Capital Punishment: Can We? Should We?

by Carolyn Astfalk

Politics make strange bedfellows. Ordinarily Hollywood, the liberal intellectual elite, and the mass media are arrayed against Catholics on such issues as abortion, assisted suicide, homosexuality, and rampant materialism. For Catholics to be “in bed with” the custodians of modern American culture on an issue is highly unusual. But that’s where many good Catholics find themselves on the death penalty.

But how has this come about? Has the Church started brushing shoulders with the American Civil Liberties Union on this issue?

For some, who have fought passionately and steadfastly for decades to end abortion, capital punishment was suddenly added to their advocacy agenda with the assumption it would be embraced with equal fervor. And for all the media attention, within the Church and beyond, there is still confusion about what the Church teaches about capital punishment and whether Catholics are bound to hold that belief. That confusion, combined with muddled explanations and sloppy comparisons of capital punishment and abortion, has effectively turned some Catholics off on this issue.

Church Teaching

Contrary to what some think, the Church has not reversed herself on this issue. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty” (no. 2267). The presumption has always been, however, that the death penalty was not to be used as societal retribution. It was not an exception to the Fifth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Rather, it is the unintended double effect of an act of self-defense. That defense, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is lawful if it is done with moderation. If, however, “a man in, self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, question 64, article 7).

The Catechism confirms the legitimate authority of the state to execute unjust aggressors as a means of self-defense, but clarifies that the only proper context for the exercise of that authority is “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives” (no. 2267).

While punishment should preserve public order and ensure societal safety, its primary purpose is “redressing the disorder introduced by the offense” (no. 2266). In order to accomplish these purposes, to defend society and redress the offense, Pope John Paul II explains why the punishment should ordinarily exclude executions:

It is clear that for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not to go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society (Evangelium Vitae, no. 56).

The Holy Father concludes that thought by adding, “Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent” (ibid., no. 56). Similarly, the Catechism, reaffirming Pope John Paul II, states:

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 definitively 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” (no. 2267).

If you accept the supposition that modern society can be protected without recourse to the death penalty, then, according to Church teaching, you must accept that society should not go to the extreme of executing the offender.

Room For Disagreement

Ultimately that supposition—that modern society can protect itself without recourse to capital punishment—is a prudential judgment. That is why there is still room for disagreement on the use of the death penalty, as confirmed by Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua who said in February 2000 after testifying in support of a moratorium on the death penalty in Pennsylvania:

I am not saying that anyone who is in favor of the death penalty is committing some kind of sin. We haven’t reached that level on that. Persons who are in favor of the death penalty still are in good standing because the teaching is still the same that the state does have the right.

Capital punishment, if carried out properly, is not an intrinsically evil act. Abortion, in contrast, is.

Still, this should not somehow be viewed as an escape hatch. Different levels of magisterial teaching require different levels of assent. While the Pope has not made an ex cathedra statement on this subject, Catholics still are obliged to submit their intellect and will

to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff . . . that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him . . . which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated (Lumen Gentium, no. 25).

Pope John Paul II has reiterated many times now his rejection of the necessity of capital punishment—as contained in Evangelium Vitae and in his repeated calls for clemency and worldwide abolition of the death penalty.

Building a Culture of Life

Is it not, however, more spiritually profitable to ask what we should believe as part of our loving relationship with Jesus Christ and not merely the minimum requirements? Would we not say that a teen asking “How far can I go with my girlfriend without sinning?” is asking the wrong question? We would steer his focus toward the positive value, “How can I show my love chastely?” In the same way, our questions should not be, “Can I still support capital punishment without sinning?” but rather, “How do we best build a culture of life and restore respect for the dignity of the human person?”

 Again, the Catechism instructs us, “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 with the dignity of the human person” (no. 2267).

In a November 1999 address to the United Nations, Archbishop Renato Martino, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, stated:

Abolition of the death penalty, laudable though it is, is only one step towards creating a deeper respect for human life. If millions of budding lives are eliminated at their very roots, and if the family of nations can take for granted such crimes without a disturbed conscience, the argument for the abolition of capital punishment will become less credible . . . The discussion of restricting and abolishing the death penalty demands of States a new awareness of the sacredness of life and the respect it deserves. It demands courage to say ‘no’ to killing of any kind, and it requires the generosity to provide perpetrators of even the most heinous crimes the chance to live a renewed life envisioned with healing and forgiveness. In doing so there is sure to be a better humanity.

For those of us that struggle with this issue—whether because of its “liberal” associations, its faulty comparisons with abortion, or our natural thirst for just punishment, we must thoughtfully and prayerfully look into our own hearts. When we stand before God, is it justice we will seek or mercy? Is not every man, no matter how evil his actions, created in the image and likeness God? Is it not true that Christ suffered and died for those guilty of capital crimes as much as he did for us? Are we wiser than the Holy Father and the bishops? Is there not perhaps great wisdom in the abolition of such severe and final punishment in an era in which human dignity is not believed to be inherent but conferred according to usefulness? When failure to capitulate to politically correct positions are seen as crimes of hate and intolerance in themselves?

Yes there are strange bedfellows in politics. It is no mater, if that is where the truth lies.

Carolyn Astfalk is communications director for the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference based in Harrisburg, PA.

Click here to view past issues.