Archbishop Charles Chaput
Even when a defendant is well defended, properly tried and justly found guilty, experience shows that capital punishment simply doesn’t work as a deterrent. Nor does it heal or redress any wounds, because only forgiveness can do that. It does succeed though in answering violence with violence — a violence wrapped in the piety of state approval, which implicates all of us as citizens in the taking of more lives.
Turning away from capital punishment does not diminish our support for the families of murder victims. They bear a terrible burden of grief, and they rightly demand justice. Real murderers deserve punishment; but even properly tried and justly convicted murderers — men and women who are found guilty of heinous crimes — retain their God-given dignity as human beings. When we take a murderer’s life we only add to the violence in an already violent culture, and we demean our own dignity in the process.
Both Scripture and Catholic tradition support the legitimacy of the death penalty under certain limited conditions. But the Church has repeatedly called us to a higher road over the past five decades. We don’t need to kill people to protect society or punish the guilty. And we should never be eager to take anyone’s life. As a result, except in the most extreme circumstances, capital punishment cannot be justified. In developed countries like our own, it should have no place in our public life.
[hotblock]
Last month here in Pennsylvania, execution warrants were signed for four men. A judge stayed one of the execution warrants, but the three remaining warrants could potentially result in the first execution in our state in 13 years. One of the cases in which appeals seem to be exhausted involves Terrance Williams.
In October, Williams is scheduled to die by lethal injection for the murder of Amos Norwood in 1984, a crime committed when he was 18 and a college freshman. Williams is indisputably guilty of the crime. He’s also mentally competent. His defense attorneys argue that he was repeatedly sexually abused as a youth, including five years of abuse at the hands of the man he murdered, and that this helped motivate his violence. The state counters that all of Williams’ claims — including claims of sexual abuse — have had proper judicial review and been rejected.
Terrance Williams deserves punishment. No one disputes that. But he doesn’t need to die to satisfy justice. We should think very carefully in the coming days about the kind of justice we want to witness to our young people.
Most American Catholics, like many of their fellow citizens, support the death penalty. That doesn’t make it right. But it does ensure that the wrong-headed lesson of violence “fixing” the violent among us will be taught to another generation.
As children of God, we’re better than this, and we need to start acting like it. We need to end the death penalty now.
***
The Archbishop strongly encourages readers to contact the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons, urging them to recommend commutation of Williams’ sentence to life in prison. Please also contact the Office of the Governor and urge the Governor to accept a clemency recommendation from the board, or, in its absence, to order a temporary reprieve. Use the Catholic Advocacy Network at www.pacatholic.org to send an email to the Board of Pardons and the Governor. Or call or write them at:
Pennsylvania Board of Pardons, 333 Market Street, 15th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17126; phone: 717.787.2596.
The Honorable Tom Corbett, Governor of Pennsylvania, The Capitol, Harrisburg, PA 17120; phone: 717.787.2500.
PREVIOUS: Taking the difficult steps on the road to renewing the Church
NEXT: Some thoughts on Catholic faith and public life
This is a humorous exchange since the right wing nuts are being confronted by the Archbishop on a very important issue. The Archbishop recently remarked that the right wing Catholics are “nasty” and I can see why he drew that conclusion. Catholic teaching is Catholic teaching whether a right wing person is discussing abortion or the death penalty. It seems to me that the Church has decided to be more balanced in its approach to controversial issues and as Cardinal Dolan has stated it is true that the Church has alligned with the Republican Party too much (and perhaps this is a contributing factor in the demise of Mass attendance and the low level of priestly vocations).
The Achbp says, “Real murderers deserve punishment; but even properly tried and justly convicted murderers — men and women who are found guilty of heinous crimes — retain their God-given dignity as human beings.”
Seattle Catholic had a great article by Pryor on the death penalty years ago that pointed out the problems with this thinking:
http://seattlecatholic.com/article_20030318.html
“..The idea that there should be no death penalty because of the dignity of the human person is completely new to Catholic theology. In the Old Testament, God Himself ordered Moses to tell the Israelites that they should condemn to death those who murder (Exodus, Chapter 22, 3). Also, at the words of St. Peter, God struck Anaias and Saphira dead because of their actions (Acts, ch. 5, vs 1-10). St. Thomas also gave many reasons for which the death penalty should be used when the crimes go against the public good, as is the case with murder and heresy. “They deserve not only to be severed from the Church by excommunication, but also severed from the world through death” (Summa, Pt. II-II, Q. 11, Art. 3)..”
“..It does not appear that Our Lord or the Catholic Church place the same value on the dignity of the human person as do the American Bishops or Roeser when it comes to the death penalty. One important reason for this is that the American Bishops put all their emphasis on the ontological dignity of the human person as opposed to the operative dignity. In other words, the American Bishops believe that one is due particular treatment because of the fact that he is human and not because he operates or behaves in a moral way befitting what God expects of humans. The Church has always taught that when one commits an evil act he looses his operative dignity. This is why God could have told Moses to condemn murderers to death even though they possessed human ontological dignity. People are not rewarded or punished for what they are, but for what they do..”
Seraph – But where and when did God give MAN the right (and capacity/ability) to decide when a fellow human person loses their operative dignity? In the “Moses example” that you referred to, it was God acting.
“Both Scripture and Catholic tradition support the legitimacy of the death penalty under certain limited conditions. But the Church has repeatedly called us to a higher road over the past five decades.” I’m sorry, Your Grace, but to make such a statement, you must have been asleep for the past five decades, which have been marked by utter confusion and heterodoxy in Catholic teaching. Every time an American bishop puts forth the novel idea that the death penalty is immoral, he creates another excuse for American Catholics to vote for pro-abortion politicians. The death penalty is just punishment. It need not have anything to do with deterring crime or even with making society safer, though it does in fact do both. The death penalty is not revenge. It is the absence of just punishments that create a revengeful attitude in the populace.
How is it possible for a Christian to support the death penalty? And how is it possible for a Christian to want to stop another Christian from stopping a killing? What part of the New Testament did I miss?
I am stunned at the capacity of self-identified Christians to condone or even promote State-sancioned killing. Maybe Sharia law would be better.
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” which is from the Magisterium and all Catholics MUST adhere to says:
CCC – QUOIE ” 2267 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.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” UNQUOTE.
Vengence belongs to the Lord, but we are obligated to protect everyone from an unjust aggessor. This includes protecting prison guards and other prisoners.
Two questions that could be posed to the ARB would be: 1) by not permitting the death penalty, this would be an absolute even to protect the lives of others – yes or no;
2) all Catholics would be required to recuse themselves from Jury duty in potential death penalty cases, since the question is asked in jury selection. Is this what you want ?
The part of the CCC quote that says:
“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
is merely a prudential judgment on the efficacy of penal systems, something the Chuirch explicitly denies any competence in determing. Secondly, the “very rare, if not non-existent” is a speculative statement. And authoritative statements by their very nature cannot be couched in speculative terms. If all of what the CCC that you quoted was binding, this statement from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, acting in his official capacity as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in addressing the USCCB in 2004 would make no sense:
“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.” (Worthiness to Receieve Holy Communion #3 http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.htm
Abp. Chaput’s article demonstrates why bishops should not use their good offices to take sides on an issue, like the death penalty, where faithful orthodox Catholics can take divergent positions. What bishops like Abp. Chaput, as well most of his brother bishops in the USCCB do is allow themselves to be exploited by the anti-death penalty establishment.
It is apparent to this observer that he is simply uncritically repeating without any qualification the erroneous and I would say fraudulent claims put forth by the anti death penalty lobby.
This idea that capital punishment does not deter flies in the face of common sense as well as human nature. After all, the prospect of the more extreme punishment has a deterent effect at least in general. Quite frankly, I am shocked that a Catholic bishop of Abp. Chaput’s stature would dare make such claim. There are numerous credible studies that support the claim that the death penalty does in fact have a deterrent effect. For example there was the AEI/Brookings joint study of 2005 and University of Colorado 2003 and 2006 study show significant deterrent effect, despite its very trauncated application. One of the authors, Naci Mocan, a University of Colorado economics professor of the latter study opposes the death penalty , but acknowledges: “Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it,” “The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect.” “The results are robust, they don’t really go away,” he said. “I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?”
Even more shocking is this claim “It does succeed though in answering violence with violence — a violence wrapped in the piety of state approval, which implicates all of us as citizens in the taking of more lives.” This at least give the impression of moral equivalence with the crimes committed by murderers. No matter where one stands on the death penalty, such claim is morally untenable.
I for one am faithful Catholoic who supports the death penalty. not because I have a desire for revenge. I support it because I think it is still needed to protect the common good. I actually disdain teh fact that it is still needed. I wish we didn’t have to do this, but the overwhelming evidence suggests that we still do.
I would say that on matters such as this, bishops, in their official capacity, need to restrict their statements to the domain of their competence. And that is stating the moral principles within which Catholics must form their views. This would enable them to effectively act as mediators, holding both sides accountable to those principles. But in the approach they presently take, they come off as more ideological than pastoral.
And I also believe they make even more neccessary the very thing they are trying to abolish.
As an employee for the Corrections systems (I won’t say which)and after 24 years of experience I can tell you the ability of inmates to commit untold crimes on each other utilizing homemade weapons I never dreamed possible. With material that is found in everyday use I.E. single sheets of paper and boxer sharts that make a cross bow, a 16oz. plastic bottle turned into a knife. I could go on all day with this. We as corrections officers do everything possible but these men and women are many times just plain evil and are demtermined to do harm to one another and society as a whole. I have run up on too many scenes where somenone has been stabbed to death blood everywhere, and the murderer has gotten away with it because no one is willing to cooperate with us. When prison gangs get there messages out of the prisons using codes we are always attempting to break it begins to feel like we are war, and in a certain way we are. As a former member of the squad I can attest to the covert methods used and the many languages we have had to learn or contact in order to prevent what we can. And when we put them in solitary confinement we are immediately accused of cruel and unuasal punishement. We are taken to court by prison law offices and “do gooder” attorneys that are actually on the payroll of these poor rapists, murderers, and just all around poor guys/gals. No disrespect your Excellency but people like yourselves live in a dream land. Yes I am a loyal member of the Church abiding in all the Church teachs but when I here you say things like this it drives me up the wall and makes my job that much harder because people take your words and begin to project on me as a corrections employee. Wearing a badge anymore seems to make us the enemy in the eyes of too many people that only know of prison from what they see on T.V. So please spare us this lecture when what we need to hear about is the real presence of christ in the Eucharist, the infallabilty of the Holy Father and the important topics like these, especially when so many catholics don’t know these simple topics, including our very own priest. One priest told me the Catholic Church could actually change our official teachings on the subject of faith and morals (he was not joking). If you would like to respond to me please do Your Excellancy, but for now I can not agree with you, not from my experience. Pax Cristi
The Achbp says, “Real murderers deserve punishment; but even properly tried and justly convicted murderers — men and women who are found guilty of heinous crimes — retain their God-given dignity as human beings.”
With all due respect to the Archbishop, who I greatly admire, there are just some crimes that are just so heinous that true justice can only be achieved through the death penalty. Where does it say that it is undignified to be executed through lethal injection in a non-public atmosphere? Considering executions as “undignified” is a modern notion. If the Church wants to make an argument that death penalties are unChristian based on Christ’s “turn the other cheek” then I can see that as logical. Then no punishment could be applied, so the Church can’t make that argument. To say death penalties should be abolished because it takes away dignity from the criminal to me is fallacious. It has never been considered so until modern times. My goodness, Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for supposed heresy.
You people can say all you want as to the Death Penalty not being a deterrent to Murder but I know from personal experience that it is. In 1963 I was a police officer in Pennsylvania. I and some of my fellow officer chased a felon in to a neighborhood with some deserted homes. While searching these homes it turned out that the felon caught one of my friends from behind with a gun. the rest of us were nearby and he knew it. Instead of using the gun he elected to give up. When asked why he gave up, he said i knew if I killed him they would “fry” me.
One problem I see with capital punishment as currently practiced is:
1) That the appeals process takes so long few in society even can follow a crime from it’s committment to it’s punishment.
2) It’s done under cover of darkness. We’ve become so squeemish apparently that executions are no longer performed in public.
3) The crimes for which they are used are not the type that they would serve as a deterrent.
As stated elsewhere, it really should be used as a punishment of last resort: If crimes are already committed as part of a life sentence, say. There it may actually serve as a deterrent.
What of the dignity of those in prison (both the guilty and the innocent) who are victimized by violent killers who were not executed?
What a crock! 3,500 children are murdered daily in the U.S. and uncounted old people are being starved and dehydrated to death (or committing suicide) in Chaput’s own “Catholic” nursing homes, but “capital punishment” has to end now! I guess it’s sort of like calling the anal rape of a child a “boundary violation”.
I’m kind of surprised that Abp. Chaput, who I have the highest respect for, would champion this view, but not entirely surprised; it’s his calling, if you will, to attempt to be above reproach when it comes to human life. But are the following the exceptions to that rule? (of absolute respect for ALL human life, no matter what the circumstances are)
1) the chap who in the late ‘seventies, early ‘eighties, who had a hisory of being a violent pedophile, kidnapped, savagely sexually abused, then BEAT TO DEATH A LESS THAN TWO-YEAR OLD GIRL, here in Ventura county.
2)the man in New York City, single, who just HAD to have his own child, so he was approved to adopt one by the authorities,some time within the last decade. He proceeded to physically ABUSE this INFANT, FINALLY IN A FIT OF rage, murdered THIS HELPLESS IINFANT, CUT UP THE BODY, AND FED IT TO HIS DOGS! I’m sorry, in my view and I believe the view of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, these two MISERABLE EXCUSES for human beings, FORFEIT THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE, and MUST be executed as humanely as possible. Anything else is a TRAVESTY of justice. GOD BLESS ALL, MARKRITE
Katherine,
I agree 100% but in the self defense case, you are not executing but rather are protecting yourself and the death of the other alone will stop his trigger finger or knife. Shotguns with self defense rounds are best because they are less likely than high powered pistols to go through two walls and kill your neighbor inadvertently.
If a life sentence really meant a life sentence, if too many convicted violent criminals were not paroled to commit more crimes, capital punishment would not be needed.
For about 99% of the time, I am anti-capital punishment. However there are some heinous crimes such as the Connecticut home invasion that make me want to bring back hanging in the public square. I suspect I will struggle with this issue for a long time.
Thank you, Archbishop Chaput for a very thoughtful column.
A few years back several top members of the aryan brotherhood were convicted of several counts of conspiracy to committ murder. Despite being in prison on life sentences they still managed to pass down orders which resulted in several people who were not even in prison to lose their lives. Before you throw around phrases like “the death penalty is not needed to protect society” perhaps you should considet cases such as this. Not to mention that many people already in prison on life sentences have killed and maimed and raped their fellow inmates. Are these victims not deservinv of protection also? Or the prison guards?
There are two cases in which the death penalty is necessary to protect society.
The first is where a person commits a capital crime while incarcerated or under arrest or detention.
The second is where he is personally so wicked that there would be an unacceptable risk to the rehabilitation of other prisoners were he to be incarcerated with them.
Normally, you can count on Archbishop Chaput to offer commentary or opinion (and this article is nothing more)based on a properly balanced and ordered exposition of how Church doctrine intersects the real world (and human nature). Sadly, this is not up to his usual standard of excellence, nor does it seem to offer much more than a sense of misguided charity as justification. The logical fallacies are bad enough, but the failure to utilize basic Catholic tools such as a consideration of double effect only compound the error. And it seems clear that AB Chaput has made the mistake of personalizing this issue in regards to Mr. Williams case, which always has a corrosive effect on objectivity. Suffice it to say that rebutting the article could involve an entire article itself, but I will be brief.
1. Every year there are nearly 100 homicides committed by inmates against other inmates in the U.S. Generally, the assailants are violent offenders convicted of murder, manslaughter or who have have pleaded to a lesser offence despite their crime having involved the death of another.
2. Additionally, although statistics are not readily available, we know that some number of the approximately 15,000 homicides each year are ordered or arranged by inmates in prison, many of those on death row.
3. We also know that the criminal justice system is equal parts corrupt and inept at times, allowing clearly guilty murderers to go free (e.g., OJ & Casey Anthony), where in some cases they manage to kill again in retribution or to silence a witness.
4. And we have also seen case after case of the inmate released on early parole, or based on “good behavior” or simply escapes, who kills not long after being released.
So in brief summary, each of these examples on their own, and certainly in combination, give lie to the idea that the criminal justice system in this country can safely insulate society from homicide, rape, violent assault, etc., by merely incarcerating a violent offender. The empirical evidence against is there in painfully plain sight if you have eyes to see and ears to hear. Is even one innocent death “acceptable” because of the naive notion that we can completely isolate or quarantine evil with modern technology? This was and is the logical fallacy of Blessed JPII’s attempt to “develop” Church doctrine on capital punishment beyond the bounds of reason and reality. It is disappointing to see the same argument from Sentimentalism from AB Chaput, as it is contrary to Catholic Tradition in its essence. And contrary to the canard repeated above, capital punishment is always a deterrent in the immediate case.
As someone with long-standing respect for Archbishop Chaput, I submit these questions in a spirit of inquiry, not of disrespect. These are not charged questions, and I don’t know the answers, but I genuinely want to hear Archbishop Chaput’s responses:
1. Despite the best of intentions regarding lifetime imprisonment, in our society, are not legal challenges inevitable until the convicted person dies thus leaving us with no moral certitude of lifetime imprisonment?
2. Is there really no practical possibility a convicted criminal can kill a guard, another employee of the prison or another criminal?
3. Are U.S. prisons so secure that a criminal has no real possibility of escaping?
God Bless, and thanks!
The Archbishop’s sentiment in this matter is noteworthy, and I respect his opinion very much, however he does not support his sentiment with theological argument or persuasion to underpin it. Such being the case, there is not much for the layman to weigh here either intellectually, spiritually, or scripturally.
I am a Pennsylvanian. I am not opposed to the death penalty. My opinion remains unchanged.
This was posted by Bender on October 10, 2011 at 12:05 am, and I agree:
Capital Punishment, though not intrinsically evil, and permissible under certain very specific situations, is not required, and should almost never be used.
________________
I would suggest that this is not the best way to put it and, in fact, it puts the cart before the horse.
A better way to put it is that, in some rare instances, it IS required, and it is ONLY when it is required that it is permissible. When is it required? When there are no less drastic measures by which to protect the lives and safety of others. If a prisoner still presents an on-going continuing threat to others by his actions or merely by remaining alive, even if held in the HELL that is a super-max prison, it may very well be required.
We have a duty to protect life. Not only the life of the prisoner, but the lives of other prisoners, and the lives of guards, and the lives of people outside the prison. If taken alive, would Osama bin Laden have presented a continuing threat to the safety of others and a threat to our national security? How many innocent people should we sacrifice to keep him alive in that case? Or consider the case of the prisoner who murders other prisoners or kills guards or attempts to do these things. What do we say to the widow of the next murdered guard whose death could have been prevented? Or what about the mob boss who can still control his gang and order hits on people even from inside prison? Do the people of Iraq sleep easier at night knowing that Saddam Hussein is lying cold in the grave?
I think that the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae are overly optimistic in overstating the “possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm.” (And one also overstates the case to say that the popes and bishops have rejected modern capital punishment per se.) In some cases, there is NO effective way to render the offender incapable of doing harm. In other cases, the only way to render him harmless, other than to totally incapacitate him by taking his life, is to subject him to a tortuous existence in 24-hour lockdown in an isolation cell in a super-max prison. This latter approach I would suggest is as morally abhorent as is execution, if not more so.
Now, do the above cases represent most people convicted of a horrible crime? No. Absolutely not. Probably well over 95 percent of executions are not justified — they are not required in order to protect the lives and safety of others. But some are. Unfortunately. It would be far preferable not to have to take someone’s life at all, but when they present a threat to others, the use of deadly force might be necessary.
The question of the value and dignity and sanctity of human life is a question of moral truth. It is a question that deals with absolutes. That absolute is — human life is so precious that it is wrong to kill, except that, in order to protect life, it might be necessary to take the life of an aggressor.
The question of capital punishment, however, is not susceptible of absolutes. It is an inherently relative matter. Today in the United States, at enormous financial expense, we have super-max prisons of concrete and steel. Other nations today do not have those resources or manpower to construct, maintain, and guard such prisons. Even 100 years ago, the United States did not either. Towns in the old West might have had a one-cell jail in a brick building, from which escape was quite possible. And out on the frontier, there were no jails at all. What to do with a killer or a rapist who might escape or will be released at some point and might go looking for revenge? The only effective way of rendering them incapable of doing harm was by use of a rope. It was because there were no prisons as we have today, or resources to operate them and house prisoners for life, and because offenders could not be trusted not to re-offend after being released, or could not be trusted to not return if banished, that people up until the 19th century were hanged for not only murder, but rape and robbery and mayhem and burglary.
The question of the dignity and sanctity of human life is a question of moral truth. But the question of “capital punishment” is entirely relative, depending upon specific facts and situations. And we should not blur or confuse the two. The Church is on firmest ground proclaiming truth, which is absolute, rather than going further and trying to absolutize the inherently relative.
As a “punishment” or as a “penalty,” given the absolute moral truth of the sanctity of human life, it should absolutely be opposed. And, properly understood, THAT is where I believe the popes and bishops stand. And that is where we should stand. But as a remedial matter, as a protective matter, as the only way to defend and save human life, the use of deadly force by execution might in rare cases be required, and therefore permissible. “Rare” means rare, and we should not be in the business of twisting the words of moral truth and arguing that “rare” really means “never.” It doesn’t.
Providing for a murderer’s room, board and health care for the rest of his or her life doesn’t serve justice in many cases.
Having the death penalty available provides a deterrent against prisoners killing each other and prison guards.
It also encourages cooperation by accused criminals who may decide to confess their crimes and reveal where they hid the body/bodies and who helped them in exchange for the prosecution not asking for the death penalty.
I think taking the death penalty off the table will do more harm than good, cheapening the lives of victims and potential future victims. Maybe public executions would be a better idea and increase the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
If someone breaks into my house when I’m home or threatens my life when I’m out and about, I intend to exercise my right to self defense and carry out the death penalty right there on the spot.
Katherine,
Years ago, before I really became committed to a pro-life philosophy, I used to have a similarly pragmatic view as yours in at least part of your comment. To my mind, the murderer had forfeited his right to life, and since the taxpayers could choose the most economical way of protecting themselves from futher danger, that would justify the death penalty. Well, the fact is that a capital case incurs enormous costs to prepare for and try, as it consumes hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours of lawyers’ time, for both sides, for which taxpayers generally pay. Our deacon, with nearly 40 years at the bar, just told me that some rural counties can hardly afford one of these cases in a year. For this reason alone one can demonstrate that the death penalty is not applied equally even within states, much less regionally or nationally. DNA & other discoveries have freed too many for us to be terribly confident that justice will always prevail. Also, we now know that the death penalty has no real deterrent effect, as the people that do this do not weigh risks rationally.
However, the complete answer to the question of capital punishment was given by Catholic author J R R Tolkein in the “Fellowship of the Ring”, chapter 2, “The Shadow of the Past” (while this occurs in the Shire, the conversation was moved very effectively to the Mines of Moria in the movie). After learning of the terrible peril of the Ring, and the creature Gollum’s disclosure of the names “Shire” & “Baggins” to the Dark Lord, Sauron, Frodo exclaims, “What a pity that Bilbo did not kill him when he had the chance!” Gandalf replies, “It was pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand…”. Frodo, who has every reason to fear, says “… he deserves to die”. By this time we have learned that Gollum is truly awful, so Gandalf says: “Deserves death? I daresay that he does. [here is the crucial point] Many that live deserve to die – but many that die deserve to live. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Then do not be eager to deal out death in judgement, for even the very wise cannot see all ends”.
While not a capital offender, I would offer Chuck Colson as an example of enormous contributions to our society made as the result of a jailhouse conversion. When it comes to evaluating the future worth of a person’s life, we simply don’t know, & should dread to play God.
It should be obvious, but is necessary to restate, that this principle applies even more forcefully for the perfectly innocent unborn, since it even does for a convicted criminal.
Note that I am not equating the death penalty, which can be morally permissible with the provisos stated above, with direct abortion, which is intriniscally evil; that is, it is always & everywhere morally wrong. Consequently it is the unborn that deserve our most relentless efforts, and we do both causes a disservice by blurring the very real distinctions between them.
Deacon,
Advancement is a red herring. All a life sentence takes is a locked room, food, and excretion facilities. The Inquisition had them and the Roman empire had them where it was called ” damned to the mines”.
The papal lands executed 500 criminals in the first half of the 19th century. Are you going to tell us that putting them in a room for life was impossible then? We cover up our reversals by denying our past and its implications. Google ” Bugatti papal executioner “.
Not surprisingly, Archbishop Chaput’s position on the death penalty is completely in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church. In theory, the death penalty is not precluded. But, given our advancements today in the vast majority of developed countries, there are means to protect society from the aggressor. Thus, the morally acceptable use of the death penalty today is “practically nonexistent.” There is no morally acceptable justification for it in the Williams case.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
2267 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.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
Well said Archbishop Chaput! We’re either pro life or not. No middle ground there, a life is a life, from conception to natural death.
Like Joseph, I also would like to understand what might constitute an extreme circumstance. The catechism isn’t clear on that at all…thank you.
“A life is a life.” So you make no distinction between innocent life and mass murderers, attacking soldiers and their leaders, or anything else, eh?
Also, you too easily ignore the damage to the lives of the men you expect to guard and imprison convicted murderers.
Try again.
Nope, I make no distinctions, at all, ever. And make no apologies for that either. I sit in judgment of no one.
With regards to Kozaburo’s comment, His Excellency has said nothing that the Latin Rite Roman Catholic Church has not said many times prior to this as well, so I’m surprised if this far from new idea is what would keep you away from a church.
In reply to Joseph, while I am not The Most Reverend Archbishop, I can say (and believe this is what he meant) that there may be some cases, such as in developing, or even some second world countries, where the prison system is not sufficiently able to make sure a prisoner will be secured for life, or where the political system is so volatile that one judicial result could result in an imprisonment of a person who is later simply freed if another party gains control of the government. In these cases, one could make the argument that capital punishment may be the only alternatative punishment for a particular prisoner. However, in the Criminal Justice system currently in place in the U.S. we have the technology, security, and stability to make sure that someone who is to be kept in jail for life stays there. Thus while we have both Old AND New Testament statements that the government CAN have the moral authority to punish capitally, it does not follow that it is always moral to use exercise that authority.
Bravo, Kozaburo!
All Chaput is doing is parroting JPII’s arbitrary revisionism concerning capital punishment, a stance that contradicts both Scripture and Tradition.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1463
I wouldn’t use the word “bravo”. The fact is this… the latter part of the catechism statement is a fantasy (“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”). The state cannot prevent any crime, only punish it. So tradition stands, as it must.
What hurts me the most about +Chaput’s statement is that it reflects an attitude shared by so many clergy in the Roman Catholic Church. A thousand priests and bishops will champion a remorseless murderer, but the victim’s family is lucky if they get a decent homily at the funeral let alone a phone call offering support. Your loved one is butchered so bad she can’t even have an open casket, and they make you sit through some awful hymn like “On Eagle’s Wings”. Later, after a year or more of a trial where you live through every detail of the violence in gory detailas the murderer and his lawyer lie and lie, and years of appeals involving the same, the priest or his bishop will protest her murderer’s execution. It’s sickening.
This does not happen in the Ukrainian Church.
Excellency,
As a poor sinner trying to live as a good Catholic, I respectfully have problems with your statements against the death penalty. Murder recidivism rate in the USA is extremely high. As a police officer of 25 years, I ask, what is to stop the murderer from killing again, even with a life sentence???? Both the Correction Officers and other prisoners will always be targets. What are you going to do, give the bad guy/girl a 2nd life sentence???? And how about serial killers that have become all too common??? Should not they pay???
If you don’t find a cause/effect relationship between the death penalty and lower murder rates, it’s probably because of the 15-20 years of appeals that each prisoner gets. Swift, certain, and PUBLIC executions would make the need for them that much less. Evil needs to be beaten both on one’s knees, but also while carrying a very big and loud stick. When our country was founded, there were 70+ capital offenses on the books and all executions were in public. Now obviously I’m not advocating returning to the 1700’s, but for serial killers, kidnap/rapists/pedophile/ Terrorists, public trail & punishment would be a positive.
Respectfully, in Jesus;
RJO
As a former medical examiner I have some insight into pain that of survivor families and a great deal of outrage at murderers, especially of the calculated, serial variety. Believe me when I tell you I would cheerfully pull the switch (or give the injection) for execution. Which is exactly why it ought not happen, because my desires are themselves the disordered desire for revenge. This issue was the hardest for me to come to grips with when I came into the church for very intense and personal reasons. But Archbishop Chaput is right and I ask for the grace to embrace withmy heart that which my intellect tells me is in fact an expression of the hardest and therefor the most Christ-like, love. In the long run, our actions are not to be about saving lives or supporting political parties somuch as to be witness to Christ.
This is as bad as the Groeschel bombshell.
The archbishop is not only wrong about detterence…he’s simplistic about it. God gave it over thirty times in the Bible in order to deter but our hierarchy are above God. Acts 5 after the first Pope cooperated with God in the killing of a couple…ends by saying ” the whole community took fear”. But our Bishops contradict scripture with ease.
But with our legal industry making appeals in the US last ten years ( 20 in California), then in that situation, deterrence is hurt. Guatemala has a death penalty that does not deter. Why? Their arrest rate for murder is 3%. Long appeals, low arrest rates diminish the deterrence of any punishment. But Japan is safer than virtually every Catholic country on earth and has the death penalty ( 4 executed in early summer).
Catholic hierarchy are trying to make the Inquisition disappear and fighting the death penalty verbally actually works in that goal because most Catholics are not great readers of history.
In the first half of the 19th century, Bugatti, the papal executioner executed 500 criminals in the papal states. Suddenly after Europe went against the death penalty, Catholicism followed… hoping to impress de Christianized Europe and therefore talk Europe out of abortion by impressing them on the death penalty.
The question the Bishop needs to answer is this.
Is the death penalty for murder justified in retribution for the crime of murder, or any other of commensurate gravity?
If it is, then the criminal suffers no injustice in being put to death. The matter then moves on to a discussion of the case for clemency.
If it is not, then the execution of the criminal must be assimilated to murder, which would render both the traditional teaching of the Church, and her new teaching as set forth in the Catechism, incorrect.
Thank you, Your Excellency, for this reflection. I am a traditional, pro-life Catholic who is also opposed to the death penalty. Yet, most of my friends and family are wholesale supporters of it even though the Church has has recently taught otherwise. I really appreciate this clear statement of Church teaching.
Capital punishment has nothing to do with deterrence nor retribution nor forgiveness. It is justice. This reminds me of those who say an all loving God surely wouldn’t condemn someone to hell for eternity. An all loving God is also an all just God, and Justice demands it. The modern Church today has embraced humanism. Nowhere is this more evident than when they changed the Mass so the priest now faces the people vs facing God. This pretty much sums it all up.
I greatly admire this Archbishop for his unapologetic defense of Catholic doctrine and faith. I have disagreed with him twice. The first was his support of the Dream Act, which undercuts federal law and increases the liklihood of national insolvency and disintegration and this position of the death penalty.
Many modern Catholics believe that history, especially enlightened history began with our age simply because we happen to be alive in it. As the Archbishop correctly states: “Both Scripture and Catholic Tradition support the death penalty under certain limited circumstances.” The last part of that sentence was overly apologetic for a legitimate point and truth. He might also have added that canon law also supports it. The late Cardinal Dulles provided a lengthy scriptural and traditional defense of the death penaly.
Much of modern opposition to capital punishment came, I believe, from John Paul II who lived under Nazi occupation followed swiftly by Soviet, communist domination. Both these systems used the death penalty whimsically, capriciously, arbitrarily and unjustly. Under those cicumstances, I too am opposed to the death penalty.
I am not, however, opposed to just imposition of the death penalty. Ted Bundy actually escaped from a prison, ran to Florida, and murdered some more. He was justly and morally executed in my view. You may disagree with me but you can’t tell me that I am not a faithful Catholic for holding that view. Again, Scripture and Tradition simply does not support abolition of capital punishment, like it or not.
I do not take disagreeing with Archbishop Chaput lightly. While I agree the use of it should be extremely rare, I do believe we owe it to law enforcement and the victims of kidnap to exhaust every tool possible to prevent their deaths in the line of duty. If the law officer in the field or the detention center can say to one who could kill them, don’t do it or you face execution, they should have that opportunity and we owe it to law enforcement to protect them as much as possible.
What I struggle with is whether life imprisonment isn’t more degrading (or potentially so) than execution. Further, if contemporary, technologically advanced societies DO possess the resources to render “one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”, one may presume those resources, however vast, to be limited. At what point are the resources used to house, feed, and provide medical care to people serving life sentences disproportionate to the state’s actual moral obligations to those same people?
My question is how do you reconcile such a statement with earlier church teachings on the reason the death penalty was permitted? As I understand it, the death penalty is permitted because in many ways it is a mercy, as it forces the person facing it to confront his mortality and possibly find his way to God.
As Saint Paul states in 1 Cor. 5:5
“you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
I do not agree with putting people to death out of blood lust or vengeance. However, Psalm 90 also requests that God “Teach us to number our days, that we might gain a heart of wisdom”, and who better numbers their days than the man or woman who faces death directly?
All of us must die sometime. The death penalty is just if the murderer is guilty and not sorry. It is better than spending millions keeping aman in prison while other die because they have no food or health care! Or because they are aborted!
Abp. Chaput is deaf. Doesn’t he hears the cries of the blood of murder victims!
As a Catholic Navy veteran, I do not automatically accept the opinion of AB Chaput. He states himself that the protection of society is one reason that the state can take a life. Obviously time of war would be one example. Our society is deteriorating and the good archbishop may be right and he may be wrong. It should be obvious that AB Chaput would be classified as a “bleeding heart”. There is also no doubt that he is a socialist and just as obviously in favor of the redistribution of wealth through his recent actions in regard to the Catholic School System and its supposed privatization. Again with these issues as well, he may be right and he may be wrong. He is among many bishops who are against capitalist Romney and why the bishops support the socialist Obama and look the other way in regard to his support for abortion.
I agree that in most cases, even with many murder cases the death penalty may not be the answer. However, I’ve been studying about gangs, their development and history and many of the most violent gangs are operated from within prisons by gang leaders who commit subsequent crimes even murders within prison. These leaders are able to communicate and organize their gangs even give orders for more violence all from within their maximum security cells with relative impunity. Maybe these are the extreme cases for which the death penalty should be reserved for.
Death only begets more death.
Thank you Archbishop for standing up for Catholic doctrine; you continue to be an inspiration.
Dudley Sharp, I suggest you use Scripture and the Catechism as references instead of a blog. Kozaburo, your quickness to lump shame on those that disagree with you isn’t in the Catholic tradition, no matter what country you’re from.
Google Dudley. You will see that he does nothing but posts/pastes the same words and links over and over again.
Dudley Sharp is a sick excuse for a human being.
“Turning away from capital punishment does not diminish our support for the families of murder victims. ” Yes it does, and this family member of a Philly murder victim is glad that Philly has a strong Ukrainian Catholic Church, because after Chaput’s statement I’ll never go to an Archdiocesan church again. Shame on Chaput!
bold statement mr kozaburo, but why don’t you read what the catechism says on this topic before you lash out at archbishop chaput
I want to give my own opinion about this case. I do not want this man to be
executed . Death Penalty does not solve anything but it is only Death again.
If Jesus Christ came to this world would forgive this man… I want my signa
ture to be added with other signatures in order to help to save Terrance’s
life
Archbishop Chaput,
Thank you for speaking to this issue as directly and as eloquently as you have done. It is important for American Catholics to remember that being pro-life doesn’t stop at the maternity ward. Also, just because a punishment may fit a crime, it doesn’t mean that punishment is a positive or morally-correct choice for a community to impose.
You have, however, left a question: you indicate in your writing that, “except in the most extreme circumstances, capital punishment cannot be justified.” To what extreme circumstances do you refer?
the extreme circumstance would be in the case of a violent criminal being caught, and jail not being adequate enough to protect the innocent ie he can break out easily.
The gov’t has a responsibility to protect the innocent, so the death penalty would be the only way to do it in this case of an inadequate jail system. In the USA this is not the case.
I agree with the specifics of the Terrance Williams case. He is no apparent threat to society, and our prisons can keep others safe from him.
I disagree that the death penalty should be totally eliminated. As I understand from news reports, there are prisoners in the SuperMax prisons in California and elsewhere who can order the death of innocent people from prison. This is exactly the situation where the death is permitted in Church teaching. It seems to me that there are certain criminals who, no matter how far removed they are from society, can still cause harm. The death penalty is for them, and no one else.
Archbishop Chaput is defending a position taken by the Democratic party. This is unusual in that in the past the Catholic Church always defended positions taken by the Republican party. I suspect that Cardinal Dolan has had some influence on his brother Bishops in that he is trying to make the Catholic Church more balanced in its political perspective. The reality is that neither party completely embraces Catholic doctrine.
Robert, Why the need to politicize the Archbishop’s words? The positions of the political parties are irrelevant. The Archbishop is simply reiterating the same position offered by many other bishops and popes before him, which is also found in the Catechism. One need not read into it some sort of secret political motives. It’s just good Catholic moral theology at work.
The Church has never been partisan and cannot be lumped into a political party. In terms of social justice, the Church has been a foil to the Republicans, and when it comes to pro-life advocacy, she frustrates the Democrats. The Church’s moral teaching is bigger and more complete and always more consistent than partisan politics.
Thank you, Archbishop Chaput. I’ll be sharing this.
I think it is more important to think of issues such as abortion, the death penalty, etc. not as partisan issues than to think about them in terms of the way the majority of any political parties tend to vote on or at least look at each issue. You are right that neither party completely embraces Catholic doctrine, though it is not hard to come by Catholics who would beg to differ because of the fact that these important issues have become polarized. Regardless of which political party usually backs abortion, the death penalty, etc., these issues still must be addressed even if doing so results in criticism.
Of course the death penalty deters.
All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism.]]
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
Of all endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.
1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html
2) Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html
And Dudley Sharp raises his ugly head.
Please Dudley. Get pancreatic cancer.