It is clear from the whole teaching of the Catholic Church that if we are to take a pro-life position then we must be against the death penalty. A fully Catholic pro-life politician will therefore be opposed to both abortion and the death penalty.
However, it is also true that we are obliged to weigh the moral issues with subtlety and with the full exercise of our reason. While it is true that both abortion and the death penalty end a human life, it is not accurate to equate the two issues completely.
In terms of moral theology there are several reasons why abortion and the death penalty are not of equal weight.
The first is the question of proportion. While every individual life is sacred, we also have to consider the number of human lives in question. Comparatively few prisoners are executed in the United States. This website reports 52 executions in the USA in 2009. This website reports on abortion statistics. The last year reported was 2005, in which there were well over a million abortions. Generally speaking in the United States about 50 criminals are executed every year. This compares to well over a million abortions each year.
The second issue we need to consider is ability to resist the violence which takes life. The criminal being executed has no way to resist the executioner. However, he or she does have the full process of law and numerous appeals through all the courts of the land before the execution takes place. It is true that many of those executed are from the underclass and do not have the best lawyers money can buy, but they do have recourse to the legal process and they do have pro life lawyers to defend them and pursue their appeal at every opportunity.
In addition to this, the criminal had the choice not to commit the crime for which he or she is being executed. Of course there are many factors which affect the individual's free choice--economic, social, educational etc. Nevertheless, individuals still do have the free choice to commit a crime or not.
The unborn infant has absolutely no choice or ability to resist the violence inflicted upon them. The unborn child is a totally innocent victim. The condemned criminal is not.
This brings us to the third issue: guilt of the condemned. While innocent criminals may be executed, every opportunity is taken to ensure that the innocent are not condemned. Most often the criminal is guilty himself of a violent crime. The unborn child, on the other hand, is completely innocent of any crime.
The fourth issue is one of personal or corporate responsibility. In the case of abortion individuals are making monumental decisions about the death of an innocent child. The abortionist, the people working in the clinic, the person procuring the abortion and the woman who asks for the procedure are all incurring a crime based on their rational decision. In the case of the death penalty the individual is put to death by the will of the people, decided by a democratic process, and executed anonymously so that it remains, as much as possible, the action of the corporate body done through legal means in the name of the body politic. We may disagree with this process, but it would be incorrect to equate the culpability of those who enact the death penalty with those who participate in abortion.
When considering the morality of an action we weigh up three factors: the action itself, the circumstances and the intention. The action itself is either objectively wrong or right. It is objectively good or evil. The circumstances and intention do not affect the objective goodness or evil of an action, but they do determine the person's culpability.
Therefore we must consider the circumstances and intention of those seeking abortion and those seeking the death penalty. In many cases those seeking abortion are in circumstances of difficulty and pressure--health wise or in other ways. They have an intention of finding an easy way out of an intractable problem. However, there are also many cases of abortion in which the circumstances are not difficult and abortion is simply chosen in for contraceptive or economic reasons. Many abortions are chosen for 'social' reasons. The circumstances and intentions surrounding abortion are complex, but the ultimate reasoning is that it is better to take an innocent life than to continue with the problems the pregnancy presents.
The circumstances and intentions of a state execution, on the other hand, are very different. The circumstances are clear: the prisoner has committed a heinous crime. His legal appeals are exhausted. The intention is that the state end his life as an act of justice. The culpability of this action is negligible compared to the culpability of a person who procures an abortion for self centered 'social' reasons.
Finally, we need to consider the culpability of a person who is not personally involved in abortion or execution, but who takes a position in favor of abortion and a person who is in favor of the death penalty. A good Catholic should be against both. However, a person who is in favor of the death penalty, for the reasons above, is not as culpable as the person who is in favor of abortion.
I hope no one will mis-understand this post. I should state clearly that I am opposed to the death penalty, and do not wish to support it in any way. Nevertheless, it is important to think through these moral issues with both clarity and compassion.
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Dear Father, I have to emphatically disagree with the contention of this post that a pro-lifer must necessarily be opposed to the death penalty. The Church has never judged the death penalty, serious as it may be, to be intrinsically evil (and does not do so in the latest Catechism either). It has put limits on its proper use and it clearly distinguishes between rogue mobs hanging people in anarchic manners and the legitimate authority of the State to penalize its citizens according to proportionality and justice. Of course, reason must rule in such issues and since I am no expert in law or moral theology I would never dare to presume to judge what crimes would make it proportional to use capital punishment.
Or would you say that S:t Thomas Aquinas and S:t Pius V were not pro-life? That the Mosaic Law was not pro-life?
Yours in Christ,
David
Dear Father,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. Before I make my point I wish to remind the readers of your blog that Vatican City had a capital punishment law on the books until 1969.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Vatican_City
Furthermore, the Catechism permits the death penalty in limited circumstances.
Obviously, one can be a faithful Catholic and still oppose the death penalty, and you and
I believe most clergy are in this category.
One of the claims of the death penalty opponents is that prison is sufficient to protect the innocent,
and, therefore, there is no need to execute murderers in prison.
I find this reasoning problematic. There are no cases on record in the US that prove an innocent person was executed
in prison by mistake. On the contrary, there are many examples of murderers in prison
who still murder or direct murder of others. For example, it is not uncommon for murderers in prison to kill other
prisoners, guards and even direct violence on the outside (Mexican mafia is one
example).
I would like to read your comments reply with regard to this point.
Sincerely,
John
Fr. L - Thank you for your wonderfully clear, spot-on explanation. Capital punishment might not be "intrinsically evil" (vis-a-vis hilaron's comment), but it is an evil and can and should be avoided whenever possible. And Mosaic Law is not a particularly relevant precedent. After all, it also allowed divorce, something that Jesus specifically addressed.
A more practical reason to oppose capital punishment relates to the injustice inherent in much of man's law. By giving the state the authority to carry out capital punishment, the people place themselves in jeopardy. The state loves to expand its power, and might well extend the application of capital punishment to a greater number of crimes, including many that are not crimes at all.
I find it somewhat odd that so many political conservatives support capital punishment while at the same time express real concern over the expansion of governmental power. I can think of no greater power than that over life and death.
Pax et bonum
Dear Father, the best argument I've ever heard against the death penalty is that it gives the prisoner little or no chance to repent. That said, there are some crimes so heinous that the sentence for them should be life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.
Dear Deacon Dana, how is something evil if it is not intrinsically evil by its object? It is then evil by intention or situation. If something is not intrinsically evil as to its object it can't simply be called "evil" without making a judgment of intention and situation.
If the Church has not judged the death penalty to be intrinsically evil, which She never has, then we must look at the situation. Of course it can be argued that capital punishment is not necessary or prudent in the current circumstances and that this would render it evil in the times we are living. This is however a prudential judgment, which clearly differs from something which is intrinsically evil and always must be opposed no matter what. We can never support abortion, euthanasia, same-sex "marriages", torture, Nazi death camps for Jews, Communism and so on, these must always and everywhere be opposed since they are intrinsic evils. Not so with the death penalty, which must be scrutinized by a prudential judgment and by the rigor of law and moral theology.
As I said, I would probably lean towards the proportionality of the death penalty in certain circumstances. That is however my prudential judgment of the situation and something that is up for debate. What disturbs me is the presentation of the Church's teaching as saying that capital punishment is an intrinsic evil on par with abortion, when the Church clearly does not teach that, just as She does not consider war an intrinsic evil, but something that can indeed be just and even morally obligatory for a State to engage in under certain well-defined conditions. This does not mean that I am a warmonger, I oppose both the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war and many other clearly unjust wars throughout the world carried out by totalitarian regimes...
Since I'm not an American I don't register on the Rep-Dem-scale, but from what I can gather from overseas I would oppose both the Reps and the Dems. The Reps are just old liberals and I'm a distributist/old conservative.
In Christ,
David
"There are no cases on record in the US that prove an innocent person was executed in prison by mistake."
I'm afraid this just isn't true. From a well-reference Wikipedia article:
"Newly-available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 15 death row inmates since 1992 in the United States,[4] but DNA evidence is available in only a fraction of capital cases. Others have been released owing to weak cases against them, sometimes involving prosecutorial misconduct, resulting in acquittal at retrial, charges dropped, or innocence-based pardons. The Death Penalty Information Center (U.S.) has published a list of 8 inmates "executed but possibly innocent".[5] At least 39 executions are claimed to have been carried out in the U.S. in the face of evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt."
Dear Deacon Dana:
Your reasoning apears irrational:
"A more practical reason to oppose capital punishment relates to the injustice
inherent in much of man's law. By giving the state the authority to carry out
capital punishment, the people place themselves in jeopardy. The state loves
to expand its power, and might well extend the application of capital punishment
to a greater number of crimes, including many that are not crimes at all."
First, we don't live in Communist China where the State can kill without due process.
Second, you extend your logic to such an extreme point and that has no relevance to
America and its justice system in 2010. Yes, the logical extension of State power is
tyranny because man's nature lusts power, but the US is nowhere near this point irrespective of the current Administration's
hyper liberalism.
Next,you can use "injustice inherent in much of man's law" to apply to apply to any law. How
many of man's laws are administered with perfection? Some folks are unjustly incarcerated. Do we, therefore,
abandon the justice system because the State convicts innocent people of rape?
Also, to my previous comment with respect to protecting the innocent from murderers and
murderers in prison, the Church approved capital punishment for most of history because
the State didn't have the resources to isolate murders from the innocent citizenry. Obviously,
the Church relied on man's law for 2000 years as Church teaching approved capital punishment. If anything, currently technology allows man in many cases
to administer the law more justly now than in centuries past.
Using man's flawed nature as an reason to avoid administering man's law is a poor rational.
My prior post has nothing to do with "defying" the Church's teaching on capital punishment. I just
want to know if the Church has a position with respect to the "apparent" contradictions
(examples) I put forth. The examples I put forth are not rare. They are not daily occurrences, but the evil committed by murders in prison is not rare.
Sincerely,
John
John, its not really so hard is it? If the authorities think a prisoner is likely to kill another person they should keep him isolated
According to your reasoning we should execute any prisoner who we believe might kill someone. Surely that is not what you are suggesting are you?
Fr L,
While I generally agree with a lot of what you post, I think the thrust of this post was misdirected. Death Penality (DP) should not be put in comparison with Abortion (AB) unless to show there is no comparison.
A lot of what you said tends to confuse the average reader who ends up putting DP on equal footing with AB, which is especially disastrous when it comes to political candidates who are pro-AB and squirming out of this by introducing the DP issue held by his "opponent".
As many have pointed out, one ultra critical detail wasn't given the spotlight it deserved: Abortion is always intrinsically evil. Death Penality is not intrinsically evil. Period.
The DP is actually a very common punishment throughout Church history (even when Catholics were in strong political control). Further, in Romans 13, St Paul says the DP is God's given right to the secular authorities. And the OT is full of cases where the DP was employed, even enshrined in the Mosaic Law as a form of punishment. This would be impossible if DP were on the same grounds as AB. Abortion is murder plain and simple, and never ever condoned at any place or time Catholics.
Lastly, the Death Penalty has historically been an excellent deterrent from crime, and when applied by Catholic nations, is a very merciful act. This is because in the Catholic scheme, the individual knows when he is going to die, and he is given a chance to Confess and be reconciled to God. Few people have the grace of knowing when they will die, and dying in a state of grace is by far the most important thing for a person.
Elijah slit the throats of 450 prophets of Baal at the Jordan; Samuel "hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal"; and Eliseus cursed and killed 42 boys through God's use of two bears.
Were these prophets pro abortion? Two Popes have suddenly led the clergy to be irrational on this abortion/death penalty connection through their verbal use of the word " cruel" for the death penalty (despite CCC 2267) which death penalty outside the Jewish law, God gave in the 1st person singular to both Jews and Gentiles for murder in Genesis 9:5-6. It is echoed after the Resurrection in Romans 13:4 which requires the execution of God's wrath by the state with the sword. Romans mentions protecting society not at all....Aquinas later did....Romans does not. It speaks of executing God's wrath....very politically incorrect. The last two Popes prefer Aquinas to Romans and John Paul did not quote Romans at all when talking of the death penalty...at least Aquinas knew he had to.
Longenecker: I am pro choice and in favor of the death penalty. . .I have wondered about the church's position on the Iraq War. Are you not just as callously taking a life when you allow yourself to be used as an instrument of war, one predicated on lies and misrepresentation and one admonished by JPII? Why does the church not take a hard line against military personnel who kill only cuz they are told to do so?
Father,
An Evangelical theologian in Britain, many years ago said that once Britain stopped the death penalty he knew that easy abortion would soon follow. He was absolutely correct.
To me it is a dangerous false charity, that equates the execution of a criminal, who has chosen to take the life of another innocent human being, with the killing of the innocent unborn.
A person is executed for murder, precisely because the state recognises that the taking of innocent human life is a monstrous act and can only be really satisfied by the perpetrator forfeiting his own life.
This is why that Evangelical theologian's prediction was so accurate. He understood, as too many Catholics seem to have lost sight of, that when we eliminate the ultimate punishment for murder, by banning capital punishment, we are saying that innocent human life is NOT really that valuable and that the taking of it is really no big deal.
It is no surprise to me that virtually every pro abortionist is also strongly anti capital punishment.
n banning capital punishment we are really telling God that He got it wrong in Scripture. The Scriptures are quite explicit that the punishment for murder is the forfeiture of the life of the criminal who did the killing. There are many references to this in the bible and nowhere does Our Lord countermand that rule.
For almost two thousand years the Church has absolutely supported capital punishment. It is only recently that a pope has said anything against it and his statement was not an infallible statement of doctrine.
It can be a false sentimentality, urged on by some strange sympathy more for the criminal than for the victim, that has us now assuming that the legal execution of a murderer is the same as, or in a similar class to, the murder of an unborn infant.
There are dangers with capital punishment, such as the execution of an innocent man, which is a horror hard to imagine. It is our task to ensure by the most exacting legal processes that such an eventuality is avoided. We must also make sure that no state uses capital punishment for political purposes. I strongly believe that some states will use abortion and euthanasia as their means of eliminating the unwanted, so not having capital punishment will be no barrier to state abuse.
I believe that capital punishment is a statement, based on Scripture, that no one has the right to take an innocent person's life and that society and the state take the matter so seriously that the penalty is to forfeit your own life.
Well worth to read this article, thanks for sharing this information. With this article you offered me got a chance to know about this, anyway i say Great Article!
Abortion Essay Help
Post a Comment