Christopher Blosser does another one of his excellent roundups, this time on capital punishment, the Church’s teaching, and Cardinal Renato Martino’s recent pronouncements on the subject. He starts by looking at a debate on other blogs about Martino’s comments with regard to Saddam Hussein’s sentencing and execution.
While also noting that the interpretation of John Paul II’s teaching on the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae is still being debated, he also asks—even if one says that JPII is saying that the death penalty is not allowable in today’s world—whether one may legitimately dissent from that assessment, if it is indeed a prudential judgment. He also looks into whether this is a development of doctrine or a reversal of doctrine as some say and notes the confusion of many, even very prominent and thoughtful, Catholics on the subject.
Chris then goes on to look at Cardinal Avery Dulles’ analysis of the current state of the debate and teaching and then winds up with a question of whether the death penalty, if one allows it at all, can ever have a retributive function and not just deterrent.
Wherever you stand on the debate, if you want to think or write about it seriously, you owe it to yourself to read the analysis.
Technorati Tags:capital punishment, Catholic, death penalty, doctrine
I was just 14 years old (yikes, 30 years ago), when I parted in opinion from my family, which had favored capital punishment. It came through prayer.
No matter how big or horrible the crime, God Himself will always love those whom He created. I would rather see a violent, unrepentant killer locked away for life rather than sentenced to death, for a very simple reason: It gives the killer that much time to repent. While his victim did not get such a fair shake, it does not mean that society needs to return the same in kind.
It’s strictly spiritual to me. Heaven rejoices with one, truly, repentant sinner. It does not mean that a person would not be subject to cleansing through temporal punishment or through purgatory.
Only God knows the full story of how a notorious killer became a killer in the first place.
I know this is pertaining, in part, to Saddam – a Muslim, but I still hold fast to my conviction of 30 years ago: Let God pull his timecard when He determines it is time to call a soul home. Until then, we keep them under lock and key, and pray for their conversion.
I did not find Blosser’s part of the posting to be particularly illuminating, though he does do a good job of gathering togther various links. While it is hypothetically possible to disagree with the Pope’s decision on a particular application of the death penalty, it is not legitimate to disagree with the grounds on which the prudential decision is to be made.
The Church clearly teaches that criminals are not to be executed if society can be made safe from that criminal. One might possibly disagree that society has or has not been made safe in a particular case, but one cannot legitimately counter-claim that (for example) non-execution is an absence of justice, or that the crime is too awful for any other penalty. That would contradict clear Church teaching.
Dom, thanks for the link. However, it’s not MY analysis per se, but that of Cardinal Dulles’, Dr. Jeff Mirus (CatholicCulture.org), and canon lawyer R. Michael Dunnigan. (Give credit where credit is due).
The bulk of the gruntwork—as far as analysis goes—is done by the above parties. Dom flatters me greatly, but I don’t expect anybody to find anything ‘illuminating’ from my own meager contribution at the end.
Personally I found myself nodding in agreement with Michael Dunnigan, namely that the present framing of the issue by the Catechism, locating it entirely in the context of defense, obscures the other legitimate purposes of capital punishment (retribution and reparation of the moral order). The 1997 revisions confine the grounds to the securement of physical safety against an aggressor—integrating the prudential judgement of John Paul II—in such a way as to obscure the place of retribution or repairing the moral order in the determination of its prudential judgement.
Dunnigan worries that “the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching” and I am very sympathetic to that observation. For my own benefit, I’d much like to see somebody better address the subject of ‘retribution’ / ‘reparation’ and it’s role in the Church’s present teaching.
I would add that Martino alone does not effectively communicate the grounds on which the Church bases its prudential judgement, any more than he effectively communicated the grounds for calling the Bush administration’s desire to build a wall on the Mexico border “inhumane.” Declaring something so doesn’t an argument make, although a good number of people are content to recite Martino’s one-line denunciation as if that would suffice.
Finally, while I think Saddam’s execution was necessary I have criticisms with the manner in which it was carried out and think it was ill-timed, giving the impression of Shiite factionalism rather than a collective execution by the Iraqi people as a whole. I’m particularly curious what the Kurdish response will be as they have suffered as greatly as any other under his reign.
That would contradict clear Church teaching.
The big problem is that many of us are not convinced that there is “clear Church teaching” on this issue, although we’re looking for it.—As opposed to, oh, say, artificial birth control, gluttony, etc. That’s one of the things Chris Blosser was trying to point out.
Thanks, I really got a lot out of this.
I hope alot of Catholics who are for the individual being granted the right to impose the death penalty on the innocent by the state are reading. I can’t even imagine voting for a person who would impose the death penalty on millions of innocents by granting individuals the right to kill children.
It just amazes me that there are baptised “Catholics ” who are so incensed about a dictator who fed girls to dogs being justly put to death while they are for individuals having a right to kill their children even at the state’s expense.
If encyclicals are the teaching of the ordinary magisterium, how many Catholics are in a state of dissent according to Humanae Vitae? How many anti Capital punishment activists dissent from the Churches teaching on contraception and abortion which carry far more weight in that they are intrinsic evils?
I have a feeling that it is mostly this dissenting group that is all worried about just punishment being imposed by the state, while they care little or nothing for the unjust death sentence being imposed by the state through individuals.
They even vote to protect the guilty and sentence the innocent to death.
I will bring this article to my parish pro life group in two weeks. Thanks again.
God Bless
I have a feeling that it is mostly this dissenting group that is all worried about just punishment being imposed by the state, while they care little or nothing for the unjust death sentence being imposed by the state through individuals.
Isabelle, this may be your opinion…or “feeling.” As one who does not believe that anyone but God has the right to, as Diane puts it, “pull the timecard” on anyone who is without physical defense, and as one who fights to protect the lives of the unborn, I question your “feeling.”
If you’re saying that folks who regret the killing of Sadaam are pro-aborts—and that’s sure as bleep what I get from your post—then two words:
You’re wrong.
I regret the deliberate killing of anybody who doesn’t have, at the moment of said killing, the means to kill me or anybody else.
In other words, if you attack me with a knife in an alley and I am armed, I would maim, or if necessary, kill you.
If you attack my family with a knife in an alley, kill a member, and are subsequently arrested by a police officer, jailed, tried, found guilty and imprisoned, and sentenced to die, I would fight your sentence.
I am pro-life.
I will bring this article to my parish pro life group in two weeks.
God willing, you will. (People don’t say “God willing” as much as they used to, but it’s a very fine phrase. After all, God decides who will do what and when. Not us. Off topic? Perhaps. I don’t think so, though.)
Christopher,
Great job in pulling all this stuff together. Interesting reading…even the comments on your blog!
First, I do not believe any Catholic should regret Justice. It is a divine virtue. Second, it is not my feeling that there is a hierarchy of values as opposed to a seamless garment.
Most liberal Catholics believe it is right to vote for a candidate who would offer the individual the right to put an innocent child to death while vehmently opposing an act of justice according to God’s teaching.
“The Catechism [of the Council of Trent], that popular and most authoritative epitome of Catholic theology, gives us the most complete and succinct definition of charity; it is full of wisdom and philosophy. Charity is a supernatural virtue which induces us to love God above all things and our neighbors as ourselves for the love of God. Thus, after God we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, and this not just in any way, but for the love of God and in obedience to His law. And now, what is it to love? Amare est velle bonum, replies the philosopher. “To love is to wish good to him whom we love.” To whom does charity command us to wish good? To our neighbor, that is to say, not to this or that man only, but to everyone. What is that good which true love wishes? First of all supernatural good, then goods of the natural order which are not incompatible with it. All this is included in the phrase “for the love of God.”
It follows, therefore, that we can love our neighbor when displeasing him, when opposing him, when causing him some material injury, and even, on certain occasions, when depriving him of life; in short, all is reduced to this: Whether in the instance where we displease, oppose, or humiliate him, it is or is not for his own good, or for the good of someone whose rights are superior to his, or simply for the greater service of God.
If it is shown that in displeasing or offending our neighbor we act for his good, it is evident that we love him, even when opposing or crossing him. The physician cauterizing his patient or cutting off his gangrened limb may nonetheless love him. When we correct the wicked by restraining or by punishing them, we do nonetheless love them. This is charity—and perfect charity.” From: ” Liberalism is a Sin”.
God willing within two weeks, you will attain the gift of real Catholic Charity rather than some false sense of liberal compassion which is nothing but license and a moral evil.
God Bless and it is good to see you posting again, Kelly.
By the way, as all legitimate authority comes from God, Therefore, Saddam’s time card was pulled by Him in a round about way.
Isabelle
Isabelle,
As I am strongly pro-life – against Embryonic Stem Cell works, against abortion, against contraception, against euthanasia, but I am also steadfastly against the death-penalty.
This is one explanation of this expression and it sums up my position. It is only by God’s grace, and our response to that grace, that we do not find ourselves in a situation faced by hardened criminals.
If we truly love the sinner, but hate the sin, we would want the sinner to have a lifetime to learn how to repent for his misdeeds. From there, God delivers any further purification needed for the soul upon the day he Himself calls him home.
There is no human beyond God’s mercy, even the most notorious among us.
It is merciful to pray for those incarcerated, and those condemned, no matter how terrible the crimes. Further justice, beyond life-long incarceration, is in the hands of God.
I think what Isabelle is trying to say, if I may be so bold, is that a lot of the liberals who are so concerned about the death penalty and Saddam’s execution are also pro-abortion, thus setting up a situation where they are more concerned about the just death of murderers than they are about the unjust death of innocents.
Dom,
I understand what Isabelle is trying to say. Undeniably, there are liberal pro-aborts who, illogically and inexplicably have a problem with capital punishment. I got that.
What I don’t accept is the implication that all who regret legalized killing outside of war or self-defense are lumped in, willy-nilly, with those possessing a quote “false sense of liberal compassion.”
That is equally illogical.
In fact, if it wasn’t such a nice day, I’d take further umbrage with this uncalled for statement. As it is, I’ll let it go.
It doesn’t work, for example, with me, it doesn’t work with Diane, it doesn’t work with many of those who expressed opinions on Christopher’s blog.
Diane,
God’s mercy is God’s justice. It can be perfectly merciful for the state to impose the ultimate penalty on a criminal in order to safeguard those entrusted to its legitimate care by God.
You seem to be against alot of evils and that is good. But being Catholic is being for the infinite love of God and the human person created in His Image no matter what the cost to your self image or personal ideology imposed by a politically correct culture.
I believe capital punishment, when justly applied by legitimate authority, is a good that must be resorted to at times against the propagation of certain evils for the good of the innocent and society. To refuse to do so can offer license to evil, negating the rights of those entrusted to the state’s care, permitting society to deteriorate to the point of barbarism and savagery. How charitable is that?
It is not divine justice exercised through legitimate authority that has brought about our present condition of grave crimes and attrocities against, children and other innocents. It was our refusal to exercise the virtue of justice according to the principle of true Christian Charity. This society is becoming more base and it is not because of the imposition of capital punishment but because we lacked the courage of our faithto impose it with love for God and neighbor.
We have slowly resorted to giving criminals more rights than the innocent, often permitting them freedom among the unsuspecting members of society and even children knowing full well their history and capability to commit grave crimes and attrocities. We let them write books about their crimes and celebrate them on morning talk shows making their abominations economic opportunities for journalists and lawyers. This is not of God! It is false charity and injustice. There is no mercy in this for God for his innocent children or for entire nations now threatened by such persons in what we call terrorism.
Continued…
Kelly,
You seem to regret alot of things. Our first disagreement was in regard to regret, remember?
It is an act of divine love that would impose the death sentence to safeguard the rights and wellbeing of the innocent. You say it doesn’t work for you. Maybe this will explain why.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/libsin.HTM
It was a beautiful day here too.
God Bless,
Isabelle
Look, Isabelle,
What doesn’t work for me is your contention that those who oppose capital punishment are by definition pro-aborts.
That is rubbish.
I hope I’ve made myself clear.
My goodness! I should look up your first post to me. I believe it was all about accuracy.
Happy New Year!
Isabelle
Isabelle addressed me (and I apologize for bringing you all back here for this but enough is enough):
God willing within two weeks, you will attain the gift of real Catholic Charity rather than some false sense of liberal compassion which is nothing but license and a moral evil.
This statement reflects neither “charity.” And not incidentally, does it reflect much accuracy, as you have no idea of my “sense of compassion,” liberal or otherwise, false or otherwise.
I disapprove of killing human beings, Isabelle. Period. If that, in your eyes, makes me lacking in Catholic Charity and a victim of liberal compassion which is nothing but license and a moral evil (whatever that means) than I guess you’ve got to live with that.
I don’t.
Thank you for the discussion. You ought to know my position my position by now. I assume you know your own.
Kelly,
This is not my contention. I never stated such a thing. Neither do I believe it.
I believe there are many liberal “Catholics” who remain silent as the death penalty is imposed on the innocent, while they vehmently oppose justice being carried out by the state in a legitimate manner.
Then you disapprove of Church teaching which is always perfectly charitable and in accordance with God’s compassion and infinite love. Murder and the death penalty are not equal.
I do not know you or judge your way of life but your thinking and personal opinion regarding the State’s right to punish an individual even by death when judged necessary by legitimate authority.
2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
To oppose infallible Church teaching for a Catholic is to dissent from and even oppose God Himself. I can’t do that.
Even if you don’t personally believe in killing human beings as a means of just punishment, God teaches us, through His Church, that it can be an act of justice and mercy at times. I belive Him.
Isabelle
Your quotes from the Catechism are hardly ringing endorsements of the death penalty. And by your logic, every Catholic who opposes the death penalty is a dissenter.
What you’ve done, and what many others before you have already done, is to demonstrate that supporting capital punishment is not at odds with Church teaching. I’ve never said otherwise.
They weren’t meant to be. They were quotes which expressed the traditional teaching of the Church regarding the use of the death penalty and the state’s right to use it when judged necessary.
When Catholics mislead others into believing the Church is absolutely against the death penalty they are either in error, lying, dissenting or in a state of apostasy, heresy or lunacy.
First you said,
Then you said:
What doesn’t work for me is your contention that those who oppose capital punishment are by definition pro-aborts.
I didn’t say that those who oppose the death penalty are by definition pro- aborts.
I have found it quite common however, that those who oppose the death penalty for criminals are more than silent regarding the fact that the state is granting liscense to individuals to impose this sentence on the known innocent.
There were over four thousand innocent children put to death today in the U.S. Where are the headlines? Where are the anti death penalty protests? There should be millions of protesters including Bishops, priests, sisters, laypersons and vatican officials. Tomorrow there will be more than four thousand innocent children put to death here. Is Saddam Hussain the only life worth their voice?
Here is my original response to the topic.
A lot of Catholics voted for those willing to let individuals impose a death sentence on innocnet children. That is a fact. I suspect many of those same Catholics are the one’s so outraged against justice being imposed against a mass murderer.
Isabelle