A reader writes:
Since becoming Catholic I’ve heard a lot about capital punishment, and whether or not it should be opposed. Lately, however, I’ve become uncertain about how this ought to actually be applied. Some say that tobe consistently pro-life one should work against the death penalty as well as against abortion. This has caused some confusion on my part.
Okay, first off, be extremely careful about this "consistenly pro-life" stuff. This is rhetoric that is commonly used to hijack (or neutralize) the issue of abortion by relating it to other issues of a different character:
- Anti-death penalty folks use this rhetoric to try to establish a moral equivalence between abortion and the death penalty and thus argue that if you’re anti-abortion, you need to be anti-death penalty on the grounds that there is a moral equivalence between them such that supporting either would be "inconsistently" pro-life.
- Pacifists use the rhetoric to try ot establish a moral equivalence between abortion and warfare and use the same argument described above.
- Supporters of certain welfare or social programs try to establish a moral equivalence between abortion and not supporting their favored welfare or social programs such that if you’re against abortion you must also support their welfare or social programs to be "consistent."
- Some who oppose abortion seek to neutralize it by establishing a moral equivalence betwen it and other issues such as those described above and saying, in effect, if it’s okay for you to be inconsistently pro-life by not being anti-death penalty, pacifist, or a supporter of more money for this social program, then it’s okay for me not to be anti-abortion.
I know that the "consistently pro-life" rhetoric is out there in Catholic circles, including some highly placed churchmen, but in my judgment it is more of a hindrance than a help in dealing with the problem of abortion. One of the ways it does so is by putting a whole slate of agenda items in front of pro-lifers and making the problem too big to solve. It would be better to solve abortion and then work on other issues.
Another way it is a hindrance is that it has a tendency to mis-educate the conscience of the individual by establishing a moral equivalence between abortion and the other issues such that the individual who absorbs this language thinks or has a tendency to think that the issues are morally the same. Some who use the language may make the needed distinctions between the relative moral status of the issues, but these technicalities are lost on the ordinary individual.
Thus last year many in the Catholic community were convulsed by the question of could they vote for a particular candidate who opposes abortion but also supports the death penalty. The answer is: Of course you can. There are several reasons for this, but a key one is the fact that abortion and capital punishment are not morally equivalent. Abortion is intrinsically evil (meaning always evil) whereas capital punishment is at most only extrinsically evil (meaning evil in some circumstances but morally licit in others).
The same thing goes for war, social programs, etc. They just aren’t of the same moral status, and in my opinion we will be better able to deal with these problems if we use a language that better conforms to the objective differences in the moral status of these subjects. A "one-size-fits-all" rhetoric like the "consistenly pro-life" stuff has a tendency to mis-educate the conscience of individuals and thus make the problems harder to deal with.
However, after looking at the Catechism and reading bits of earlier Church documents touching on the subject, it seems that the ideas of when and how the death penalty can and should be applied have modified dramatically over the centuries. As such, is the current teaching in the Catechism to be considered an infallible teaching of faith and morals, or is it of a lesser nature–say, a personal opinion of the Pope that need not be absolutely accepted by all laymen? (This would especially concern Catholic politicians since it seems that the Church allows for the state to make up its own mind on this matter.)
When the Pope says that capital punishment should be used "rarely if at all," is this an official magisterial statement, or a statement as a personal theologian? Can one be consistently pro-life while approving of capital punishment?
Despite a popular impression to the contrary, the Catechism is not an infallible document (hence it’s already been revised once to fix some minor issues that needed correction). It is a realiable guide to the teaching of the faith, and it does repeat a number of infallible teachings, but it does not, as a whole, enjoy the property of having been written under the charism of infallibility.
This is something that Cardinal Ratzinger is at some pains to point out in THIS BOOK. In fact, he points out that the inclusion of a particular item in the Catechism does not change its doctrinal status. It has only the level of authoritativeness that it had prior to its inclusion in the Catechism. Thus you have to look at its doctrinal status in other Church documents to determine what weight it has in the Catechism.
Ths means that you have to look at Evangelium Vitae 56 to determine the doctrinal weight of the statement on the death penalty, and when one does that it is clear that it is phrased in a very tentative way that may be best understood as the prudential judgment of the pope and not as a matter to which all Catholics are required to assent.
Thus in his memorandum of last summer, Cardinal Ratzinger noted:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia [SOURCE].
It wasn’t until I watched a series on “Wild West Tech” that the light bulb went off in (on?) my head regarding the morality of capital punishment. The subject was technology used on executions in the American wild west. A point was well made that some criminals were especially ruthless, terrorizing local settlements/farms.
How many jails and sheriffs could there be to protect everyone spread over large areas? It was safer to execute these dangerous criminals than to build jails to house them and sheriffs to protect them or prevent jail break or to transport them to far away facilities.
In today’s society, the question then becomes, can we adequately incarcerate the worst of criminals? Or do we have to allow capital punishment for adequate protect of society?
Adrian,
When’s the last time the “worst of criminals” (eg, Manson) were a threat to society?
The problem we have today is inmates harming the prison society, rather than the wider society. We need to protect inmates from other inmates, as well, even if that takes capital punishment.
Aye…I think that’s one thing the Pope isn’t taking into account: Prisoners murder each other fairly often, and prisons are generally very brutal places. If you can’t effectively protect the lives of other inmates from a given inmate, he should be executed, in my opinon.
I would also add that some prisoners are still able to escape. How often today that happens, I’m not sure. But movies like “Con Air” aside, there are many cases of criminals breaking free of custody who commit more crimes. The one I always think of is Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), where an inmate already convicted of capital crimes escaped and victimized more people. If we are unable to segregate them from society even with our best efforts, then the case for executing them becomes much stronger. Living in Virginia, I remember hearing about the dangerous vulnerabilities of Norton Prison years ago. And I knew people in college whose homes escapees had been near enough to hit.
It’s true that, as Ratzinger says, there can be legitimate disagreement regarding the application of capital punishment.
It’s worth noting, though, that the scope for legit disagreement isn’t infinite. The pope (and the CCC) do teach that its use has to be restricted to cases in which it’s the only way to defend society (to keep a murderer from murdering again, basically). (And that’s a matter of theological principle, I think, going back ultimately to sources like Gaudium et Spes 22. Incidentally, I think the intrinsically vs. extrinsically evil dichotomy somewhat fails when it comes to teachings like the one on cp, but I won’t get into that …)
So, we can disagree about when that condition applies. But we’re not free to advocate uses of capital punishment that we admit fall outside of that condition. And some Catholic proponents of cp do so, unfortunately.
Kevin,
I tend to agree that the Holy Father intended that as the general limits on CP, but I’m not so sure. The USCCB said in “Living the Gospel of Life”, for example:
“In the case of capital punishment, for example, while not denying the classical position found in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and other authors which hold that the state has the right to employ capital punishment, the statements of recent Popes, as well as many Bishops, have been directed against the exercise of this right by the state.”
If I understand correctly, Aquinas did not limit the right to CP to cases of defense, but also permitted it for justic. The USCCB document says that the Holy Father’s teaching does not contradict this, but only advised against the exercise of this right.
Certainly, the USCCB does not have magisterial authority. But their comment on the matter does raise legitimate questions on what exactly the Holy Father meant in Evangelium Vitae. Hopefully, he or his successor will clarify.
Great post, Jimmy. I’m so relieved that I can support capital punishment.
Jason, you’re right. Traditionally, the church has agreed with Romans 13, and favored capital punishment to be used mainly for retribution, not only for a secondary goal of punishment, like protection of society.
“Jason, you’re right. Traditionally, the church has agreed with Romans 13, and favored capital punishment to be used mainly for retribution, not only for a secondary goal of punishment, like protection of society.”
The Churcn continues to teach that punishment can be retributive; in her prudential judgement, however, life imprisonment can be retributive enough even for a murderer.
As noted above, there might be exceptions.
I seem to recall reading a statement from the pope in which opposed all capital punishment.
Incidentally, many Catholics argue that life without parole is an acceptable substitute for the death penalty. Yet the pope has on at least 2 occasions called for general “reduction of sentences” (without any exceptions) so I doubt he supports life w/o parole.
Steve,
We need to be careful what we represent as the pope’s opinion of things. People in general (Catholics included) are far too lax about this and tend to attribute to the pope what they want him to say (whether they favor or oppose what they want him to say).
The above illustrates this. If you read the pope’s most worked-out treatment of the subject (Evangelium Vitae 56), he acknowledges its use in principle but wants it use severely limited.
It also simply does not follow from the pope asking for a reduction of sentences (if that ever happened) that the pope would not support life without parole for violent criminals. Saying, “Please Mr. Third Wolrd Dictator, let the political prisoners have a reduced sentence” does not equal “Please Mr. Bush, let Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan and Ted Bundy out on the street.”
The pope is soft on crime.
“Consistently Pro-Life,” Infallibility, and Capital Punishment
Someone wrote to Jimmy Akin with the question:Since becoming Catholic I’ve heard a lot about capital punishment, and whether or not it should be opposed. Lately, however, I’ve become uncertain about how this ought to actually be applied. Some say
Jimmy,
I assume that the pope doesn’t want Charles Manson released either. On the other hand, his 2000 appeal was quite broad:
“I turn with confidence to State authorities to ask for a gesture of clemency towards all those in prison: a reduction, even a modest one, of the term of punishment would be for prisoners a clear sign of sensitivity to their condition, and would surely evoke a positive echo in their hearts and encourage them to regret the evil done and lead them to personal repentance.”
How the pope sees this in any given case is unclear. If a person is serving a life or 200 year sentence, a “modest reduction” wouldn’t mean anything. In addition, some countries don’t have life w/o parole.
“Consistently Pro-Life,” Infallibility, and Capital Punishment
Someone wrote to Jimmy Akin with the question:Since becoming Catholic I’ve heard a lot about capital punishment, and whether or not it should be opposed. Lately, however, I’ve become uncertain about how this ought to actually be applied. Some say
Dear Jimmy-James Akin,
I’ve recently purchased your book, “The Salvation Controversy” and I’m really enjoying it. But I’m also getting FAA clearence for some of the info to fly right over my curly-q head. In the book you point out via various Bible verses that Salvation, Redemption and Sanctification are a past, present and future event. (Pgs. 13-15) I am very confused! In order for these three “things” to be past, present and future events does this mean I lose my salvation/redemption/sanctification and then regain all three? (You know, through sin I lose them and through confession I re-gain them…) If not, how is this possible then for them to be past/present AND future events? For example, my being born is a one-time event and I can’t “be born, am being born and will be born.” I hope my question makes sense…it’s hard to put confusion into logical words!!
GOD BLESS!
In Jesus and Our Lady,
-Michelle Therese White Horse of the Wind
Ooops!! I thought this was how I posted a question TO James Akin – not in reply to someone’s existing post. **Duh!** SORRY!!
-Michelle Therese White Horse of the Wind
Our own perspective and ideas regarding a situation varies. However, if we will just carefully analyze its consequences, then we can make possible solutions. I am expecting that American people truly deliberated on the current issues before casting their vote in the November 4th election. I’m sure some have studied more whether to take out a payday advance than what the issues are in the election. For instance, check out “The Howard Stern Show” and listen to this brief audio clip that was recently posted. Roving Reporter Sal roamed the streets in Harlem, New York to acquire opinions from men and women, determining whether they supported Barack Obama or John McCain as President. In actuality, the purpose was to determine whether African-Americans would automatically vote for Obama simply because he’s black. By taking McCain’s policies and disguising it as Obama’s, Sal discovered shocking responds. He discussed issues like the pro-life argument, stem cell research, the war in Iraq and who Sarah Palin is – placing McCain’s positions to Obama’s. He gets many of them to admit they support Obama regardless of what his policies are. This activity has really exposed the ugly truth of some of our ignorance of the issues. I just hope that people really thought about the real problems when casting their vote for the presidential election. Please read on the following links for more results. http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/a-fast-cash-payday-advance-saved-my-wifes-stupid-cats/