Posted on 02/16/2007 5:31:24 AM PST by Pyro7480
It is not a rare thing for Catholic prelates to assert definitively that the Church opposes capital punishment. Some even liken the death of a defenseless aborted baby to that of a criminal duly judged by a competent court and condemned for a grave violation of the moral or juridical order. Such churchmen conclude that Catholics are obliged to reject not only abortion but the death penalty as well.1
Cardinal Ratzinger’s Letter to the American Bishops To the contrary, although it is very restrictive in the application of the death penalty today, the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes that “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.”2 In a letter to the American Bishops on denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, made it clear that the death penalty is legitimate and cannot be placed on the same footing as abortion or euthanasia. He said:
The Teachings of Pope Pius XII “God ... the fountain of justice reserved to himself the right over life and death. … Human life is untouchable except for legitimate individual self-defense, a just war carried out with just methods, and the death penalty meted out by public authority for extremely grave and very specific and proven crimes” 4 (emphasis ours). In another speech, the same Holy Father clarifies: “Even when executing a condemned individual, the State does not have a right over the person’s life. The public authority is empowered to deprive a condemned man of his life to expiate his fault since by his own crime he divested himself from his right to life.” 5
Both Old and New Testament Accept Death Penalty
The Constant Magisterium of the Church “The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases.” 7 The profession of faith that Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) demanded from Waldensian heretics who denied the legitimacy of the death penalty, for example, contains this statement: “Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly.” 8
Distinction between the Law and its Application In this article we limit ourselves to the realm of principle, since what we have in mind is to emphasize the philosophical and theological implications that result from an erroneous conception of penal justice.
Confusion about Punitive Justice… Yet, though punitive justice does have this twofold finality, it is not limited to these ends. Its most profound reason for being is the need for the guilty one to expiate for the crime committed and thus restore the juridical order undermined by his crime. 10
... Making it Difficult to Understand Divine Justice
Crime Violates the Juridical Order
Modern Penal Theories Incomplete
Yet, from another point of view, and indeed a higher one, one may ask if the modern conception is fully adequate to explain punishment. The protection of the community against crimes and criminals must be ensured, but the final purpose of punishment must be sought on a higher plane.
The Essence of Punishment: to Proclaim the Supremacy of Good over Evil
Need for Expiation, Protection of the Juridical Order
Without Expiation, There is No Understanding of Divine Justice
Is The Death Penalty Contrary to Human Dignity? Furthermore, the argument of human dignity is not germane to the issue, because the object of justice is not human dignity, whether ontological or moral, but rather the voluntary acts of man in his relationships with others.13 No one is condemned to a just punishment because of dignity or the lack thereof, but rather for concrete actions practiced against the common good.
Avoiding Doctrinal Ambiguity Abandoning the principle of the legitimacy of the death penalty and its conformity with natural law and Revelation paves the way to accepting principles condemned by the same natural and divine law: the use of condoms, justification of homosexual practices, euthanasia, and so on. In this regard, Cardinal Dulles warns:
__________________ 1. For instance Bishop Blase J. Cupich, Rapid City, S.D says: “I believe the assertion that every human life has an inherent and inalienable value will only be strengthened if we apply this principle to the morality of defending both convicted criminals and the lives of the unborn.” (“How Unconditional Is the Right to Life?” America, Jan. 29, 2007, p. 15). Cf. John L Allen Jr, "Church opposition to execution 'practically' absolute," Jan. 5, 2007 - Vol. 6, No. 18, http://ncrcafe.org/node/800/print.; "Vatican spokesman denounces Saddam's execution as 'tragic'," http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-12-30-vatican-saddam_x.htm. 2. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, SubSection 1, Heading 2. 3. http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7055&eng=y 5. I limite morali dei metodi medici di indagine e di cura , —Ai participanti del Congresso Internazionale in Istopatologia del sistema nervoso—, Discorsi e Radiomessaggi di Sua Santità Pio XII, vol. XV, Tipografia Poliglota Vaticana, p. 328.
6. Avery Cardinal Dulles, "Catholicism and Capital Punishment," First Things, Apr. 200, pp.30-35). Cf. Marcellino Zalba, S.I., Theologiae Moralis Summa, (Madrid: BAC, 1957) vol. II, nn. 173-176. Aertnys-Damen C.SS.R, Theologia Moralis, (Turin:Marietti, 1950, I, n. 569); Antonio Peinador Navarro, C.M.F, Tratado de Moral Professional (Madrid:BAC, 1962) n. 169.
10. “To correct the delinquent is the secondary end of public punishments; the primary end is the common good of society.” Victor Cathrein, S.J, Philosophia Moralis, (Barcelona: Editorial Herder 1945) n. 735, obj. 3, Rep.)
11. Cf. Discorsi e Radiomessagi di Sua Santità Pio XII, Tipografia Poliglota Vatican, vol. XV, pp. 335-359; Vincent A. Yzermans, Ed., The Major Addresses of Pope Pius XII, (St. Paul:' The North Central Publishing Company, 1961) pp. 224-257. We use Yzermans’ translations. 12. “Can even the monstrous crimes of those who are condemned to death and are truly guilty of such crimes erase their sacred dignity as human beings and their intrinsic right to life? ... [E]very member of human community shares a dignity that is not cancelled by defects of health or age or moral quality.” (Bishop Blase Cupich, "How Unconditional is the Right of Life," Ibid. p. 15). 13. “[T]he proper matter of justice consists of those things that belong to our intercourse with other men .... Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, ‘Rendering to each one his right’.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 58, a. 1). |
Arguments from the progress of ethical consciousness have been used to promote a number of alleged human rights that the Catholic Church consistently rejects in the name of Scripture and tradition. The magisterium appeals to these authorities as grounds for repudiating divorce, abortion, homosexual relations, and the ordination of women to the priesthood. If the Church feels herself bound by Scripture and tradition in these other areas, it seems inconsistent for Catholics to proclaim a moral revolution on the issue of capital punishment.
Catholic ping!
This is an excellent summary of the moral and theological reasons to retain the death penalty.
Our parish Faith Formation has been doing six weeks on Catholic social justice for the adults. Every week the pastor puts one of the Q & A's in the bulletin. No surprise, taking a life in self defense and the use of the death penalty are still just actions according to the Church.
He even gives the Catechism references. Yay!
Good article. Thanks.
BTTT
Thank you so much for the flag.
(I admit that I only skimmed, but I am definitely book marking this.)
This topic has given me some concern in recent years. I grew up with the Batltimor catechism, and I distinctly recall being taught that capital punishment and just wars were not against God's law. Lo and behold, about 6-7 years ago I started hearing pronouncements to the contrary, usually in the form of the media quoting various RC authorities.
About 5 years ago, I attended a retreat sponsored by the school where I taught at the time. During the talk given by a sister, who, I soon concluded, was very leftist, I felt compelled to interrupt her lecture to challenge something that she has said.
Interrrupting a talk was just not done at these sessions. Usually there was a discussion period following the talk, directed by the speaker -- you know, the "break into groups and talk about X" -- but one did not interrupt the speaker while he or she was trying to lay out the main theme.
And I am one who does not like to break the rules, but I felt I could not let it stand when she said that it was never acceptable to take a life, that it was always sinful. So, with my heart pounding, I raised my hand to ask for qualifiers. According to her, even self-defense was not acceptable, even self-defense that merely injured the attacker. I brought up the idea of using violence to protect others including one's own children, but her answer was still no. Exasperated, I gave her the hypothetical of someone secretly sheltering a group of Jews during the Holocaust. No, she told me, I would not be justified in shooting the Nazi soldier to keep him from getting to the innocents. When I told her that I would shoot that soldier she said, "Then you would not be following the Gospel."
I cannot tell you how traumatic that was for me. (Funny, I am tearing up a little even now as I relate this.) For the rest of the day, I was anxious, and I had trouble sleeping that night. But I prayed about it the next day, and I spoke with a sister affiliated with our school, who told me that I was not in sin to believe as I do.
BTW, during my duel with the sister, the room was hushed -- most unsusual for a roomful of teachers. No one joined in even though there were about 40 teachers and staff members present. Yet later I had about 4 or 5 people say to me that they agreed with me!
I am sorry that this post is so long, but it triggered this memory, a memory that got me to wondering about how many people have been influenced by false teachers like this one.
i beleive the orthodox as a general rule oppose the death penalty.
I have been reading Churchill's excellent "History of the English Speaking Peoples" about how ruthless men in power were in Europe. Persons who purported themselves to be faithful followers of the Lord (Catholic and Protestant alike) had no qualms whatsoever against framing their opponents and sending them to the block. Some were executed simply because they of who their parents were (Lady Jane Grey's family tried to make her Queen at age 16 simply to preserve their own prominence. The bid failed and she lost her head as a result.) I can see how this sickening abuse of capital punishment (which only got worse with the Reign of Terror, Holocaust and Great Purges)has driven Europeans to reject the institution altogether.
In America, capital punishment has always been a punishment for serious crimes. It has never been used as a means of ridding political opponents. Nothing demonstrates this more than the fact that none of the Confederate leaders were sent to the gallows.
When Europeans think of the death penalty, they think of Henry VIII or Robespierre. When American think of the death penalty, they think of Ted Bundy or Danny Rolling. And I believe therein lies the trans-Atlantic disconnect.
"i beleive the orthodox as a general rule oppose the death penalty."
Yup; we don't even have a "Just War Theory".
bookmark
Thank you. I am taking an ethics class, Moral Choices, where I seem to be one of a very few practicing Catholics. This article will be of great help in explaining the Catholic position on the death penalty.
Mrs VS
And yet the Catholic campaign against the death penalty continues. I disagree with the part in the Catechism that says that the death penalty is no longer acceptable because society now has "alternatives" that render it un-necessary.
But I have yet to see any of the anti-death-penalty types lay out exactly what those "alternatives" are, and how they are as effective as death. "Life imprisonment without parole" just doesn't hack it.
(1) You make it very cost-effective to eliminate witnesses.
(2) You put prison guards and other personnel (cooks, librarians, trusties, etc.) as well as other prisoners at risk for murder.
In addition, there are some prisoners who are too dangerous to keep. They are constant escape risks. The worst mass murder in Georgia was committed by an escaped prisoner and a couple of guys who escaped with him. They killed almost an entire extended family in a small south Georgia town -- methodically killing family members as they came to the house to find out why people weren't showing up for work etc. They raped the women before they killed them.
The ringleader constantly tried to escape while he was being held for retrial after his first conviction was reversed (pretrial publicity), and almost got away at least twice (once in a garbage truck, once by crawling through a heating duct.) He was completely unrepentant, and bragged to a reporter that he did it, he enjoyed it, and he would do it again if he got the chance.
Some folks are just too mean to keep around. I think we should send them to live with the bishops who don't understand why the Church teaches that sometimes, rarely, the ultimate penalty is a necessity.
Aside from the people who are silly enough to believe her, she is creating a scandal by teaching something so ridiculous that people might reject the Church as a result.
I see two alternatives to the death penalty.
1) Surgical severance of the spine at the seventh cervical vertebra. It's kind of hard to perpetrate further violence without the use of arms and legs.
2) Life imprisonment IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT without benefit of parole.
Admittedly, neither of these prevent the prisoner from motivating an outside party to kill witnesses (as the gang leader recently executed in California did while imprisoned). But they "do" preserve the life of and allow repentance on the part of the perpetrator.
But the current campaign by Helen Prejean and her ilk is simply not acceptable.
Solitary confinement leads to psychosis, as British prison officials discovered a long time ago when they built Jeremy Bentham's "Panopticon" prison.
Not the only mistake Jerry ever made . . .
And they're not already???? :^)
Prisoners kept in the Panopticon went screaming mad through lack of contact with anything.
That is neither typical nor acceptable in a prison. The staff has to be able to manage the population.
I would report that heretical teacher to your bishop.
***
She was, I believe, from Connecticut, but she came to Maryland for our retreat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.