Is the Death Penalty Morally Equal to Abortion? Bishops Preach Politics Rather than Gospel Truth

Is the Death Penalty Morally Equal to Abortions? US Bishops Preach Politics Rather than the Gospel Truth

"We face a serious pastoral challenge, Some Catholic politicians defy church teaching in their policy advocacy and legislative votes, first and most fundamentally on the defense of unborn life, but also on the use of the death penalty, questions of war and peace, the role of marriage and family, the rights of parents to choose the best education for their children, the priority for the poor, and welcome for immigrants...."

The task force is charged with creating guidelines to aid our bishops in making distinctions between "respect for the office and approval of the officeholder ... to distinguish between fundamental moral principles and prudential judgments on the application of those principles, between essential substance and tactics," according to Bishop Ricard.

This rhetoric creates a false moral equivalence between support for the death penalty (which has been seen as morally licit in well defined circumstances for the entire history of Christianity) and support for abortion (which has always been taught to be inherently evil, with no exceptions.) This misrepresentation of fundamental Catholic beliefs has grown increasingly common to the frustration of faithful Catholics who identify the political agendas behind the confusion.

Another example of this intentionally misleading approach is by Michael L. Shields, writing in the August 1, 2003, National Catholic Reporter article, "Double standard in public life hurts Catholic credibility," states:

"In March 1995, Pope John Paul II issued his encyclical Evangelium Vitae stating that the death penalty is nly appropriate "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 improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are rare, if not practically nonexistent." … In spite of this declaration by the church, so-called "true" Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was able to reconcile his views on the permissibility of the death penalty with church teachings. Scalia argued that since the pope’s teaching on the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae did not come ex cathedra (i.e., with formal infallibility) he is not obligated as a Catholic to accept it, only to give it "serious consideration." Using Scalia’s logic, it is just as easy for a pro-choice Catholic to justify his belief in the right of a woman to choose because Humanae Vitae also did not come ex cathedra. However, the pro-choice Catholic would be considered more reprehensible than Scalia simply because well-entrenched conservative … consider abortion to be the greater of the two evils and thus they turn a blind eye to Scalia’s inconsistent views."

Tim Francis-Wright, writing for the self-declared Marxist/Leftist web magazine "Bear Left," states in his May 6, 2003 column, "Acta Santorum,"

"Santorum has criticized Catholic politicians who espouse liberal views on social issues, while praising President Bush as "the first Catholic president of the United States." Bush is a Methodist, unlike former President John Kennedy … He is, however, an unwavering conservative, and that is good enough for Santorum.

"Santorum is free, as he should be, to use his religious beliefs to guide his political beliefs. His problem is that the complete tenets of Roman Catholicism are awfully hard to reconcile without some cognitive dissonance. If Santorum took a hard line against abortion and euthanasia and homosexual acts, but also against the death penalty and nuclear weapons and wars of retribution, as do "seamless garment" Catholics, then his views on sexuality and homosexuality would reflect the odd amalgam of radical and puritanical within the teachings of his church.

"But Santorum is hardly a critic of the death penalty or of any war. Like many Catholics-and many non-Catholics-he has chosen from his religion's dogma what he wants to hear and ignored the rest. He may not want to admit that he, too, is a cafeteria Catholic, but his public pronouncements belie him. Ultimately, Rick Santorum is no better a Catholic than myriad Catholics who attend only Christmas and Easter services."

For left wing hypocrites to twist the truth for their own ends is one thing, but for a Catholic bishop to compare defying the Church's stance on abortion, which is intrinsically evil, to a prudential judgement on the death penalty, which the Church still admits the State has a right to impose (though it should be rare) simply provides the desired fodder for the enemies of political conservatism and the Christian morality.

Abortion is by its very nature, i.e., intrinsically, evil. No circumstances, no application of "situational ethics," can change its intrinsically evil nature.

On the other hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not exclude the possibility that a state could justifiably use capital punishment in cases "of extreme gravity," but adds: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means..." [#2266, 2267]

In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II wrote that punishment should not include the death penalty "if it is not a case of absolute necessity, in which the defense of society would not otherwise be possible." The Pope continued, "such cases are now very rare, if not practically non-existent." However, the Holy Father added that the principles put forth in the Catechism remain valid.

So a case can be made that from the perspective of charity, and within the framework of justice in modern society, that Capital Punishment should be so rare as to be non-existent. This is the thinking of the current Pope, the Catechism now reflects that thinking, and many pro-life activists are indeed personally opposed to Capital Punishment.

But recourse to the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. A Catholic who supports the death penalty commits no sin. To compare the two is disingenuous at best, and a direct attack upon conservative pro-life Catholic politicians and activists at worst. It would seem that certain factions within the USCCB are upset that lay Catholic activists and faithful Catholic politicians have forced them into addressing an issue they would much rather continue to ignore.

(Furthermore, Catholics in the pro-life movement tend to share a 95% crossover identity with "orthodox" or conservative Catholics. Certain bishops may see these orthodox lay Catholics as a real threat to their overall liberal agenda. This Jesuit bishop’s comment may also have been intended as a shot across the bow, i.e "push us on this too hard and we might excommunicate your political heroes --like Santorum and Scalia-- also.")

Pope John Paul II coined the terms "Culture of Life" and "Culture of Death." The four components that are traditionally named as the four pillars of the Culture of Death are 1)the contraceptive mentality (from which springs legalized abortion and the current destruction of marriage and the family), 2)abortion, 3)homosexuality and 4)euthanasia.

Christian moral theology has condemned these four pillars of the Culture of Death, constantly and definitively, since the times of the apostles themselves. For instanc e, all of Christianity unanimously taught contraception to be inherently evil (i.e., no circumstances can make it acceptable) until 1930, when the Anglicans caved to pressure from the Margaret Sangers of the early 1900’s and permitted contraception, but only in carefully defined circumstances. The ensuing decades saw all mainstream Protestant sects fall into grave error on these issues until the present time, when only Roman Catholicism remains steadfast in its adherence to the continual teaching of Christianity against contraception.

Likewise, Christianity has always condemned abortion, homosexuality, and Euthanasia as inherently evil, with some denominations falling recently to the pressures of the modern world to change.

Unlike these four pillars of the Culture of Death, Capital Punishment has continuously been regarded as morally licit, for the vast majority of the history of Christianity, with some modern changes in thinking.

"If a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since 'a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump' (I Cor. 5:6)"

"The life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men.... Therefore, the ruler of a state executes pestiferous men justly and sinlessly in order that the peace of the state may not be disrupted.... [However], the execution of the wicked is forbidden wherever it cannot be done with out danger to the good. Of course, this often happens when the wicked are not clearly distinguished from the good by their sins, or when the danger of the evil involving many good men in this ruin is feared" (Book III, ch. 146).

Clearly, the continual teaching of Christianity has been that Capital Punishment is not only necessary but also just and licit. The recent changes in Church teaching regarding Capital Punishment are finely nuanced and situational.

The constant teachings regarding contraception, abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia simply cannot and will never be changed.

Is Opposition to Capital Punishment an essential Part of the Culture of Life? Is it a seamless garment, whereby if one opposes the 40 million abortions of innocent babies over the last several decades, one most equally oppose the death by capital punishment of several hundred murderers during that same time?

More importantly, does not the current practice of equating opposition to Capital Punishment with opposition to abortion itself cheapen and trivialize the grave crime of abortion?

In a world that is post-Christian, where even practicing Christians fail to have the reasoning and critical thinking to separate that which is inherently evil from that which is only made evil by current circumstances, the danger lies in more Christians failing to comprehend the crucial distinction between that which by its very nature is inherently evil (abortion) and that which is morally licit in general (death penalty) but currently should be rare due to circumstances.

Keeping Capital Punishment alongside these other issues leads many to conclude that like Capital Punishment, these other Culture of Death issues also can be made situationally acceptable due to our changing societal circumstances. Persisting to lump these disparate issues together threatens to destroy any efforts to teach the inherently evil and unchangeable nature of true Culture of Death issues.

Situational ethics have won the day in too many battles in the Culture Wars already. We cannot afford to lose the overall war between the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death because some cannot or purposely will not "distinguish between fundamental moral principles and prudential judgments on the application of those principles, between essential substance and tactics."

Lumping opposition to capital punishment alongside the true Culture of Death issues of contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia is scandelous and wrong. It also demonstrates an example of how the demise of Catholicism in America is due, at least in part, to Bishops more concerned with preaching politics than the Gospel truth.

Church teaching on the death penalty is STILL 1) it is the right of the State to impose it, and 2) in modern societies it should be rare.

Point 1 is true. Point 2 is only a personal opinion of the pope which he has no right to impose on any of the faithful. More prudent popes of the past did not go around confusing the faithful by making their private opinions seem comparable to Church doctrine.

How after all could a statement referring to "modern society" enter Church doctrine? Will it still be "modern society" in 100 years? Will it still be necessary for the death penalty to be rare at that time? Or will we have entered post-modern society? And will it be appropriate for the death penalty to be "common" in post-modern society?

The absurdity of confusing prudential opinions with doctrine is evident.

Also from the article above:

But recourse to the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. A Catholic who supports the death penalty commits no sin. To compare the two is disingenuous at best, and a direct attack upon conservative pro-life Catholic politicians and activists at worst. It would seem that certain factions within the USCCB are upset that lay Catholic activists and faithful Catholic politicians have forced them into addressing an issue they would much rather continue to ignore.

(Furthermore, Catholics in the pro-life movement tend to share a 95% crossover identity with "orthodox" or conservative Catholics. Certain bishops may see these orthodox lay Catholics as a real threat to their overall liberal agenda. This Jesuit bishop’s comment may also have been intended as a shot across the bow, i.e "push us on this too hard and we might excommunicate your political heroes --like Santorum and Scalia-- also.")

I'm convinced the author is on to the real agenda here.

The Church's teaching on the death penalty is muddy right now, made even muddier with the Pope and bishops standing against ANY imposition of the death penalty, when the Catholic Catechism says otherwise.

Unfortunately, this is true. One more example where post-conciliar catechism has led to mass confusion.

I'm convinced the author is on to the real agenda here.

You are clearly correct. That was the entire purpose of Cardinal Bernadin's "seamless garment" -- to make it seem that you weren't truly pro-life unless you supported a range of left-wing causes such as opposition to the death penalty and more welfare payments. "Pro-life is not about abortion" was the 1-sentence summary, as though the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent, defenseless unborn children was somehow equivalent to the righteous execution of duly convicted murderers.

This quote regarding Scalia shows that it was not just the known leftists like Bernadin who were supporting this agenda, it was also the supposed conservatives like Chaput. I heard a priest from "Priests for Life" give a presentation at a communion breakfast in which the entire talk was focused on the "seamless garment" which he mentioned by name, and Cardinal Bernadin by name also. So the moral confusion has penetrated everywhere.

It is this "Father Rutler" (whoever he is) who finds killing people to be an "intrinsic good." The UNrevised Catechism of the Catholic Church said that "bloodless means" of protecting the public "better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

I would also suggest that anyone who says Cardinal Avery Dulles is on the same page as "Father Rutler" should read the article in FIRST THINGS to which Cicero alluded.

What we have in this thread is a good example of right-wing "cafeteria Catholics" exactly like those Archbishop Chaput cricitized in the remarks I cited. They even claim the Holy Father is taking a stand against Church teachings! And they ignore the very clear sense of Scripture when it suits them--the very thing they denounce the Episcopalians for doing!

how can you equate the killing of the innocent with the killing of the guilty? Unless you don't beleive in guilt.

Actually, there are some on both sides who do not equate the two. One side objects to Saddam being executed, but defends the "Right to Abortion". The other side exactly the opposite.

And the issue of guild, of whether there is Good and Evil, defined by a power higher than us mortals, is at the heart of this strange result.

Those who believe in a Higher Power understand that we should use the power vested in us by that Higher Power, to further Good and fight Evil. There are crimes worthy of the death penalty, and surely if anyone is guilty of such crimes, Saddam is.

Those who don't so believe, the secularists and amoral atheists, conclude that it is Wrong to make such Moral Judgements. Taking the life of an unborn child is acceptable, because it is simply an act of convenience for the mother, not a moral judgement on the child. Taking the life of Saddam is wrong, for the very reason that it is being justified on Moral grounds.

Strange - one side finds that the more guilty the victim, the more justified the murder, while the other side finds that the more innocent the victim, the more acceptable the murder.

What we have in this thread is a good example of right-wing "cafeteria Catholics"

Spin it however you like, Rutler (and this author) is correct. You have not refuted the excerpt of Rutler's that I posted.

It is this "Father Rutler" (whoever he is)

You're just a little bit out of touch with important Catholic commentators in our age.

"Is the Death Penalty Morally Equal to Abortions?"

It would be if we executed two million people a year for being an hindrance to our lifestyle and a drag on society:

"That nitwit cut me off in traffic, hang him! This guy is collecting unemployement, off with his head! That single mom is getting welfare for her 4 kids. To the oven with all of 'em!"

I am against the death penalty, but not because I am against killing people that desperately need it. In short, the State can't be trusted with the power to kill its citizens, as eventually it WILL be used as a tool by some unsavory politician. On the other hand, I am a-okay with self-defense and the whole concept of justifiable homicide by private citizens. Just not government agents.

Or to put it another way, I would never agree to give the government a power that I wouldn't agree to give to Hillary Clinton. Hitler creatively applied many laws that had been put into place by previous administrations with the best of intentions because no one thought someone like Hitler would end up in power to abuse them. You never know what bizarre political circumstance the future holds; if future history was predictable, history wouldn't be as interesting as it is.

You said: "Does anyone know if the Bible actually dilineates between a "murder" and a "killing." In other words, what differentiates the two and makes one always wrong (murder) and one wrong except in certain circumstances(killing)?"

The Bible, specifically the law of Moses, provided for the death penalty for murder. Obviously the execution of a murderer was not considered murder itself.

Revenge is morally right. If it were not, how could a righteous God declare: "Vengeance is mine"? But because it is fraught with such egregious abuse, He has taken the right of revenge out of the hands of the individual and made it the duty of the state (Romans 13: 1-4). And even though the state can sometimes abuse or misuse that duty/right, Jesus recognized its validity. When dragged before Pilate for interrogation, Pilate asked Him: "Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?” Jesus made no effort to deny that Pilate had the authority to execute criminals but reminded him that the authority he had was given to him from God (John 19:10-11).
Any state that doesn't practice capital punishment is failing to fulfill its most fundamental God-given purpose.

Dear sinkspur,

"Catholics, therefore, can take either side, morally."

Not exactly. No Catholic may believe or teach that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. One may believe that at the present time, in some societies, it is no longer necessary to protect the innocent.

Catholics may differ on the prudential questions surrounding the death penalty.

But a Catholic may not believe the death penalty is, per se, wrong.

sitetest

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.