The death penalty: Was John Paul wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stevendmo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stevendmo

Guest
I have a question that I’d like to see proponents of the death penalty respond to. The truth is, I don’t understand your point of view; I don’t see how it’s consistent with Catholic teaching on life issues.

The Catholic Church has a profound teaching to offer the world when it comes to the sanctity of human life. There is tremendous consistency in the Church’s teachings on pro-life issues such as abortion, capital punishment, unjust wars, and the careless proliferation of arms. This is the “seamless garment” approach, to use Cardinal Bernadin’s phrase (I believe).

Yet within some segments of the Catholic population, and even more so among evangelical Protestants who term themselves pro-life, there seems to be a willingness to embrace, or at least accept as legitimate, the death penalty. I’ve heard Catholic apologists state that the Catechism does not specifically forbid the the execution of human beings. Indeed, it does not make a 100% absolute statement to that effect (though I wish it did, personally), but the spirit of that section of the Cathecism is clearly in strong opposition to the death penalty. (Here’s a link to the section I’m referencing: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm, specifically sections 2258 & especially 2267, which refers to
the legitimate need for the death penalty in developed societies as “very rare, if not practically non-existent.”)

John Paul II also stated, “The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 27). I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” ( Emphasis is mine. This quote comes from a Mass the Holy Father said in St. Louis, Jan. 27, 1999.)

Was John Paul wrong on the importance of actively opposing the death penalty as part of the struggle against the culture of death? Or is there really some way that one can truly reconcile being pro-death penalty and “pro-life” in other areas?
(Anyone wish to discuss? Thanks.)

Steve
 
Father Benedict Groeschel discussed capital punishment the other day.

He stated the Holy Father’s position that capital punishment should be so rare as to be “never”. And that the alternate, life imprisonment without possibility of parole should be imposed, instead of execution.

He was saying how the perpetrators of the Holocaust should NOT have been executed, but instead should have been sentenced to live in one of the death camps under the same conditions that they imposed on the Jews.

What Father Benedict overlooked was that we are NOT PERMITTED to treat prisoners in an inhumane way.

We are not permitted to lock people up 24/7 in solitary confinement with no exercise, no fresh air, and no communications.

What has happened with a few extremely hard-core prisoners is that they continued to commit murder from prison. During their exercise breaks or during their fresh air breaks or during their communications priviliges or when meals were being passed to them, they would assault the prison guards or kill other prisoners or give orders for the executions of people outside of prison (witnesses, etc,)

Perhaps if the courts allowed the prisons to lock these people up in solitary confinement 24/7 for life, then the lives of innocent people would be protected. But we are not allowed to protect the lives of innocent people in this way.

The only alternative, with judicial review, is that when a criminal demonstrates and proves to be consistently intent on murdering other people, the only defense that society has, to protect innocent life, is to take that criminal’s life.
 
John Paul II wasn’t wrong to emphasis preserving life, even the lives of those who have done great evil. However, Church teaching has always been that governments have the right to employ the death penalty. He isn’t saying that that right has been taken away or ought to be taken away, he is merely saying that since it doesn’t seem to be necessary to protect the lives of its citizens by employing the death penalty, given modern methods of incarceration, governments should use the lesser punishment of life imprisonment or some other such form of justice. For, governments not only have the right but the obligation to seek justice for its citizens, but how they go about doing that ought to be informed by compassion and mercy and regard for the dignity of every human being. Yes?
 
As a loyal son of the Church, I will never be a “proponent” of the death penalty. Among Catholics is the only place I try to inject any reason into the pro-death penaly side.

Al Masetti has given the only reason I can find to reconcile the need for a continuation of the death penalty in light of Catholic teaching. It is the lone arguement I use, because it is the only one I think remains valid.

As far as the Holy Father goes, as intelligent and learned as he was, I do not know how familiar he was with the American criminal justice system. He would obviously have to rely on advisors, or experts in the field, and I do not know if anyone consulted on the practicality of safe life imprisonment in the United States. I know that I agree with Al Masstti that it is simply not possible. If it becomes possible, then I would agree that we could safely have absolutely no death penalty anymore.

To this end, I firmly support the need to abolish the meaning of “cruel and unusual” and restrict it to just torture. Allowing extreme restraint of prisoners would make imprisonment much safer. I could write a protocol that would work, but it would flunk constitutional opinion on several points.
 
Consider this piece from First Things last year.
Christians and the
Death Penalty
by Joseph Bottum

In 1981, on the campus of Cornell University, Michael Ross murdered a young woman named Dzung Ngoc Tu. Over the next year, he raped and killed Tammy Williams, Paula Perrera, and Debra Smith Taylor. In 1983, he added Robin Stavinsky. On Easter Sunday in 1984, he abducted, sexually assaulted, and strangled Leslie Shelley and April Brunais, both just fourteen years old, after he caught them walking along a Connecticut road. Two months later, he raped and killed another Connecticut girl, the seventeen-year-old Wendy Baribeault, leaving her body behind a stone fence along the highway… The man was a monster, and he got at least a small portion of his desserts, long delayed but nonetheless real, over twenty years later, when, on May 13, 2005, executioners in a Connecticut prison injected poison into his veins while the families of his victims watched…

It is real, unbearably real, in other words, but also a story, with a purpose in the way the story goes… Unfortunately, it is also, in its essence, a pagan story, and Jesus—well, yes, Jesus turned all our stories inside out. Especially the old, old ones about blood and blood’s repayment.

more…
Click to expand...
It made me rethink the purpose of the death penalty and understand JPII’s mentality here.

However, in my weekly prison ministry I see non-violent criminals being threatened and housed with murderers. I understand JPII’s rationale that the need for the death penalty is practically non-existent given how far our penal system has come over the centuries. Prison is an extension of society, so even the most violent criminals need to be protected from other violent criminals. We as a society owe it to all our citizens to protect them. I don’t see that happening in an effective way in prison every week. I agree with Al Masetti above.

Mike
 
Al Masetti:
He was saying how the perpetrators of the Holocaust should NOT have been executed, but instead should have been sentenced to live in one of the death camps under the same conditions that they imposed on the Jews.

What Father Benedict overlooked was that we are NOT PERMITTED to treat prisoners in an inhumane way.

We are not permitted to lock people up 24/7 in solitary confinement with no exercise, no fresh air, and no communications.
Click to expand...
I am generally opposed to capital punisment, but I am often perplexed when fierce opponents of CP say things like the above or that it is a greater punishment to lock up folks forvever as if we should take pride and joy in punishing others so much. I do not think it bolsters their argument much.
 
Baiscally he was teaching that life always has to be protected. We should also give the perpetrator time to repent and seek heaven.

He was teaching that in affluent countries incarceration should be the first choice over the death penalty (legitimate defense).
 
I do not see where the Holy Father deviated from Church Teaching. Capital punishment is clearly a last resort, and the state is entrusted with the responsibility to determine at what point that is reached.

So often it seemed that the Holy Father would issue timely statements on the eve of an execution here in the United States. I suppose he believed the state to be too quick to yield its power in such a matter (and I tend to agree with him).

Similarly, the requirements for a “just” war are arguably unattainable in every circumstance absent the charism of prophecy. Only looking rearward can we make even a remotely accurate judgement on whether or not military force was justifiable according to these criteria.

I think the same holds true for capital punishment; Yes it is permitted, but who really can be sure when?
:hmmm:
 
Pnewton, you wrote:
40.png
pnewton:
As far as the Holy Father goes, as intelligent and learned as he was, I do not know how familiar he was with the American criminal justice system. He would obviously have to rely on advisors, or experts in the field, and I do not know if anyone consulted on the practicality of safe life imprisonment in the United States. I know that I agree with Al Masstti that it is simply not possible. If it becomes possible, then I would agree that we could safely have absolutely no death penalty anymore.
Click to expand...
Your approach here strikes me as rather relativistic. Isn’t that approach (i.e., if only they knew what the situation here really is like here…) the same approach that so many of us condemn among proponents of legalized abortion? Folks who call themselves pro-choice talk about how pro-life folks don’t understand what it’s like for a teenage girl to be pregnant, how an unplanned pregnancy changes her life, etc. They say, in effect, that pro-lifers aren’t seeing the whole picture.

Yet, if every human life is sacred, as John Paul insisted (and as I firmly believe Jesus would insist, too), doesn’t that include the lives of people who have committed evil, even people who have murdered repeatedly? The imperfections of the criminal justice system cannot legitimately be used, I think, to justify violating the sanctity of human life, any more than the harsh realities of everyday life in a slum (or in an unloving suburban home) can be used to justify abortion. How is compromise permissible when one is talking about the sanctity of human life?

Maybe we should push for sentencing laws that allow for genuine “life” sentences (i.e., without parole) in more states. (Certainly some killers do remain incarerated for the duration of their natural lives. It’s not an impossibility, either in this era or in any previous era of American history.) Reforming the system is better than using the system’s flaws to justify the taking of human life. (Such reforms would be somewhat akin to reforming the health care system so that everyone who needs medical care gets it, instead of using the gaps in the system to justify the supposed necessity of abortion.)

For the record, like many other people who consider themselves pro-life, I do experience ambivalence when I see the worst of the worst in the news: Timothy McVeigh, for instance, still strikes me as the poster-boy for the death penalty if ever there was one. That’s an emotional response on my part, though, not one that is grounded in sound moral reasoning. If all human life is deserving of protection, McVeigh’s life should have been spared too. (That’s my conscience speaking, the conscience that struggles – sometimes only half-successfully – for consistency.) As hateful as the man’s actions eleven years ago were, and as chilling as his lack of remorse was, I still don’t see how a pro-life Catholic might justify his execution. In executing McVeigh, did we help build up the culture of life or contribute to the culture of death?

Sorry for the long post, but thanks for an interesting and civil discussion!

Steve
 
40.png
stevendmo:
Pnewton, you wrote:

Your approach here strikes me as rather relativistic. Isn’t that approach (i.e., if only they knew what the situation here really is like here…) the same approach that so many of us condemn among proponents of legalized abortion?
Click to expand...
Then the Catholic church is relativistic. It’s teachings clear. Abortion is always wrong. Capital punishment depends on the circumstances.
 
There isn’t much of a need for Capital Punishment in many nations, since we have such a strong means of protecting society. I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that the Pope basically said that it should be abolished or be applied in a very limited way, so I don’t think he was contradicting the Catechism. After all, the CCC does say that the cirumstances in which it may be applied are possibly non existent in most countries
 
I have to say this is one of two issues that I just plain disagree with the Church on. I don’t think we kill enough people. I’m sure we could safely protect society from these people if we wanted to suspend certain rights and spend the money keeping these people locked up. But I just don’t want to.

To me, the death penalty is no different than self defense. If someone attacks me or my family, he dies. That simple. If someone does this to someone else and gets arrested for it, we should just do what should have been done in the first place, kill him. You can’t convince me that some guy who kidnaps, repeatedly rapes, tourtures, and then kills a small child deserves any quarter.

This opinion will no doubt be ridiculed and called “uncharitable.” That’s fine. I’m uncharitable. But if anything happens to my family and I’m not around to protect them, I will avenge them.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Baiscally he was teaching that life always has to be protected. We should also give the perpetrator time to repent and seek heaven.

He was teaching that in affluent countries incarceration should be the first choice over the death penalty (legitimate defense).
Click to expand...
The word “affluent” is not really the governing lexicon here. Any modern society can provide secure incarceration. The issue is that the judicial system ALLOWS dangerous violent criminals, using the prison as their safe haven, to have access to innocent people and to cause the innocent people bodily harm and death.

Because the perpetrators of the crimes are ALREADY serving life sentences, there is nothing more that can be done.

The judicial system does not allow prisoners to be kept in total isolation. Accordingly, the violent criminals throw feces (with the potential for AIDS) at prison guards, fashion weapons from the most ordinary of items, rape non-violent prisoners, and direct the executions of witnesses and other non-prisoners.

The judicial system turns a blind eye to these violent crimes.
 
40.png
stevendmo:
John Paul II also stated, “The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 27). I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” ( Emphasis is mine. This quote comes from a Mass the Holy Father said in St. Louis, Jan. 27, 1999.)
Click to expand...
I just must breifly chime in here to thank you for citing an except from John Paul’s homily (from a votive Mass in honor of the Sacred Heart) at St. Louis. It is an opt overlooked exhortation in these discussions amoung Catholics. But quite notable.
 
Al Masetti:
Because the perpetrators of the crimes are ALREADY serving life sentences, there is nothing more that can be done.

The judicial system does not allow prisoners to be kept in total isolation. Accordingly, the violent criminals throw feces (with the potential for AIDS) at prison guards, fashion weapons from the most ordinary of items, rape non-violent prisoners, and direct the executions of witnesses and other non-prisoners.

The judicial system turns a blind eye to these violent crimes.
Click to expand...
And, yet, isn’t this a call to reform the judical and penal system more than anything?

I suppose that there is a certain ultimate question as to what level of risk we, as a society, find legitimate in order to preserve life,
 
Without jumping into the long and intense debate about all the details of this issue, I would like to note my take on JPIIs perspective. I don’t believe that he was advocating (as is often claimed) a mere “prudential judgement” on the practicalities of what the contemporary penal system in most parts of the world ought to be able to provide. Rather, I believe that he was primarily offering a deeper spiritual reflection upon the nature of human interaction, wounded by sin yet redeemed in Christ; and issuing a call for all to re-evaluate how we respond and can better express and create a culture of life. Insomuch, what he has called us to may be more directed at a look within at our own oft murderous hearts in need of healing love (which must then overflow with merciful invitation to reconcilation and peace) than to simply focus on externals of dealing with the “outcasts” of society; for Cain is our brother who shares with us the same blood outflowed as Abel. And, now Jesus Christ, our penultimate brother, has shed his blood for me and you both, sinners alike.
 
40.png
stevendmo:
IWas John Paul wrong on the importance of actively opposing the death penalty as part of the struggle against the culture of death? Or is there really some way that one can truly reconcile being pro-death penalty and “pro-life” in other areas?
(Anyone wish to discuss? Thanks.)

Steve
Click to expand...
I agree with John Paul the Great about the death penatly being part of the Culture of death and I oppose the death penalty as vehemently as i do abortion. Having said that it is important to note that the Church has allowed for the Death penalty for the entire time if its existence. Even John Paul the Great , who had the powerr to change the cathecism with the stroke of his pen, declined to do so.

The reason it is important to note this is twofold. It is wrong to state something is a teaching of the Church when it is not. It hurts our credibility when we proclaim other teachings of the Church. Thus it is proper., as my Bishop told me, for one to state that John Paul the Great was opposed to death penalty. it is wrong, however, to state that the CHURCH opposeds the death penalty

The second reason, and probably the most important , is too many Catholics in this country use a candiates support of the death penatly as cover for voting for his pro-abortion opponent. They try and draw a moral equivalent between an action that is sacntioned by the Church and takes less than 100 lives a year and an action that the Church declares as “intrinsically evil” and takes 1.2 million lives a year.
 
Any oxy moron who says the death penalty is intrinsically evil is on either on crack or living in denial.
 
40.png
bones_IV:
Any oxy moron who says the death penalty is intrinsically evil is on either on crack or living in denial.
Click to expand...
Well, I am not on crack, nor am I in denial, so perhaps you would like to actually explain your comment - why is the Death Penalty not evil?

P.S. What is an oxy moron?
 
Christians and the
Death Penalty
by Joseph Bottum
Christians may decline to accept responsibility for government, but governing must still go on. And that governing will inevitably find itself caught in the clash between justice and mercy. Christ’s teaching forgives the sinner even while it condemns the sin, and human justice and human mercy may perhaps find a unity in us as individuals if we turn the other cheek as we are taught. But at the level of any actual government—at the level of positive law, with its officers and magistrates—justice and mercy are necessarily in conflict. If judges show mercy, in any meaningful sense of the word, they do so at the explicit cost of justice; they are being unjust by failing to exact the penalty that justice requires.more…

In reading this article it is understandable how proponents for the death penalty continue to stand.
But as a Christian I could never agree with the Death Penalty for any crime.
The biggest problem is our judicial system that fails to lock these people away in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives.
To be put to death is a far less penalty for their crimes its one shot and their gone.
How is that justice?
Lock them away by themselves to live on bread and water the rest of their lives. Or better yet drop all of them off on a deserted island with high voltage security fence all around it.
I wonder if the victims families really feel that justice was served.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top