I agree with Ms. Johnson. Then again I tend to be skeptical of the use of the death penalty, especially in cases like this one where it is unlikely that he will ever offend again - after all, it is hard to run any medical practice from a prison cell, let alone such horrific practices.
Certainly those are good questions to ask.
Since the church has always recognized the death penalty as a just sentence it is inappropriate to suggest that people who support its use in this case are unmerciful. It is not a question of mercy but of justice. Having said that, it is surely true that there are people who would like to see Gosnell burn in hell and who’s comments are over the top, but the condemnation of their position should not be applied to everyone who believes he should be executed for his crimes.
It is not uncharitable to judge the heinousness of his actions and that is what should determine the severity of his punishment. All judgment is not forbidden, only judgement about things we cannot know, and there is surely no doubt about what Gosnell has done.*“Thou shalt not judge.” (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states. *(Aquinas)
Which is, of course, completely different from wishing it upon him, with great vigor and relish. (Which is the point that Johnson is making here…)
Whose justice? The state’s? That’s not justice at all, in many cases. Whose, then? God’s? No… if we’re honest, none of us really desires God’s justice – we want God’s mercy.
Yet, the Church’s ‘support’ for the death penalty these days is more fully developed than it was earlier in its history. I think it is appropriate “to suggest that people who support its use in this case are unmerciful,” given what the Catechism has to say about it:
But “what Gosnell has done” is not the object of “judgment about things we cannot know.” Rather, “what we cannot know” has everything to do with his interior disposition (and, quite significantly, the prospects for his repentance and conversion). Can we judge that he will not repent and turn toward God if he is given a life sentence rather than capital punishment? If not, then the death penalty isn’t just, from a Christian perspective. (And I’m pretty sure we can all agree that knowledge of the future is firmly in the realm of “things we cannot know.”
)I don’t want to redirect the topic of this thread by turning it into a debate on capital punishment but there is nothing to indicate that the assertions made in CCC 2267 represent anything in the way of development. The church’s emphasis on the use of capital punishment merely appeared in 1997. There is nothing whatever to show how it developed from what was in the first version of the catechism that came out in 1992.
The catechism opposes the use of capital punishment for practical reasons, not moral ones. It also denigrates nearly 2000 years of church teaching to suggest that only now has she finally gotten her approach to mercy correct. Beyond that it is a misunderstanding of mercy to suggest that it should be applied equally to everyone in all circumstances.
Punishment is primarily determined by the severity of the crime. There are other considerations involved but nothing about his interior disposition or possible repentance lessens the awfulness of his actions and it is actions that are being punished.
The church has always acknowledged the moral right of a state to impose capital punishment and the possibility of repentance has never caused her to object to its use.
Avoiding my questions. Well-played. But Abby Johnson’s article is all about capital punishment. So is your post. Why don’t you want to answer my questions? What is the topic of this thread as you see it?
I am well acquainted with 2000 years of church teaching on this subject so I have no need to avoid your questions, but there are already two threads open on the subject of capital punishment and there are other issues to address in this one.
No, I don’t think it is. What she objects to - and rightly so - is the hatred directed at Gosnell. That is inappropriate and she rightly asks why such hatred is not properly directed at her as well. The desire of many to see Gosnell executed is simply a manifestation of the issue she has raised.
I addressed the points you raised in the post to which I responded. I have no problem responding to any question you care to raise.
How should people such as Gosnell and Johnson be treated? Except for outright acts of infanticide, Johnson’s actions were not all that different than Gosnell’s yet she is treated with respect and Gosnell is vilified in the worst way imaginable. Johnson is aware of her transgressions and wonders if her loving treatment is justifiable.
I agree wholeheartedly! Pray for your enemies.
It is probably a mistake to play up the death penalty aspect of this situation. I know it is difficult to avoid it given that that may be his actual sentence, but the heart of Abby Johnson’s comments are not about capital punishment but about the differences between how Gosnell is treated and how she is treated even though she did many of the same things.
The action needed is to demonstrate the sanctity of life and there is no better way to do that than by imposing a severe penalty on those who improperly take it. The more severe the crime the more severe the penalty should be and the most severe crime - the taking of innocent life - should receive the most severe punishment.Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? This seems unlikely. … Genesis says murderers deserve death *because *life is precious; man is made in the image of God. How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live? (J. Budziszewski)