Death Penalty: Avoiding Ambiguity in Doctrinal Matters

 In a strange coalition, conservative and liberal Catholic publications made an appeal to Catholics:

“We, the editors of four Catholic journals — America, National Catholic Register, National Catholic Reporter and Our Sunday Visitor — urge the readers of our diverse publications and the whole U.S. Catholic community and all people of faith to stand with us and say, ‘Capital punishment must end.’”

Dangers of Abandoning the Teachings of Scripture and Tradition

Whatever position one takes regarding the application of the death penalty in this or that place or historical circumstances, one must take care not to shroud the clear principles of natural law and Revelation in ambiguity.

In a scholarly article from 2001, the late Avery Cardinal Dulles warned that if the Church abandoned the arguments from Scripture and Tradition that justify the death penalty, this would destroy their authority and could no longer be invoked as basis “for repudiating divorce, abortion, homosexual relations, and the ordination of women to the priesthood.” And he adds, “[i]f the Church feels herself bound by Scripture and tradition in these other areas, it seems inconsistent for Catholics to proclaim a ‘moral revolution’ on the issue of capital punishment.”¹

The Old and the New Testament Accept the Death Penalty

“In the Old Testament the Mosaic Law specifies no less than thirty-six capital offenses calling for execution,” Avery Cardinal Dulles writes. And he says that “[t]he death penalty was considered especially fitting as a punishment for murder since in his covenant with Noah God had laid down the principle, ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image’” (Genesis 9:6).

Learn All About the Prophecies of Our Lady of Good Success About Our Times

The Cardinal highlights that “[i]n the New Testament the right of the State to put criminals to death seems to be taken for granted.” And that even if “Jesus himself refrains from using violence,” He did not “deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment.” For instance, in His debates with the Pharisees, “Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’ (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10, referring to Exodus 2l:17; cf. Leviticus 20:9).”

When Pilate refers to his authority to crucify Him, “Jesus points out that Pilate’s power comes to him from above—that is to say, from God (John 19:11). Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Luke 23:41).”²

The Constant Magisterium of the Church

The legitimacy of the death penalty imposed by competent authority after due process stems from Revelation and natural law. It has always been taught by the Magisterium of the Church and her theologians. The same Cardinal Dulles affirms:

“The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases.”³

The profession of faith that Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) demanded from Valdese heretics who denied the legitimacy of the death penalty, contains this statement: “Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly.”⁴

Cardinal Ratzinger’s Letter to the American Bishops

In a letter to the American Bishops on denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, made it clear that the death penalty is legitimate and cannot be placed on the same footing as abortion or euthanasia. Says he:

“[I]f a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. …[I]t may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”⁵

Confusion About the Concept of Punitive Justice

Most objections to the death penalty arise because the punishment of a criminal is seen only as a means to stop him from committing another crime. If so, it would be sufficient to jail the criminal. In this view, the purpose of the punishment is to protect society or correct the malefactor.

That conception, disseminated by the Enlightenment philosophy, abandoned the expiatory aspect of punishment. In the text below, Pope Pius XII explains that the absence of this aspect makes it more difficult to understand Divine justice and the dogma of Hell. For, since in the next life the need for protection and the possibility of conversion are nonexistent, eternal punishment can be understood only as expiation for the evil committed, reparation to Divine Justice which is offended, and the triumph of good over evil.

Crime Violates the Juridical Order

But let Pope Pius XII himself explain these notions. Below are excerpts from his memorable speech at the Sixth Congress of International Penal Law, on October 3, 1953.⁶ It is one of the most complete and systematic explanations in a papal document about this matter.

Does the Dignity of Man Oppose any Punishment?

Some argue that the death penalty is contrary to human dignity and that a criminal maintains his dignity in spite of his crimes, however horrendous they may have been.⁷ This argument, however, leads to confusion between the ontological order (human nature) and the moral order (conformity of human actions with right reason and Divine law). While man never loses the ontological dignity of his nature, he does lose his acquired (virtuous) moral dignity when he intentionally practices evil.⁸

Furthermore, the argument of human dignity is not germane to the issue, because the object of justice is not human dignity, whether ontological or moral, but rather the voluntary acts of man in his relationships with others.⁹ No one is condemned to a just punishment because of dignity or the lack thereof, but rather for concrete actions practiced against the common good.

Sentiment and Sentimentality

We are in a time dominated by emotionalism. Emotion takes the place of reason and sentimentality that of true sentiment. Thus we must take care and discuss doctrinal problems in the realm of reason and not of emotion.

But even when one opposes capital punishment because of circumstantial reasons, one must not deny its legitimacy or condition it on the circumstances in such a way that it never can be put in practice. For then, principles would not guide real life, and one would fall into the error of pragmatism.