The Death Penalty: A Non-Issue for True Catholics in the Election

The Death Penalty: A Non-Issue for True Catholics in the Election

Matthew J. Bellisario O.P. 2020

 

"Some have said that retribution is no longer part of the church's view of punishment. This is false. Some will speak as if there is an equivalence to be made between the life of a guilty and condemned murderer and an unborn child, and seek, on that basis, to link opposition to abortion and opposition to the death penalty. This too is nonsense, incubated in a society which, permitting some citizens to take the lives of other innocent citizens, sees a moratorium on the death penalty as a moral imperative...But keep in mind that protecting society is only the secondary purpose of punishment. If, however rarely, the state's right to take the criminal's life is legitimately exercised, only recourse to the primary purpose of punishment--redressing the wrong--can justify it. It will not do to say that locking Adolph Eichmann up will prevent him from continuing with the Final Solution and give him a chance to repent. By his crimes, Adolph Eichmann had forfeited own life. One life compared with six million seems risibly disproportionate, but it is the most that could be exacted from Eichmann, and it justly was."
(Dr. Ralph McInerny)

The quote by Dr. McInerny above could certainly be just as easily applied to the despicable Richard Ramirez who was sentenced to death for the murder of 13 women, the attempted murder of 5 more along with 11 counts of sexual assault and 14 counts of burglary. He laughed at his trial when he was convicted and many times spoke about how he enjoyed killing and raping women. These are the types of people who receive the death penalty in the US. 

Since 1976 in the United States there have been 1524 of the country's worst convicted criminals put to death using capital punishment. Just yesterday there were at least 2000 abortions in the United States and we are at a supposed historic low for the past decade! In the same time span since the death penalty has been instituted, there have been nearly 60 million of the most innocent killed! Wrap your head around this fact. Yet, we keep hearing ad nauseam from Catholic bishops and media outlets about the importance of opposing capital punishment! This is of course often done at the expense of opposing the atrocity of abortion. This is certainly an outrage for any Catholic who has a shred of knowledge about moral theology or Sacred Scripture and the value of the most innocent of human beings. Why are Catholics so reluctant to stand up and call this anti-death penalty crusade the fraud for which it is? The sanctity of human life begins with defending innocent human life, to which most Catholics don’t have the fortitude to defend.

Intrinsic Evil Actions Never Addressed

“Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also." Saint John Chrysostom

Abortion is in itself an intrinsically evil action of which the most innocent of human lives is murdered. Although not every abortion occurs outside of marriage, the majority do, and the act of abortion itself is directly linked to the intrinsic evil of the sexual act outside of marriage and the stability of the family. Notice how none of these issues are at the forefront of most Catholic bishops today, and subsequently are not a priority for the Catholic laity. How many times have you heard abortion mentioned without also referring to capital punishment? They almost always now come as a pair if abortion is even mentioned at all. As we know, capital punishment is not an intrinsically evil act and therefore can never be put on the same level of importance nor in the same category of morality as abortion. In fact, regarding the political sphere in the US, I would argue that it is a non-issue for any Catholic who knows and understands the faith. 

Defining Punishment

In order to justify opposing the death penalty, many seem to imply that this means it can only be used in order to protect society from a future crime, which is in and of itself incorrect since punishment is always retrospective. It looks to the past injustice committed by the criminal and then imposes on him some form of retribution in order to make some restoration of the moral order. This was traditionally called vengeance, but this term is now misused to refer to vigilantism or a rogue form of hateful revenge.  Why do the two terms seem to be used interchangeably? Are all forms of revenge or vengeance always immoral? Are they always an offense to human dignity?

To answer this question we must define the terms. If revenge is defined as an individual carrying out his form of vigilante justice, then yes we could say that it is immoral. However, if we look at the term revenge in its traditional sense, along with the term vengeance, we see that it can have a positive and negative connotation depending on its application. For Catholics, it is important to be grounded in a sensible theological framework such as Thomism and I have taken a passage of Thomas' Summa to demonstrate how the Church's most enlightened theologian viewed vengeance in the context of punishment.

Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.  Accordingly, in the matter of vengeance, we must consider the mind of the avenger.  For if his intention is directed chiefly to the evil of the person on whom he takes vengeance and rests there, then his vengeance is altogether unlawful: because to take pleasure in another's evil belongs to hatred, which is contrary to the charity whereby we are bound to love all men.  Nor is it an excuse that he intends the evil of one who has unjustly inflicted evil on him, as neither is a man excused for hating one that hates him: for a man may not sin against another just because the latter has already sinned against him, since this is to be overcome by evil, which was forbidden by the Apostle, who says (Romans 12:21): "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good."

If, however, the avenger's intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed. (Summa Theologiae II-II.108.1)

 

If we understand these terms properly, then we can clearly see that any legitimate form of punishment involves vengeance to some degree in its lawful sense and if a person is imprisoned it is also a vengeful act carried out by a legitimate government to punish a wrongdoer. This would include any kind of imprisonment, fines, or anything which causes the criminal to suffer. If we understand this then no Catholic can reject capital punishment based on the idea that it is immoral revenge or vengeance. The punishment is not being carried out in the form of vigilante justice, and thus is not sinful if carried out by a legitimate authority. Pius XII wrote in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2 the following which upholds the perennial idea of the vengeful purpose of punishment. He says it will never be outdated and always will have a lasting value. Contrast this to what we hear today.

Medicinal and Vengeful Penalties

In our speech of 3 October 1953 at the VI International Congress of Criminal Law, and also on this occasion,  we detected the fact that many, perhaps the majority of civil jurists reject that penalty; we added, however, to considerations and arguments adducted in evidence was given perhaps greater importance and strength than they actually have. We also noted that the Church in theory and in practice has maintained the double species of penalties (medicinal and vengeful) and that this is more in line with the sources of the revelation and the Traditional doctrine teaches about the coercive power of legitimate human authority. The assertion given is incorrect which says that we can say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances and therefore they cannot be given a general and always lasting value.

 
Father John Hardon S.J. also referred to this passage in his defense of Capital Punishment. I recommend reading his entire article.

The Church holds that there are two reasons for inflicting punishment, namely "medicinal" and "vindictive." The medicinal purpose is to prevent the criminal from repeating his crime, and to protect society from his criminal behavior. The vindictive is to expiate for the wrongdoing perpetrated by the criminal. Thus reparation is made to an offended God, and the disorder caused by the crime is expiated. 

Equally important is the Pope's insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church's teaching on "the coercive power of legitimate human authority" is based on "the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine." It is wrong, therefore "to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances." On the contrary, they have "a general and abiding validity." ( Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).

In summary, then, no right-thinking person can reject capital punishment based on the rejection of the principle of vengeance or revenge, if understood properly. If one does so, they must reject every form of punishment. The very nature of punishment contains the principle of vengeance. 

Against Human Dignity?

Pope Francis has stated that capital punishment is against human dignity. Cardinal Cupich and many others keep telling us that the Catechism “revision” is a development of doctrine, yet educated Catholics understand that a change or revision is not a development. If indeed what they claim is true, that capital punishment is "inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person," then the entire Catholic Church has been teaching against human dignity for 2000 years including multiple catechisms, teachings of the saints and all of the past popes. Can this truly be the case? 

Many Catholics claim that in order for St. Thomas to justify the death penalty he claimed that the person lost his human dignity. If one is familiar with Saint Thomas' writings and his theology starting with the beginning of the Summa one would quickly realize that Thomas believed that all men are created in the Imago Dei, and never lose this image or the dignity that goes with it. Thomas never says that the person has lost the Imago Dei.  In the Prima Pars, Q93, article 4 we see that Thomas clearly states that sin can never deprive man of the image and likeness of God. In Q64 of the Secunda, Secundae Thomas is obviously referring to a persons acquired dignity in reference to his status as an innocent citizen, not his innate human dignity. Unfortnately many love to quote Thomas out of context. Despite that a person retains his human dignity Thomas does not see this as a valid reason to abolish the death penalty. 

Legitimate Defense? 

The new Catechism addresses capital punishment under the topic of “Legitimate Defense.” Although the Death Penalty can certainly be used to stop future crimes that could possibly be committed by a guilty criminal, it must not be confused with the act of “self-defense.” Many read the words “legitimate defense” and start drawing the wrong conclusions. It is not referring to self-defense. In order for an act of self-defense to occur, there has to be an immediate threat against someone. So there is no way to classify the death penalty as an actual act of self-defense. The actual act of killing the person is done not to stop an actual crime in the act of being committed, but for many other reasons which I will now refer to. The term 'Legitimate Defense' must be understood as the defense of society in a general sense of the common good. 

Double Effect? 

Since many now try to use 'Legitimate Defense' as the only reason to have the death penalty, they also cite the principle of 'Double Effect' to bolster their case. They claim that the killing is an unintended end, which is only to defend others from a possible attack from the criminal. What a slippery slope we tread! This premise however is not tenable since the principle of double effect only falls under acts where an intended end was not desired which came about secondarily through one act. An example would be a thug breaks into your house with a gun and you fear for your life so you use your weapon to stop him and he ends up dying. You intended merely to stop the acting aggressor by the proper proportinate means necessary to stop him. This is obviously not an act of punishment! An act of self-defense involves actual unjust aggression. As we know, the state in reference to the death penalty is not acting is self-defense in any sense of the term. There is no act of aggression being carried out. The criinal is in jail. No, the state is clearly carrying out a punishment. The state then can directly intend the death of a guilty person, and it does so by its authority. It carries out this punishment as a duty and a right to redress the past crime and obviously not as an act of self-defense.

 

Legitimate Reasons For Capital Punishment

There are several reasons why the state may use the death penalty. The first is to restore and keep the moral order. Anytime a heinous crime is committed against an innocent person, it upsets the moral order of society, injures individuals and the state, and it offends God. So the state being the legitimate authority (if it is a legitimate state), has the right and obligation to justly restore that order which was displaced by the crime. It does so by punishment, which is always aimed for the common good of society, even when such measures as the death penalty are used. As the quote from Father Hardon pointed out, there are generally two reasons for punishment, the first is called retributive, or vindictive punishment, and the second, medicinal, which includes correction and deterrence. The retributive element is the primary one that seeks to expiate the wrongdoing of the criminal and to make reparation for what evil they have done. Of course the punishment should be comensurate with the crime. This retribution also vindicates the rights of the offended as well as making some sort of reparation in relation to the offense to God. This aspect of punishment has been forgotten in modern society and has been downplayed for centuries by many in the Catholic Church. This element however is a crucial factor in the state’s ability to keep the moral order. As Fr. Austin Fagothey writes in his masterpiece of moral theology, “Right and Reason” "The state exists to maintain justice, and one its chief purposes is the prevention and punishment of crime.” (page 340)

Instead, the focus for Catholics today has been only on the medicinal side of punishment. One reason for this in my opinion is John Paul II’s one-sided approach to the issue, which has pervaded the Church in recent decades. The medicinal aspect is said to reform the person to prevent the criminal from committing more crimes. This is viewed in order to protect society from future threats, and when possible to rehabilitate the criminal. Of course, when the death penalty is used it is usually done because there is no possibility of societal rehabilitation or the crime was so grave that the most that can be asked is the offender's own life. Again Fr. Fagothey writes, “By its very nature capital punishment cannot be corrective. But correction, desirable though it be in a punishment, is not absolutely necessary; in the most serious crimes the claims of retribution and deterrence are so imperative that the corrective aspect must be waved, if necessary”

In order to further grasp the importance of the retributive side of punishment, we must look to other documents of the Church that preceded Vatican II. If we are going to understand Catholic theology, we must synthesize Catholic documents as a whole through the ages, and not only focus on one particular age or document. The old Roman Catechism tells us, “There are some exceptions to the extent of this prohibition to killing. The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment, such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the state is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent life (The Fifth Commandment, 4).”

This concise explanation neatly ties in the two ends intended regarding the use of capital punishment, as well as the state’s legitimate authority to take the life of a guilty person to do so. There is an intended end. Punishing the guilty, and protecting the innocent are cited as being the two primary reasons by the Roman Catechism. It also calls the act, “an execution of justice.” Unfortunately, this first reason is forgotten by the Vatican II only crowd. Again, I want to pull from Fr. Fagothey, “Punishment in the strict sense has three functions, one looking to the past and two looking to the future. As looking to the past, punishment is retributive because it pays back the criminal for his crime, gives him his just deserts, reestablishes the equal balance of justice which has been outraged, and reasserts the authority of the lawgiver which the criminal has flouted.” Fr. Fagothey continues on to explain the other two functions which pertain to the future, which are for the purpose of correction and deterrence. These two reasons obviously wouldn't exist if the first one was absent! Unfortunately, these two are the only two functions commonly recognized by many in the Church today.

Another statement worth looking at was approved by Pope Pius IV which explains retribution as being an avenger for God, which preserves human life and security by repressing the unjust violence of criminals. “The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent Part III)

Pope Pius XII (Address given Sept 14th, 1952) dispelled the myth circling about today referring to a criminal’s “right” to life. “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.”

Appealing to Today's Prison Systems

It is often said that we should attempt to keep a violent criminal alive in prison if possible, so that they may have time to repent and convert. Pope Francis however is even against this proposal! Pope John Paul II thought that there were rare cases that warranted the use of the death penalty in today’s societies. He based this on an assumption that keeping the person alive in prison was sufficient to keep society safe from them, that it also allowed them more time to be converted, and finally that it was more in line with their human dignity. I believe that this position however is a tough position to hold. First, does the prison system really afford most individuals to be rehabilitated or to attain a faith conversion, or does it most regularly only continue to foster sin, putting them more at risk of eternal hellfire? 

Secondly, many forget that the actual impending death of a person may in itself be useful for one’s conversion. Although the person is not rehabilitated among civil or prison society, they can repent and receive eternal life. If one lives 50 years in prison, only to be hardened by the prison system and go to hell, a quick sentence of capital punishment may actually be more beneficial to bring about conversion than rotting in prison with other hardened criminals would offer. As far as human dignity goes, what act actually aligns itself more closely with human dignity? This question needs to be asked for all people involved, not just for the sake of the guilty. The questions that should be asked to determine the overall preservation of human dignity for all involved are:

1- What act is going to be more beneficial to the common good of society?

2- What act is going to be more beneficial in restoring and preserving the moral order?

3- What act is going to better protect all other people within that society from future crime?

4- What act is more likely going to bring about the conversion of the guilty soul most effectively, for the sake of his or her salvation as well as others around them?

I believe it is a serious error to only take into consideration the "human dignity" of the criminal, to the neglect of the human dignity of the rest of society who have not gravely violated the moral order. Saint Thomas says, “Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). (Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2)

We must also consider the safety of the prison guards, medical personnel, and other prisoners whose lives are also at risk from violent prisoners as well. This point is also often forgotten. In my opinion, the reality of  unchecked prison violence today is not taken into consideration by many. I have spoken with prison guards, and if you think that today's prisons are safe, you are delusional. The statistics speak for themselves:"19% of all male inmates in US prisons say they’ve been physically assaulted by other inmates and between 3 percent and 9 percent of male inmates say they have been sexually assaulted behind bars, which suggests more than 180,000 current prisoners may have been victimized.". (Source) If a prisoner brings about severe physical harm, or the potential loss of the souls of others should they be allowed to live among them even it is in prison? 

Saint Thomas answers many of the questions and issues I posed above. He says, “The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.” (Summa contra gentiles, Book III, chapter 146)

Closing Questions For Those Who Oppose Capital Punishment 

As I was writing this piece I ran across a great article on this topic by one of today's best Thomistic philosophers and theologians, Ed Feser. I thought his article would be a great way to close my article. 

His three questions are as follows. 

1. Does Pope Francis’s teaching on capital punishment amount to a doctrinal change or merely a prudential judgment?

2. Do you agree with Pope Francis that life sentences should be abolished?

3. Do you agree with Pope Francis that executing a murderer is worse than what the murderer himself did?

For the answers to these questions, I conclude by linking you over to his article. 

In closing, if you are using the death penalty as an excuse to vote for Biden and Harris, don't kid yourself!