied. See stats at… http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/dr.htm
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Steve:
my point is simply that the Catechism doesn’t represent the fullness of the Church’s teaching on the DP.
But what the Catechism does say about it is quite clear. I expect the other teachings to augment the Catechism, not to contradict it.
Also, I think you’re misrepresenting the debate a bit in saying that opponents are trying to “equate” abortion with capital punishment. It’s clear that the Church considers the former to be a much more egregious injustice than the latter, but that doesn’t make it okay to disagree with the church on the latter.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:25 pm
I guess my question, then, is if the Catechism isn’t the place to look for the Church’s official position on the DP, then where is the definitive place to look?
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:30 pm
tgirsch-
I agree that the Catechism is clear as to what it says about that DP, and I accept it.
Where we disagree, I believe, is in how we view the Catechism. I view it as a summary of the Church’s teachings. You (seem) to view it as the fullness of the Church’s teaching.
My understanding, from speaking with several Catholic theologians, is that the provisions of the Catechism are only binding to the extent the underlying pronouncements are binding.
I tell you what though. I am going to email to of my favorite Catholic bloggers, both of whom are experts, and ask them to address this question directly. I’ll post it and email you the link.
Do I have your email?
April 4th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
You should; I use it on every comment here.
The problem I have with what you’re saying is that if it’s true, then the Catechism isn’t just a summary of the Church’s teaching, but it’s a misleading summary — because the Catechism says one thing about the DP that (if you are correct) contradicts the “underlying pronouncements.”
Again, yet another reason why I’m not a Catholic (even if I still prefer Catholicism to most forms of Protestantism…).