Washington D.C., Jul 20, 2018 / 12:00 pm (CNA).- The Church has consistently taught that the state has the authority to use the death penalty. But, in recent years, popes and bishops have become more vocal in calling for an end to its use. Many Catholics instinctively favor life over death, even after the worst crimes, and some are left wondering if the Church’s mind is changing.
Two recent cases highlighted an apparent tension between traditional teaching and modern circumstances.
On July 13, the bishops of Tennessee wrote to Governor Bill Haslam asking him to halt a slate of planned executions. In their letter, Bishops Mark Spalding of Nashville, Richard Stika of Knoxville, and Martin Holley of Memphis emphasized the value and dignity of every human life, even those who have committed the worst possible crimes.
One day earlier, on July 12, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, Archbishop of Colombo, expressed his “support” for the Sri Lankan government’s decision to introduce the death penalty for drug traffickers and organized crimes bosses.
“We will support [Sri Lankan] President Maithripala Sirisena’s decision to subject those who organize crime while being in the prison to [the] death sentence,” he told local media. The cardinal went on to add that more needed to be done to prevent drug traffickers and crime bosses from operating with impunity while in jail.
The state’s authority to execute criminals is explicitly sanctioned in the Bible, including by St. Paul. Historically, the Church has recognized the use of the death penalty in a practical way: executions were carried out in the Papal States well into the nineteenth century, with the last official executioner retiring in 1865.
For much the twentieth century, attempted assassination of the pope was a capital crime in Vatican City; Pope Paul VI only removed the death penalty from the law in 1969.
Today, the Church still officially teaches that the death penalty is a legitimate option for states to employ.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches this: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
This formulation contains a heavy qualification. When exactly is the death penalty the only effective means of defending human life? That’s a thorny question.
St. John Paul II was outspoken in his opposition to the use of capital punishment. In an address in the United States, in 1999, he called for Christians to be “unconditionally pro-life” and said that “the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil.” He also spoke of his desire for a consensus to end the death penalty, which he called “cruel and unnecessary.”
That address, given in St. Louis, was credited with helping persuade to Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan to commute the death sentence of inmate Darrell Mease to life in prison.
More recently, Pope Francis has denounced capital punishment in even stronger terms. Speaking in October 2017, he called it “contrary to the Gospel” because “it is freely decided to suppress a human life that is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator, and of which, in the final analysis, God alone is the true judge and guarantor.” He has, however, stopped short of revising the official teaching contained in the Catechism.
There is a broad sentiment among American Catholics against the death penalty. It is a point of unusually strong consensus, even among those who normally disagree. In 2015, four Catholic publications with often-divergent viewpoints issued a joint editorial calling for an end to capital punishment.
But Catholic thinkers do not unanimously agree that a total renunciation of the death penalty is appropriate, or even possible.
Cardinal Joseph Bernadin, in his famous “Consistent Ethic of Life” speech delivered at Fordham University in 1983, explicitly recognized the legitimate authority of the state to resort to capital punishment. Cardinal Avery Dulles, writing in 2001, observed that “the Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty.”
While there is real scope for debate about when and how sparingly capital punishment should be used, Dulles concluded that “the death penalty is not in itself a violation of the right to life.”
His conclusion was informed by the constant teaching of the Church that judicial executions are licit, even if regrettable and to be avoided whenever possible.
In the City of God, St. Augustine wrote that the state administers justice under divine concession. “Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”… for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.”
While the trend of recent papal statements has been towards a relegation of the death penalty to, at most, a theoretical possibility, scholars have urged caution about going too far.
Dr. Chad Pecknold, associate professor of systematic theology at the Catholic University of America, told CNA that it was important distinguish between changing circumstances and a change in what the Church has always taught.
“The Church has always held that the death penalty is a just option available to the state, even if we do not welcome its use. St. Augustine says that the death penalty is just, but the Church should plead for mercy.”
Pecknold stressed that relationship between mercy and justice is a live concern. In seeking mercy, he said, we must implicitly recognize the validity of justice.
“Mercy isn’t calling something that is just ‘unjust.’ Mercy relieves the punishment properly due to the guilty. As the Catechism recognizes, there can be circumstances in which the death penalty is a legitimate service to justice. This is qualified by a preferential option for other means, whenever they can serve the same ends.”
These alternative means have not been always and everywhere available. “The common and constant teaching of the Church can be applied to different circumstances. Alternatives available to us in modern western countries simply have not been present at other times, or may not be now in other places.”
There is a crucial difference between applying a consistent teaching to changed circumstances and appearing to suggest humanity has evolved beyond a previously valid doctrine, Pecknold said.
“The death penalty is not, and has never been a positive end in itself. It is a means towards serving justice. If we find we can now serve the same ends and express a preferential option for life, this is doubly good.”
“But we should not fall into a false understanding that what was once ‘good’ is now ‘bad.’ The Church doesn’t evolve out of a true teaching, nor does humanity progress beyond natural law.”
“We should prize our increasing opportunities to serve mercy and justice together, but be wary of giving ourselves too much credit, we have not progressed to a new, higher level of justice.”
Cardinal Dulles agreed. He considered the argument that Church sanctioning of capital punishment was an “outmoded” concession to past ages of “violence” and “barbarity,” one which could yield to “the signs of the times” and “a new recognition of the dignity and inalienable rights of the human person.” He dismissed this as “a tempting simplicity” which found “no echo” among Catholic theologians of the past.
The consensus against capital punishment in modern western nations, it must be observed, has grown in line with increased prosperity, political stability, and states’ ability to deploy credibly effective alternatives to execution.
In the recent Sri Lankan case, the government acted in response to the ineffectiveness of prison sentences, with drug traffickers and crime bosses seeming to continue operating with impunity, even behind bars. Following local complaints at his expression of support, Cardinal Ranjith issued a clarification, making clear his support for the government announcement was not a “carte blanche” advocacy for the death penalty, but noting that he could not “close my eyes and do nothing before this terrible phenomenon our country is faced with.”
“[The drug trade] causes death and violence in the streets and the destruction of the cream of our youth, who become drug addicts at an age as early as their adolescence, being exposed to drugs even in their schools. This is being done by drug cartels operated at times from the prisons,” he said.
For Ranjith, such a context seems to find a place within the Catechism’s criteria that capital punishment be reserved for the final defense of innocent life when other options fail.
In the West, conditions seem to be narrowing the scope for the death penalty’s use, and bishops are responding, which has led to a sense, especially after Pope Francis’ comments last year, that the Church might declare the death penalty absolutely unjust. Yet, as was recently seen in Sri Lanka and Tennessee, things are not yet the same everywhere.
That serves as a good reminder about the importance of understanding the Church’s global perspective, and the importance of distinguishing between teachings which supply criteria through which Catholics must make moral judgments, and teachings which declare that certain actions are, in fact, immoral everywhere and always.
The Church’s teaching on the death penalty expresses, essentially, a criteria by which state authorities should make judgments about the just use of the death penalty. While in the developed West, use of the death penalty may, in fact, be almost completely unnecessary, not all parts of the world are as developed.
The divergence of views from bishops around the world on this issue reflects the role that the circumstances of time and place can play in moral reasoning. That is instructive, and a reminder about the complex richness, and importance, of Catholic moral teaching.
[…]
Summorum Pontificum was abrogated in 2021. This is just clinging to a past that is beyond its expiration date.
I see the Monopoly Man in the last picture took off his hat in church.
The TLM has lost. Trads just don’t realize it yet.
“Has lost”? I didn’t know it was a contest. Thanks a lot for letting me know that it is, from one perspective anyway.
It’s not a contest or competition. We’re a universal Church with room for many Rites and liturgies.
Unity, not uniformity.
Yeah but that was the Rupnik-Pontificate, so it’s to be ignored.
Scott Walker: you come across as an angry & bitter man. Try Christ.
Classic. Argumentum ad hominem followed with the obligatory ipse dixit.
Scott Walker. You have the perspicacity to have spotted the Monopoly Man in this very rare photo. Perhaps a premonition that the gods of good fortune are betting on the restoration of the TLM [why else would the Monopoly Man, an obvious traditionalist, have attended this Mass?].
Yours exhibits perfectly the problem at hand.
Scott;
Re: your 10/25 @9:51 p.m. – Do yourself a favor and go to a TLM. Get there about 30-45 minutes early, sit quietly (notice that the others are doing so) perhaps say a Rosary. Read from your Missal or just sit there and enjoy the silence until the Mass begins.
If you have to get up before dawn and then drive 50 or more miles to get there – tant mieux.
When in God’s universe and God’s eternity and human worship of God and His revelations of immutability has truth ever changed or been timebound?
Our patrimony.
Let the Extraordinary Form of the Mass BREATHE freely alongside so many other Rites in the Church each of which have their own form. Lets stop the warring among Catholics. If we don’t, we’re no better than Hamas v. Jews and Ukrainians v. Russians. But if we do, we’re more like Christ.
Right on, Deacon!
Deacon and Br Jaques: agreed. Liturgical peace is the only way forward. But who is making war? It’s been a one-sided liturgical-genocide since 16.07.2021.
“The pilgrimage began on the evening of Oct. 24 with vespers in Rome’s Basilica of San Lorenzo in Lucina, presided over by Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, archbishop of Bologna. A solemn closing Mass of Christ the King will be celebrated at the Church of Santissima Trinità dei Pellegrini on the final day of the pilgrimage, Oct. 26.”
Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage began with vespers in Rome’s Basilica of San Lorenzo in Lucina, presided over by Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, who has defected from The Catholic Faith through his public manifest heresy that denies Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture. And The Teaching Of The True Magisterium of The Catholic Church, Grounded In Sacred Tradition And Sacred Tradition, The Deposit Of Faith Christ Has Entrusted To His Church For The Salvation Of Souls, by his desire to Bless and have Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church begin to Bless, disordered sexual relationships that deny Christ’s teaching regarding lust and the sin of adultery? Who would approve such a denial of The Deposit Of Faith , Christ Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, for The Salvation Of Souls and claim such an act is an act of compassion?
The question is, how can both Cardinal Zuppi and Cardinal Burke both be Baptized Catholics who desire to keep their Baptismal Promise to remain in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, and thus be United in Prayer With The One Word Of God, Jesus The Christ?
“They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.”
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal-zuppi-same-sex-blessing
Grace a Dieu
Blessed are the Peacemakers.
Amen, Knowall.
And those who save souls.
Apparently the purpose of depriving Catholic faithful of the TLM is for the Church Establishment to show that they own and control everything in their “Bugnini-ized-NGO-of-the-decapitated-Body.”
As JP2 and B16 observed, they are incapable of “generosity.”
And Insane.
See, when you write things like that, it confirms that trads are recalcitrant and will never agree to be integrated into the post-Vatican II Church. Peter Kwasniewski published a screed on Friday saying that trads will never compromise nor assimilate nor yield. Pope Francis was correct that TLM adherents and communities inculcate insular separation from the rest of the Church.
Donald:
As I believe you are replying to me, I do not have the opportunity (any longer) to attend The Mass I served and sang at as a boy, so I am like millions more aptly labeled a “Bugnini-Mass-hostage.”
I simply observe that the Church Establishment is utterly incapable of being “generous” (as JP2/ B16 specifically directed) to faithful who desire the TLM, and as their just reward they deserve to wear the badge of their malice, as a sign of how miserly they are.
I suppose their miserliness flows from the apostasy that their “thought leaders” profess, and that do many of them silently assent to.
Poor darlings that they are..,
That’s just silly, Donald. I love the TLM but it’s not a deal breaker for me. I know many other Catholics who feel likewise.
Choices are good and so is diversity in a catholic and universal Church. It’s not all one or the other.
Donald: you sound angry. Why call fellow Catholics “trads”? It’s offensive. Does anyone have a gun pressed to your temple forcing you to attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form?
Why should Catholics be forced to make compromises with beliefs that are not catholic or damage the faith?
The church is dying because of all a the compromises that have been.
If the faith that is being taught and practiced today is the same as before the council, then why such hatred and anger towards the pre vatican II liturgy and practices?
The evidence is that there is a small cadre of prelates led by the late Pope for whom the suppression of this liturgy is an imperious exercise of ecclesial power. Now that we know the putative reasons for TC were contrived, it should be annulled.
Francis famous enjoined others to make a mess. Nobody can accuse him of not leading by example.
How many of vernaculars can the Mass be said? No restrictions that I am aware, but the Latin Mass is supposedly divisive. Nearly Verboten. It’s not about God or faith. It’s ungodly power politics baby.
I am not “a trad” but I would refuse to participate in that grand TLM in the Vatican because I do not wish to land myself to manipulation. It would be unthinkable for me to participate in such Mass while the same TLM is being suppressed/restricted to the point of suffocation elsewhere.
Most “trads” seem not to realize that they are being used by the Vatican as a tool for proving credibility to its current course. I have seen “trads” lashing those Catholics who criticize the Pope for his inconsistencies and watering down the faith or turning it into something else. Those “trads” appear not to realize that an occasional TLM given to them is only to buy their allegiance or at least to be quiet.
This is a brilliant technique, actually, “see, even the most traditional Catholics approve me so I am not deviating from the faith”.
However, there is an obvious flavour of insincerity and absurdity in a situation when TLM is pompously celebrated in the Vatican yet it is being suffocated elsewhere – in the common parishes, among common people who need it. If TLM is to be suppressed, it must be suppressed everywhere – but PL needs TLM, not as a people’s Mass but as a part of his entourage, as an artefact in a museum.
I don’t see any manipulation going on. I don’t know that we should even be looking for that. Why not be grateful for this opportunity & move forward?
Anna:
That is a very shrewd observation.
It’s all part of the cult and practice of deceitfulnees.
This Sunday November 2 will be the beginning of Eastern Daylight time, meaning that if I want to go to the Latin Mass in Lewiston, 55 miles away I can, since I won’t have to drive in the dark.
So I’ll be on my feet at 5:30 and around 6 Rachel and I will be on the road and we’ll proceed westerly to Lewiston to the magnificent Sts. Peter & Paul Basilica, built around 1900 or so by the Franco-American Catholics there (the Stations of the Cross are in French). Does all this make me a “trad”? I haven’t the slightest idea.
It’s been a long time since I’ve been there – I can’t wait!!
As a simple matter of ecclesiological liturgical coherence, the TLM should be completely eliminated. Yes, even the Ecclesia Dei religious communities should be told that they may no longer accept new candidates for ordination unless they agree to switch from celebrating the old Mass to the new Mass.
The TLM is no longer an adequate liturgical expression of Catholic faith after Vatican 2. That’s the crux of the matter. It would be liturgically incoherent to maintain both liturgical expressions simultaneously, and to continue with the unrevised Mass.
“The TLM is no longer an adequate liturgical expression of Catholic faith after Vatican 2.”
And The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom? Should it go as well? After all, the priest has his back to the people much of the time, some parts aren’t in English, the icon screen keeps the people from seeing all that is happening up front, and the reverence is overwhelming. Surely that’s not adequate for 2025, right?