Just got a note from Rich Leonardi that I make a cameo that I’d forgotten about in
THIS ARTICLE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
It’s always nice when they quote you as agreeing with both a cardinal theologian and a future pope and theologian.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
This is an interesting article. Thank you for posting it.
I do not disagree with the content of the article; however, I believe that it is important to keep in mind that authoritative pronouncements that allow capital punishment do so “with qualification.” I refer to Catechism section 2267, which states “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
I only mention this because I see a trend among certain Catholics to be all-out in favor of capital punishment, often failing to see it as a last resort only. It is possible to likewise reason concerning involvement in war, which the article mentions more than once.
The prudence of taking recourse always to the conditions set forth in Just War Theory before entering hostilities seem to be in the “spirit” of the faith. One cannot help but question the current Iraqi hostilities given the qualifications of a just war.
Personally I side with John Raymond on the issue. Raymond states:
“Another approach to condemnation of war that began to develop at this time was a distinction between war in the abstract and the reality of war. These thinkers say that while one can hold to war as justified in theory, in practice it cannot be justified. In the 16th century St. Thomas More was such a thinker. In his “Utopia,” or ideal society, St. Thomas allowed for war only as a defensive measure. But “in reality no war that he knew in history, in the present, or in the foreseeable future was just.” So St. Thomas More used the Just War in theory to condemn all wars in reality.”
Finally, as a timely reminder, I submit the following:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/sdwp/international/bush902.htm
Thank you –
That is only very recently the case — IIRC, the quote you mention below was added to the revised edition of the CCC following JP2’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Furthermore, it seems clearly a statement of “prudential judgment,” not church teaching.
But the CCC does not state that only such cases of “absolute necessity” are just, or even prudent. In other words, it may be true that the state has other options, but that doesn’t make execution unjust, nor does it mean that it might not be the most prudent option.
For example, if the statistics the article cites are accurate, it is reasoanble to conclude that death sentences and executions save innocent lives, and rejecting them costs innocent lives.
While this pragmatic reasoning would not justify executing even one criminal unjustly, if the death penalty is a just option and if one execution will deter numerous murders from taking place, then justly to exercise the death penalty may reasonably be considered the most pro-life option available.
To posit that no war could ever be justified in practice is to immediately throw suspicion on objections given to any particular war.
In other words, if a person begins by saying “I believe that no war could ever meet the criteria of the Just War theory”, then it somewhat excludes that person from any real debate about the merit (or lack of merit) of any actual war. Not that they could not provide useful information, but it seems from the outset that such reasoning is a conclusion in search of an argument.
The Catechism says what it says. Neither the death penalty nor war as such is categorically rejected. If we are to engage in real debate we must keep our minds open to wherever the facts take us.
DISCLAIMER!:The above is not an apologetic for either the present war or the death penalty in the U.S..
For those who really want to jump into a heated discussion, go over to Amy Wellborn’s thread on this. As of now, there are over 140 comments.
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/08/ten_reasons.html
Two notes regarding Dan’s post:
First, on More and “Utopia.” Interpretation of More’s book is varied even among loyal Catholics, and because of the presence of anti-Catholic elements in Utopian society, many believe that More did not endorse everything he described in Utopia. Chesterton once called Utopia More’s “greatest joke.” My own opinion is that Utopia is a society which fulfills all of the ethical obligations imposed by unaided human reason (e.g. justice) but lacks supernatural virtues and grace, (e.g. mercy.) More was, I believe, chiding Christian society for falling short even of the standards of an ethical non-Christian society.
And on the comment on only defensive wars being just — the question is, what is a “defensive” war? Only wars fought only against invaders on your own land? What about allies? What about a third nation that requests help? Humanitarian interventions? What about action to prevent a nation from gaining the ability to become an invader if that nation has clear intent?
This is not an endorsement of any particular historical action, merely pointing out that the word “defensive” is ambiguous. This is why many Catholic thinkers are calling for development of the just war doctrine, to clarify exactly what kind of actions can be called “defensive.”
Apologies, forgot to put my name. That last post was by me.
“But the CCC does not state that only such cases of ‘absolute necessity’ are just, or even prudent.”
No – it merely states that limiting cp to such cases is how you serve the common good and the dignity of the person.
That couldn’t be in any way morally obligatory, now could it?
The fact is that if you look at Evangelium Vitae and the CCC in the context of such other documents as Dives in Misericordia, Redemptor Hominis, and Gaudium et Spes, you’ll see that the late pope and the Church see avoiding unnecessary use of cp as a matter of theological necessity.
And the fact is that the then-head of the CDF, and now pope, referred to EV’s teaching on cp as a development of doctrine – not merely a prudential judgment, let alone something less than that.
And the fact further is that in his letter to the US bishops about abortion, politics, and Communion, he did not say that every sort of support for cp is okay. In principle, cp can be legit – unlike abortion. Therefore, the mere fact that someone is a supporter of cp doesn’t make him a dissenter – unlike the mere fact that someone is a supporter of abortion. But if you support cp for reasons other than those permitted by EV and the CCC – other than because you think it’s the only way to prevent a murderer from killing again – then you are a dissenter from a clear teaching of the ordinary Magisterium.
By the way, here is the new Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (no. 405): “Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty ‘when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.’ Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as ‘they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.'”
Got that? Nothing there about cp being okay if and when someone provides evidence that it’s the better deterrent.
While this pragmatic reasoning would not justify executing even one criminal unjustly, if the death penalty is a just option and if one execution will deter numerous murders from taking place, then justly to exercise the death penalty may reasonably be considered the most pro-life option available.
These are good points but the problem you face if you rely upon a pragmatic solution is that the decision to execute offenders as a deterrent is made in a relative context. You do it in order to acheive the good, i.e. the pro-life option. However, in this scenario the rightness and wrongness of the deterrent act is based on the overall effectiveness of the punishment rather than on the moral correctness of taking a human life, thus right and wrong dissolve into the ambiguity of moral relativism.
Italics off, second paragraph, sorry.
Nothing there about cp being okay if and when someone provides evidence that it’s the better deterrent.
Again, that would be relativistic.
…limiting cp to such cases is how you serve the common good and the dignity of the person. That couldn’t be in any way morally obligatory, now could it?
From the viewpoint of imitating Christ, it seems that we might not want to discount it too hastily. Faith should inform our politics of life, rather than our politics informing our faith.
I’ve opened Pandora’s box – how do I turn off the italics?
You usually have to enter two </i>’s
Let’s try this!
The majority of the bishops in the country has stated that the death penalty here is wrong. I’m not aware of any bishops teaching the premptive death penality theory, e.g. a person who otherwise has murdered, will murder again, and hence can be killed. This would seem to condone the murder of abortionist.
Got that?
What’s with the attitude? Don’t hurt yourself thumping that compendium.
M. Z. Forrest: I don’t think killing in self-defense or in the defense of others is classified as capital punishment.
But if you support cp for reasons other than those permitted by EV and the CCC – other than because you think it’s the only way to prevent a murderer from killing again – then you are a dissenter from a clear teaching of the ordinary Magisterium.
Again, the Church teaches that fundamentally it is a matter of justice, i.e., a punishment which fits the crime done by the guilty party. Secondary considerations like societal protection and deterrence are just that — secondary. To limit the dp to whether or not the guilty party is going to kill again is to treat that party, in the words of Lewis, as “a mere object, a patient, a ‘case,'” and to take the teaching outside the realm of justice.
BillyHW:
I wasn’t addressing the war. My English teacher is crying over my last post, so let me rephrase. Establishing pathology is not sufficient to justify the death penalty.
All:
Words mean things. Some seem to think that dissent means excommunicating oneself (apologies, I don’t know Latin.) While some dissent would certainly qualify as that, we needn’t narrow the word to mean just that. Quite frankly many Americans are in dissent with the Church’s teachings as expressed by the USCCB. I’m not a fan of the USCCB, but lets be honest and call a spade a spade.
But if you support cp for reasons other than those permitted by EV and the CCC – other than because you think it’s the only way to prevent a murderer from killing again – then you are a dissenter from a clear teaching of the ordinary Magisterium.
But EV and the CCC are not the only documents the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has produced on the subject of capital punishment.
The fact is that if you look at Evangelium Vitae and the CCC in the context of such other documents as Dives in Misericordia, Redemptor Hominis, and Gaudium et Spes, you’ll see that the late pope and the Church see avoiding unnecessary use of cp as a matter of theological necessity.
I don’t see that at all. But I see that you see that.
But wouldn’t you agree that EV and the CCC should be interpreted in the context not only of the documents of Vatican II but also in the context of Scripture and the Church’s entire tradition: including the writings of the Church Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
I wasn’t addressing the war.
I wasn’t either.
M.Z. Forrest, you seem to be under the impression that the national bishops’ conferences are intended to be the interpreters of Church Teaching to the faithful. They are not. They exist to aid the bishops in proclaiming and defending the truth. Pope John Paul II said as much and decried how many bishops hide behind the cover of the conferences.
The bishops’ conferences are also far from infallible.
My own national bishops’ conference approved the use of contraceptives for the faithful by almost unanimous vote.
I wasn’t speaking of infallibility. I was speaking of the authority vested in the bishop. A conference of bishops is merely their collective judgement. What you, BillyHW, describe with the Canadian conference on contraception, I would not be able to subscribe to as an issue of conscience. I would be dissenting from the conference nonetheless.
But then you wouldn’t be dissenting from the Church’s teachings, merely from the teaching of your bishop. In that case dissent would be right and honourable.
But the case of capital punishment does not qualify as dissent, since many bishops have confirmed that the USCCB statement qualifies not as doctrine but as a prudential judgment, and that it is ultimately up to the faithful to honestly look at all the Church has ever said about capital punishment and determine whether it should be practiced in America today:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html
Surely, you don’t deny that the USCCB, the Bishops, the Popes, the Councils or the Catechism Editors are capable of making statements of differing levels of authority, Some of which bind the consciences of the faithful, and others which do not?
Kevin,
Your statement that “if you support cp for reasons other than those permitted by EV and the CCC – other than because you think it’s the only way to prevent a murderer from killing again – then you are a dissenter from a clear teaching of the ordinary Magisterium” is way too strong.
As a moral theologian who should be used to giving careful readings to Magisterial texts, you should recognize this.
Such a statement does not follow either from the texts of the documents in question–taking into account the room for interpretation resident in the texts themselves and the respective doctrinal weights of the individual statements–nor from statements made by Cardinal Ratzinger.
While it is true the Cardinal Ratzinger referred, in a *press statement*, to John Paul II’s writing on this point as involving a doctrinal development, this is not sufficient to declare that everything the late pontiff wrote on the subject is of doctrinal rather than prudential character.
Further, the very same Cardinal Ratzinger went on to write, in considering the question of those “at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment,” that “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (SOURCE).
If there is a *legitimate* diversity of opinion about the death penalty that includes those “at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment” then one cannot simply brand anyone who supports capital punishment “other than because you think it’s the only way to prevent a murderer from killing again” with the label “dissenter.”
Your quotation from the Compendium of Social Doctrine further undermines the statement you made as it restricts itself to saying that bloodless alternatives to capital punishment are merely “preferred” (as opposed to “mandatory”).
As someone who works as a professional in the field, you should be sensitive to the fact that there is a legitimate diversity of opinion here and should not be swift to make categorical statements declaring others dissenters. That term is too inflammatory to be tossed around casually, particularly when it concerns a matter of this nature.
The “Got that?” attitude is also something that could be dispensed with.
You make several interesting points.
1) Can we distinguish between the Church’s teachings and the Bishop’s teachings?
This strikes me similiar to asking if we can distinguish between what the Bible teaches and what the Church teaches. The bishops enjoy a teaching charism. That said, the Church teaching and what the bishop teaches can be distinguished. If there is a dispute among bishops I wouldn’t necessarily say there is dissent present. When the bishops are united, I would say one is in dissent if they disagree.
2) Can dissent be laudable and righteous?
I believe that it can indeed be.
3) Are there different levels of teachings and what duty do we owe to each of them?
Certainly. Some dissent will bring anathema upon oneself. Other dissent will not. I don’t subscribe so much to prudential judgement except where the bishops have expressly stated it is allowed. I’m afraid I see schismatic tendencies when people argue that their bishop is only making a prudential judgement. This implies a contra-teaching office. Prudential judgements are the product of philosophical truths. I believe disagreements with bishops tend to be more over philosophy and less over prudence.
I don’t subscribe so much to prudential judgement except where the bishops have expressly stated it is allowed. I’m afraid I see schismatic tendencies when people argue that their bishop is only making a prudential judgement.
Well, luckily in the case of capital punishment, the bishops have expressly stated that it is indeed allowed.
I’m afraid I see heretical tendencies when people argue that what would be clear reversals of two thousand years of constant Church tradition and teaching are mere “doctrinal developments”. I really shouldn’t worry, since the Church can never err in the matter of faith or morals, but due to my fallen nature, sometime my faith is weak.
“I wasn’t addressing the war.
“I wasn’t either.”
Whatever you do, don’t mention the war.
“…the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty ‘when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.’ Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred…”
This passage from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is (intentionally, I think) open to broad interpretation, as evidenced by the use of the terms “practicable” (rather than “possible”), “effectively” and “preferred” (rather than “required”).
Why is it whenever I see people use the term freedom I read carte blanche?
I don’t really want to get into a death penalty debate, but my goodness the statement is clear. Given the statement, supporters that wish to promulgate their views need to establish:
– Bloodless methods of deterrance and punishement are not preferred.
or
– There are no practicable means way to effectively defend the lives of human beings. This statement is clearly the premise upon which the death penalty is not excluded from Catholic teaching.