Death Penalty

[John Carberry]

The Death Penalty, by John Carberry

“If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged seven times” (Gn 4:15). Are the Old and the New Testaments consistent regarding the death penalty for crimes? Since the death penalty was common under Mosaic Law, why does the Church consider it improper today?[1] If one considers the Old Testament as a foreshadowing of the New, the two testaments appear much more in sync. From the beginning, God showed mercy to Cain, who had killed his brother Abel, just as Jesus is merciful to the woman caught in the act of adultery (Jn 8:11). Dead to the spirit because of their sin, God had not yet saved the people of the Old Testament. The people interpreted the destruction of life as a destruction of mortal life, or their physical bodies. Yet David recognizes the connection of God with his anointed King, Saul. David will not kill him, even in self-defense (1 Sm 26:11, 2 Sm 1:14-16).

Like God’s mercy toward Cain or Jesus’s mercy shown to the adulteress, the Church generally rules against capital punishment. Pope Saint John Paul II discusses the death penalty in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life). John Paul recognizes how God dealt with the first murder of Abel by his brother Cain. God punishes Cain, not by death, but by isolation. Anyone who kills Cain will be avenged seven times (Gn 4:15). God preferred correction rather than the death of a sinner.[2] While Cain is tempted by evil, he has power over it (Gn 4:7). Each person has equal personal dignity, and the destruction of life violates the spiritual kinship uniting mankind in one great family. Cain’s murder of Abel shows how quickly evil spreads after the fall. Cain lies about his brother’s whereabouts to God and denies any responsibility (Gn 4:9).[3] Attacking human life is an attack on God himself. Cain is sent to “the land of Nod” (Gn 4:16) which is a place of scarcity, loneliness and separation from God. God marks Cain so that no one will kill him (Gn 4:15). Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity.[4] Modern society can suppress crime by using ways to render criminals harmless.[5] This message of the inviolability of physical life and the integrity of the person is brought to perfection in the New Testament.[6] Punishment must remain for those convicted of serious crimes to prevent such crimes. However, if bloodless means can be used to defend humanity against such crimes, then the public authority should limit itself to such means. It is rare that alternative means are not available today.[7]

How do we reconcile the law of the Old Testament with the interpretation of the law of the Gospel? We can look at both natural law or the law of nature, as well as the written law, Mosaic Law, or the law of Moses. The first book of the Pentateuch (5 scrolls) or the Torah (Law) is Genesis. Since the written law was given orally by God to Moses, Genesis precedes the written law. The written law is presented in the last four books of the Pentateuch: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

Genesis presents many examples of the natural law, or what is against nature. Knowledge of these sins should be inherent in man’s nature. Since God is the author of life, man is expected to cooperate both in the creative process through his sexuality in monogamous relationships, as well as not prematurely ending one’s life which should only come about naturally by God. We see examples of God’s directive to be fruitful and multiply (Gn 1:28, 9:1, 7, 35:11). Eve cooperates with God in bearing the first child (Gn 4:1). Onan is killed by God because he frustrates nature in his sexuality by trying to avoid conception of a child (Gn 38:8-10). Sins of homosexuality are punished by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 19:1-29). Abel’s blood cries out to God when Cain murders his brother (Gn 4:10). Anyone shedding the blood of a human being will see his own blood shed (Gn 9:6, Mt 26:52). The Lord threatens Abimelech with death for taking Abraham’s wife into his household (Gn 20:3). Joseph recognizes immediately that it is wrong to have an adulterous relationship with the wife of his master (Gn 39:7-10).

Other examples serious crimes are presented throughout Sacred Scripture, usually with death being the penalty imposed by God. These include Korah’s disrespect for the authority of Moses (Nm 16:1-3, 25-35, 26:10, Dt 11:6, Ps 106:17-18, Sir 45:18-19, Jude 1:11) or Ananias’ deception of Peter in the sale of a piece of property (Acts 5:1-5). Christ indicates that one who calls his brethren “You Fool” will be subject to fiery Gehenna (Mt 5:22).

The written law is similar is presenting the severity of actions against nature as well as other serious sins. These include actions against God’s creative design or causing early destruction of life.

Saint Paul points out the gravity of certain sins in that they restrict a person from eternal life with God (1 Cor 6:9-10, Gal 5:19-21). When Saint Paul says that those who commit such sins will not inherit the kingdom of God, he implies that the sins are mortal sins, because only mortal sins exclude a person from the kingdom of God.[8] The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:21). The mortality of the action brings on spiritual death (Lk 15:24, Jn 8:21, Gn 2:17, 3:3, Dn 13:22), rather than physical death.[9] In this sense, the Old and New are remarkably consistent. Only mortal sins were punished with death.[10] Paul’s mortal sins, those that keep one from heaven, follow the same capital crimes of Mosaic Law. Murder and premeditated murder of the Old Testament compare to Paul’s hatred, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, and dissensions (Gal 5:9, Ex 21:12-14, Lv 24:17, Nm 35:16-21). Other examples include idolatry or worship of false gods (1 Cor 6:9, Ex 22:19, Lv 20:2, Dt 13:7-11, 17:2-5), fornication (1 Cor 6:9, Eph 5:5, 1 Tm 1:10, Lv 21:9, Rv 21:8, 22:15), homosexuality (1 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:9, Lv 20:13) and adultery (1 Cor 6:9, Lv 20:13, Dt 22:22-23).

Ezekiel’s discussion of life and death is similar. The man who avoids the egregious pitfalls will live (Ez 18:5-9), but those who commit serious crimes will die (Ez 18:10-13), even if he had been virtuous up to that point (Ez 33:12-13, 18). The father will not answer for the crimes of the son, and the son will not answer for the crimes of the father (Ez 18:14-20, Ex 32:33). Anyone who turns from his wicked ways and becomes righteous will live (Ez 18:21-22, 33:12-16, 19). God finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked but rejoices when they turn from their evil ways (Ez 18:23, Wis 1:13). This is consistent with the Parable of the Lost Sheep, where the shepherd abandons ninety-nine sheep to go off and search for the lost one (Lk 15:1-7, Mt 18:12-14, Ez 34:4).

Scripture provides other examples of how the gravity of sin can be deadly on the soul. Saint John distinguishes deadly sin, which separates us from God and his Church, from non-deadly sin (1 Jn 5:16-19). Saint James discusses how sin can mature to the point that it gives birth to death (Jas 1:15), whether caused by increased gravity, greater knowledge or consent. Mortal sin is turning away from our last end, which is God (Jb 34:27).[11] Only God can restore the grace that mortal sin takes away (Jer 15:1-2).[12] The Church defines mortal sin as an action whose object is grave matter, which is committed with full knowledge (1 Tm 1:13) and deliberate consent.[13] Full knowledge places a greater responsibility on believers (Heb 10:29, Lk 12:47-48).[14] Willed or feigned ignorance does not diminish the voluntary nature of the sin.[15] Consent means applying sense to something.[16] It is applying the appetitive movement to doing something,[17] or the means of doing the action.[18] Foreseeing the consequences increases the goodness or malice of an action.[19] The death sentence of the Old Testament foreshadows the loss of eternal life of the New Testament.

Why is the death penalty wrong? God forbids it against Cain. Jesus does not condemn the adulteress. David avoids it against an anointed one who is trying to kill him. The examples where capital punishment is proposed under Mosaic Law merely teaches us the gravity of certain actions. If we can use alternative methods of punishing the guilty for serious crimes, we are much more likely to demonstrate forgiveness, while prudentially keeping society safe from danger.

We should also learn the lessons from the capital crimes of Mosaic Law. Sins that destroy life, frustrate creation, oppose the sanctity of marriage, disrespect God or those in authority can destroy our spiritual life.

John Carberry is the author of Parables: Catholic Apologetics Through Sacred Scripture (2003) and Sacraments: Signs, Symbols and Significance (2023).

---

[1] CCC, 2267. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life), 56. Francis, Fratelli Tutti (Brothers, All), 263.
[2] John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life), 7.
[3] John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life), 8.
[4] John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life), 9.
[5] John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life), 27.
[6] John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life), 40.
[7] John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life), 56.
[8] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, II, II, Q37, A1C.
[9] John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (Reconciliation and Penance), 17.
[10] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, II, II, Q13, A2C.
[11] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, II, I, Q72, A5 & Q77, A8. CCC, 1854-1856.
[12] Aquinas, Thomas, The Summa Theologica, II, I, Q114, A6C.
[13] CCC, 1857-1861 & 1874. John Paul II, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (Reconciliation and Penance), 17. Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, II, I, Q100, A9.
[14] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, II, I, Q89, A5.
[15] CCC, 1859. Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, II, I, Q19, A6; Q30, A5; Q76, A2 & A4.
[16] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, II, I, Q15, A1.
[17] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, II, I, Q15, A2.
[18] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, II, I, Q15, A3.
[19] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, II, I, Q20, A5.

 

[BartholomewB]

For the long and colorful history of the death penalty in the Christian world, try the Rome chapter in Dickens’ Pictures from Italy (link below). In the course of a month-long stay in the Papal State during the pontificate of Gregory XVI, in the 1840s, Dickens went along one Saturday morning in Lent to watch a public execution by guillotine. You can read it on pp. 200-207 in this edition.

https://archive.org/details/picturesfromital00dickrich/page/201/mode/1up

 

[HomeschoolDad]

As long as catechists and other teachers can explain that the DP is not intrinsically evil, just that the societies of the world have advanced to such a state that there are better alternatives to the DP, I have no issue with its being condemned.

What I do find disturbing, is that many modern Catholics do not see this distinction, and think of the DP being something evil in and of itself. They tend not to be either that theological or that historical, and just see things as they are taught by the Church today. (It would be nice if they took the same approach to Humanae vitae, but unlike HV, which affects almost any married couple of child-bearing age, the DP affects relatively few people, and nobody's rights are violated by not carrying it out. Accepting the Church's teaching on the DP requires nothing from the believer.)

 

[vz71]

What I do find disturbing, is that many modern Catholics do not see this distinction, and think of the DP being something evil in and of itself.

Given the way the past few pope's have spoken of the death penalty, I can't blame them.

I understand to an extent. As soon as the Pope lists the exceptions that would justify the death penalty, everyone will latch on to it claiming every instance that they would like to see the DP used in is one of these exceptions.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Given the way the past few pope's have spoken of the death penalty, I can't blame them.

I understand to an extent. As soon as the Pope lists the exceptions that would justify the death penalty, everyone will latch on to it claiming every instance that they would like to see the DP used in is one of these exceptions.

The DP is brutal, and even the Baltimore Catechism emphasizes that it is only to be used when there are no other alternatives, really quite progressive for such a traditional catechism. Oddly enough, it took not the Church, but the birth of my son, to help me to see the brutality of the DP --- that person being executed is someone's child, and was once a baby, loved and tended for, just as my son was. To think of the state taking the life of that child, grown to adulthood and having done something horrible, well, it just didn't seem right.

And the DP brings out the worst in people uninformed and/or uncooperative with divine grace. Whenever the DP is carried out, if it is a crime that has evoked public outrage, you will have protestors outside the prison, with placards reading "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", "burn in hell rapist/pedophile/killer/whatever", and so on, cheering when the criminal is finally executed. I would hope that no faithful Catholic would ever be among the ranks of these people.

Besides, life in prison without parole is a kind of "death penalty", that person will never see the light of day in freedom, and will die behind bars. It's just a matter of time.

 

[vz71]

that person being executed is someone's child, and was once a baby, loved and tended for, just as my son was.

Still is.
That society has rejected this person for their actions does not mean God has.

This is worth recalling with every execution.
With that context, we can properly answer the question concerning the case.
Is there any other way to keep society safe from this individual or their influence?

Sadly, the answer to that question will sometimes be 'no'.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Still is.
That society has rejected this person for their actions does not mean God has.

This is worth recalling with every execution.
With that context, we can properly answer the question concerning the case.
Is there any other way to keep society safe from this individual or their influence?

Sadly, the answer to that question will sometimes be 'no'.

The Church would tell you that in modern society, the answer is always "yes".

In all honesty, for a time, I wondered if the Church had succumbed to political correctness (she is guaranteed infallibility in her teaching of doctrine, not in casuistry as applied to concrete situations in the here and now) --- keep in mind that, at least in the US, the DP falls disproportionately upon certain historically downtrodden groups --- but I have come to see that this probably isn't the case. Again, something as traditional as the Baltimore Catechism treated the DP as an absolute last resort, and if the writers of the BC were around today, to see how penology has advanced such that capital criminals, even dangerous ones, can be put away for life, in places from which they cannot escape and cannot harm anyone, they might well come to the same conclusion as the teaching Church in our day has.

Again, nothing is lost, nobody's rights are violated, by not applying the DP, and at least in this country, it brings out the worst in an uncultured, unrighteous portion of the population who celebrate it as sweet revenge and smack their chops over thinking the executed criminal is now in hell. (It's worth noting that non-Catholics, lacking the concept of purgatory, have only this on which to fall back, while blissfully ignoring that repentance brings forgiveness.)

 

[po18guy]

The Coliseum was not empty. We still slow down and gaze at collisions.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Coliseum was not empty. We still slow down and gaze at collisions.

Yes, but we don't cheer at them (unless our hearts are really depraved).

The people in this crowd make me think of the deeply disturbing images of lynchings, where the white folks treated it as though they were at a party, while the corpse of the poor black man hangs from a tree. For those who are tempted to think "the majority can never be wrong", ponder these scenes. (I am not going to share them, look them up online if you're interested.)

 

[vz71]

This is worth recalling with every execution.
With that context, we can properly answer the question concerning the case.
Is there any other way to keep society safe from this individual or their influence?

Sadly, the answer to that question will sometimes be 'no'.

The Church would tell you that in modern society, the answer is always "yes".

In that case, I believe the church is trying to exert authority and expertise squarely where they should not.

It is when the church tries to step outside it's wheelhouse that it loses a lot of credibility with people.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

In that case, I believe the church is trying to exert authority and expertise squarely where they should not.

It is when the church tries to step outside it's wheelhouse that it loses a lot of credibility with people.

Then I don't know what to tell you. The Church does indeed think she is "inside her wheelhouse" to teach that capital punishment is inadmissible anywhere in the world, given present conditions of penology and jurisprudence. The doctrinal principle is simply that the state has the right to inflict the ultimate penalty for crimes that are so heinous, or such a threat to the public order, that no other solution is possible. The Church asserts that, in the here and now, other solutions are indeed always possible. In Europe, only Belarus retains the DP, and I don't think anyone looks at Belarus as a role model for much of anything (no slap again the good Belarusan people, just their regime). There is even a moratorium on the DP in Russia.

Just on a purely human level, setting aside religion altogether, I find it deeply unsettling to think of strapping a person down and coolly, clinically, methodically ending their life even by humane means.

 

[vz71]

The Church asserts that, in the here and now, other solutions are indeed always possible.

I'm not certain that is actually a church doctrine. Although the past few pope's have mentioned this.

But it is a statement on technology and politics that is very decidedly NOT a matter of faith and morals.

Like I said, it erodes credibility.

One need only look to New Orleans to find people breaking out of jail in what is arguably the most technologically advanced country on the planet.
Yet we have the church telling us that we have the ability to lock someone away for the rest of their life.

I would feel much better if these pope's spoke to what should be rather then try to tell people something that is demonstrably false.

I feel I need to reiterate. I do not like the death penalty and am not in support of it.
But I recognize that there are some instances when there is simply no other way to insure the safety of the public.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but when that is the exception to the rule, and the pope turns around and says the DP is inadmissible, the pope is telling us that we can insure the safety of the public from an individual criminal forever.
The pope is making a statement based not on faith and morals, but on the tech and politics that exist.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I'm not certain that is actually a church doctrine. Although the past few pope's have mentioned this.

But it is a statement on technology and politics that is very decidedly NOT a matter of faith and morals.

Like I said, it erodes credibility.

One need only look to New Orleans to find people breaking out of jail in what is arguably the most technologically advanced country on the planet.
Yet we have the church telling us that we have the ability to lock someone away for the rest of their life.

I would feel much better if these pope's spoke to what should be rather then try to tell people something that is demonstrably false.

I feel I need to reiterate. I do not like the death penalty and am not in support of it.
But I recognize that there are some instances when there is simply no other way to insure the safety of the public.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but when that is the exception to the rule, and the pope turns around and says the DP is inadmissible, the pope is telling us that we can insure the safety of the public from an individual criminal forever.
The pope is making a statement based not on faith and morals, but on the tech and politics that exist.

You are correct, it is not a doctrinal statement (though that doesn't keep some people from treating it as such), nor is it infallible. It is an assessment of how a moral principle is to be applied in a concrete situation, in other words, casuistry. If there is, as you say, no other way to ensure the safety of the public, then the state has no choice but to impose the DP for heinous capital crimes. The Church says that in our time, it is something to which no state ever has to resort.

I would add that much of Vatican II is devoted to such prudential judgments of what is to be done in the world today, as opposed to doctrinal or dogmatic statements.