I agree with you that Catholic Church authorities in the US have often overstated the case against capital punishment.

At the same time, it is problematic to assert that the Christian faith, reading the Old Testament, requires capital punishment for murder. Many of the problems with taking this position are laid out in the article--but not all. Particularly problematical is inferring meaning from what Jesus supposedly did NOT say. That's perilous ground to walk on, in my opinion. I trust that John is right in his gospel where it says that the written record is only a tiny fraction of what Jesus said and did.

For a more complete explication of the Church's modern stance on capital punishment, I commend to you the great encyclical by John Paul the Great, called "Evangelium Vitae." While the main thrust of this work is against abortion and euthanasia, the pope comments on capital punishment, presenting the case that in modern times the penal systems are such that society can be adequately protected from murderers, etc through incarceration. Thus, the conditional PERMISSION granted to the State to defend itself from violent criminals by capital punishment would not apply today.

As I read it, this does not change the constant teaching of the Church that capital punishment is permitted, according to need, as part of the duty of the State to protect itself and its citizens. (Just war is another instance.) It becomes a matter of prudential judgment whether conditions are such that capital punishment is needed for that protection.

My personal belief is that capital punishment remains a better deterrent, and therefore better protection of our polity and our citizens, than mere incarceration, even for life without parole.

One has to wonder if some of the Bishops have ever REALLY read the gospels.

"As I read it, this does not change the constant teaching of the Church that capital punishment is permitted, according to need, as part of the duty of the State to protect itself and its citizens. (Just war is another instance.) "

I disagree. The problem with John Paul the Great's position on the death penalty is that he basically jettisoned 1,500 years of Church teaching on the death penalty as a punishment, and simply acted as if the goal had always only been the protection of society.

If he wanted to argue the Church's long-held position should be changed, fine, make that argument. Simply making believe that position never existed is not an appropriate approach.

A limerick for this pronouncement (and many, many others):

Acknowledging the media flurry,
The bishops convened in a hurry.
With American cheeriness
(To Vatican weariness),
They officially made things more blurry.

Are you saying it is un-Christian to abolish capital punishment? I don't believe it deters crime because most countries without capital punishment have much lower murder rates than the United States. Of course, that doesn't mean having capital punishment leads to a higher murder rate. God bless.

In Hamlet, we find that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have been swiftly killed, "no shriving-time allow'd". Now that was a society who understood capital punishment to be a means to an end!

It's funny how zealously we listen to the bishops when they take a conservative pro-life stand (as on abortion), but how we start quoting St Paul and the Old Testament, ignoring the firm words of church authorities, not to mention the Gospels, when it comes to the death penalty. Pro-life is pro "all" life, no? Or should we start choosing for which lives we are "pro" and which "anti".
Which cafeteria are we eating at today?

Aside: is JP II officially "The Great"? I hadn't heard that. I was unaware that the Church offered such designations. Is this a step in the canonization process?

Joe Devet--I share your general reaction to this post.
And Brian English--I think you're correct, that JPII's teaching on capital punishment is a shift from earlier teaching. The question we have is, Is this a shift based in an essential change in modern society? I get JPII's position that capital punishment is less needed for controlling crazies. But I also get your point, Brian: Was this always the goal of capital punishment in the Church's eyes? Joe Carter's argument suggests it hasn't been this way, that a reading of the Old Testament as understood through the New (particularly in Paul) will give us a mandate to recognize a state's responsibility to capitally punish murderers.

However, I'm not convinced that the state has as its legitimate goal the punishing of murderers in a capital way. I think this absolutizes the death penalty's role in a way that its unhealthy for society, for the fact that, in the wrong hands, it can allow what is possibly a God-mandated role (of punishing capitally) to become a baser institution of personal vengeance.

Public authority does come from God. Perhaps the state ought to kill all murderers. But I don't think this is the final say--maybe we should look at the Beatitudes for a more Christ-like answer. Who would be necessary to kill based in this murky mandate? And what option would we give to murderers to repent (acknowledging that that is always a present option in any person's life)?

And that is a cutely Payne-ful limerick.

Mike Casey wrote:

"It's funny how zealously we listen to the bishops when they take a conservative pro-life stand (as on abortion), but how we start quoting St Paul and the Old Testament, ignoring the firm words of church authorities, not to mention the Gospels, when it comes to the death penalty."

Bishops speaking to the intrinsic evil of abortion is completely in line with Church teaching throughout history. Bishops stating that any use of capital punishment "is not in keeping with the Gospel of Jesus Christ" is not.

@Joe DeVet ***Particularly problematical is inferring meaning from what Jesus supposedly did NOT say. That's perilous ground to walk on, in my opinion.***

As a general rule, I would agree. We can't infer, to use an absurd example, that since Jesus never mentioned nuclear weapons that he'd have no problem with their use. Arguments from silence are indeed problematic.

But I don't think that applies to this case. The reason is that Jesus is very, very careful when quoting scripture (since we was the original author). When he makes an omission like this it is presumed to be for a reason. I think it would be much more problematic to assume that Jesus forgot to include the first part or that he was being sloppy in his quotation.

Also, while I elided over the point rather quickly, it is indeed the case that murder was the only item on the list that could not be compensated using money. Under the lex talons, if I knock you tooth out I can give you payment in cash rather than in my own tooth. However, if I kill you, the person I owe is God. And he doesn't take a check but demands payment in full (at least in the case of murder).

***My personal belief is that capital punishment remains a better deterrent, and therefore better protection of our polity and our citizens, than mere incarceration, even for life without parole.***

In the absence of a Biblical mandate (such as the Noahide convenient), I would be opposed to the death penalty—especially for the reason of deterrence.

@Chris Balducci ***Are you saying it is un-Christian to abolish capital punishment?***

I am hesitant to make a charge of "un-Christian," especially without hearing the reasons someone holds the position they do. If someone has grappled with the commandment God gave to Noah and provided a reasonable (though not necessarily compelling) reason for why it has been voided, I might think them wrong without saying they were "un-Christian."

@Mike Casey ***not to mention the Gospels, when it comes to the death penalty***

What do the Gospels say about the death penalty?

***Pro-life is pro "all" life, no?***

Indeed, the death penalty for murder *is* the pro-life position.

"It's funny how zealously we listen to the bishops when they take a conservative pro-life stand (as on abortion), but how we start quoting St Paul and the Old Testament, ignoring the firm words of church authorities, not to mention the Gospels, when it comes to the death penalty. Pro-life is pro "all" life, no? Or should we start choosing for which lives we are "pro" and which "anti"."

Exactly. We have to get beyond politics.

@ Joe Carter- The Gospels, or at least Jesus, say little or nothing about the death penalty, as such an action would have been inconceivable to Jesus or his followers (i.e. Christians). They taught quaint ideas like loving enemies and turning the other cheek. State-sanctioned murder was generally left to the Romans, who were good at it, as they showed Jesus et al. soon after. The two ways of thinking (Roman and Christian) were in direct opposition.
I guess the question is: which side should we as Christians follow?

@Mike Casey, thanks for stating my own thoughts so well.

@Mike Casey ***The Gospels, or at least Jesus, say little or nothing about the death penalty, as such an action would have been inconceivable to Jesus or his followers (i.e. Christians).***

Um, why would have been inconceivable to Jesus and his followers when it was part of the Old Testament?

The reason that the Gospels say little about the death penalty is because, unlike today, people still assumed that when scripture said "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed" it meant that whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. It wasn't even an issue that anyone would have thought to question.

In fact, it wasn't until rather recently in history that the Catholic Church even considered questioning the legitimacy of the death penalty for murderers.

"Public authority does come from God. Perhaps the state ought to kill all murderers. But I don't think this is the final say--maybe we should look at the Beatitudes for a more Christ-like answer. Who would be necessary to kill based in this murky mandate? And what option would we give to murderers to repent (acknowledging that that is always a present option in any person's life)?"

I don't think we should execute all murderers. However, I think there are some cases where the crime is so heinous that it shows disrespect for human life to allow the killer to live.

There is also the issue of trying to insure that an innocent person is never executed that should further diminish the number of cases where the death penalty would be appropriate.

With regard to the issue of redemption, I forget who said it, and this is probably not an exact quote, but I remember once reading something along the lines of: "Nothing so focuses the mind as the knowledge that one is going to the gallows in the morning."

Seems a decent case for Christians to support the death penalty, at least in principle. Just curious, though - is there a reason federal policy should be based on the 'special revelation' of a particular religion?

@Ray Ingles ***is there a reason federal policy should be based on the 'special revelation' of a particular religion? ***

No, not directly. And I certainly wouldn't say that the reason the State should support the death penalty is because the Bible says so.

But in a liberal democracy where the people decide the laws, there is nothing wrong with Christians making decisions about what policies to support based on convictions that are rooted in special revelation.

One could make the argument that the Christian Tradition grows in moral sensitivity as is surely does in the case of capital punishment. The other conspicuous example is that of slavery.
Brian English: the source of the quote is the great Doctor Sam Johnson.

_most countries without capital punishment have much lower murder rates than the United States._

That's a propter hoc argument. Those countries also tend to have much more homogenous populations. I have read (I wish I could link to the source, but it's been a long time) that if you subtract out the crime rate among minorities, particularly African Americans and Hispanics, the American crime rate is between those of Japan and England (higher than Japan's, lower than England's). In places without the death penalty that are becoming less homogenous, England for example, the crime rates of all sorts are rising.

Hi Joe,

Do you have a link to the actual statement made by that conference?

It's nice to have Ed Feser's opposition noted, but I think most people would rather have a direct link.

@Bones ***Do you have a link to the actual statement made by that conference? ***


Oops. I didn't realize that the link I posted to the news story was broken. That's now fixed.

And here's a PDF version of the bishop's statement:
http://www.diocesephoenix.org/acc/documents/ACCBishopsdeathpenaltystmt3lastrevisedMarch2011.pdf

The best Christian defense of the death penalty I ever read was written by a Jew, David Gelernter, in"What Do Murderers Deserve?", an article for Commentary Magazine, March-April 1999 (which can be found here: http://swantrumpet.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/what-do-murderers-deserve-by-david-gelernter/).

Gelernter makes a profoundly pro-life defense of capital punishment:

"Why execute murderers? To deter? To avenge? Supporters of the death penalty often give the first answer, opponents the second. But neither can be the whole truth. If our main goal were deterring crime, we would insist on public executions—which are not on the political agenda, and not an item that many Americans are interested in promoting. If our main goal were vengeance, we would allow the grieving parties to decide the murderer’s fate; if the victim had no family or friends to feel vengeful on his behalf, we would call the whole thing off.

"In fact, we execute murderers in order to make a communal proclamation: that murder is intolerable. A deliberate murderer embodies evil so terrible that it defiles the community. Thus the late social philosopher Robert Nisbet wrote: “Until a catharsis has been effected through trial, through the finding of guilt and then punishment, the community is anxious, fearful, apprehensive, and, above all, contaminated.”

"When a murder takes place, the community is obliged to clear its throat and step up to the microphone. Every murder demands a communal response. Among possible responses, the death penalty is uniquely powerful because it is permanent. An execution forces the community to assume forever the burden of moral certainty; it is a form of absolute speech that allows no waffling or equivocation."

Gelernter says capital punishment is particularly necessary when murder becomes endemic in society:

"The answer might be yes if we were a community in which murder was a shocking anomaly. But we are not. “One can guesstimate,” writes the criminologist and political scientist John J. DiIulio Jr., “that we are nearing or may already have passed the day when 500,000 murderers, convicted and undetected, are living in American society.”

"DiIulio’s statistics show an approach to murder so casual as to be depraved. Our natural bent in the face of murder is not to avenge the crime but to shrug it off, except in those rare cases when our own near and dear are involved. . .

"Murder in primitive societies called for a private settling of scores. The community as a whole stayed out of it. For murder to count, as it does in the Bible, as a crime not merely against one man but against the whole community and against God is a moral triumph still basic to our integrity, and it should never be taken for granted. By executing murderers, the community reaffirms this moral understanding and restates the truth that absolute evil exists and must be punished. . .

"In executing murderers, we declare that deliberate murder is absolutely evil and absolutely intolerable. This is a painfully difficult proclamation for a self-doubting community to make. But we dare not stop trying. Communities in which capital punishment is no longer the necessary response to deliberate murder may exist. America today is not one of them."

Do the gospels and Jesus have anything to say about the death penalty? Surely yes.

First of all Jesus confronts a crowd about to execute a criminal whose offense was punishable by death in accordance with the Mosaic covenant. Jesus's response is well-known, as is the result. "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

Furthermore, Saul is arguably guilty in the murder of the blameless Stephen, but he becomes a great apostle. (Compare Acts 9:1: "Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples." Acts 26: 9-10: "I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s people in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them." )

Just saying.

Just a few days ago, Joe Carter quickly denounced a feature piece solicited by and written for First Things' "On the Square" forum, allegedly on account of the author's being out of his depth on the topic at hand (universalism). And yet today we get a piece by Joe Carter on the death penalty that isn't half as carefully thought out as the piece denounced by Carter.

Much has been written on Christianity and the death penalty, pro and con. Joe's essay ignores all of these contributions, including First Things' own debates on the topic, and instead offers a half-baked defense of the death penalty so full of confusions and contradictions it's hard to know where to start.

Joe writes, "If Christians believe their governing authorities are legitimate then we must expect them to take on the role instituted by God himself." And he then quotes Romans 13, which provides no such conditional concept of legitimacy, instead simply declaring all government authority to be instituted by God (including the authority that put Jesus to death). Take Romans 13 straight, and there goes the legitimacy of the American Revolution (which is fine by me, but I doubt Joe feels that way).

The idea that the covenant with Noah yields an eternal obligation by all governments to shed blood in response to the shedding of blood is not only the result of an ahistorical hermeneutic that ignores the diverse history of interpretation of this passage, but it also founders mightily on one simple fact—the modern state of Israel abolished the death penalty. I guess Israeli Jews need to learn how to read the Bible from conservative American evangelicals like Joe Carter.

Even more depressing is the way Joe disregards the work of Christ, and indeed the way Paul in Romans 12 and 13 proclaims this very work. For "blood sacrifice" is not something that is tangential to the work of the Messiah, but is indeed at its very heart. And the witness of the New Testament is that the only blood that needs to be shed already has been—the sacrifice of Christ puts to an end the need for the shedding of blood. Those who have been made new by the blood of the Lamb have been set free from the world's unbelief—and from the blood-demanding and blood-letting ways of that unbelief.

This is why Paul, in Romans 12 (and the chapter divisions in the NT were invented much later than the texts themselves) tells the beloved to never avenge themselves but rather to feed and clothe their enemies and to overcome evil with good. They are to "leave room for the wrath of God," meaning quite clearly that the "wrath of God" is not something for Christians to participate in, but rather something they need not try to directly assault. After all, Jesus submitted to this same authority.

The Bishops, in objecting to this particular application of the death penalty, are not assaulting God-ordained authorities as such, but rather claiming that the modern nation-state's use of the death penalty cannot but look more like the work of vengeance than the work of justice (and by the way, such talk about justice apart from the shape of our justification in Jesus's crucifixion is hugely problematic). Rich murderers are almost never executed, no matter how heinous the crimes. The system is capricious, with those who are put to death being anything but the total set of those who are clearly guilty of having shed the blood of divine image-bearers. And, as in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, it's now possible and even likely that the God-ordained authorities in the state of Texas have shed the blood of a man innocent of the crimes for which he was put to death. What is to be done now, Joe? Put to death the state of Texas?

For those whose political sensibilities align more closely with Joe's, I suggest you at least read and consider former editor-in-chief Jody Bottum's reflections on the topic. It's not clear that Joe has done so: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/12/001-christians-and-the-death-penalty-44

@Micheal Kremer ***First of all Jesus confronts a crowd about to execute a criminal whose offense was punishable by death in accordance with the Mosaic covenant. Jesus's response is well-known, as is the result. "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."***

It would be a stretch to say that this example overturns the death penalty for adultery, much less overturns the Noahic covenant. Keep in mind that Jesus invited the accusers to cast the stones. He never said that he punishment for adultery was changed.

***Furthermore, Saul is arguably guilty in the murder of the blameless Stephen, but he becomes a great apostle.***

Was the stoning of Stephen murder? It depends on whether the Mosaic law was still in effect. It would have been a matter of injustice, no doubt, but murder? I'm not so sure.

Also, Paul never actually threw a stone so he did not actually "shed blood."

Mike Casey: "conservative pro-life stand (as on abortion)"

I beg your pardon. The stand against abortion is not a conservative stand. It's normative.

***Furthermore, Saul is arguably guilty in the murder of the blameless Stephen, but he becomes a great apostle.***

Yes, the gospel is for thieves and murderers and everyone, even me, and having performed the miracle of saving Paul from his sin and unbelief, was it too hard for Christ to make a murderer into an apostle? I don't see how saying that had Paul lived in a perfectly just situation, he would have been executed, means that he could therefore not have become an apostle, the situation being what it was. The corrupt Roman/Jewish authorities gave Paul a pass for his part on the conspiracy to murder Stephen (because indeed they were complicit); Christ made him an apostle, just as He makes all kinds of sinners into saints. I don't see how one conflicts with the other.

"For those whose political sensibilities align more closely with Joe's, I suggest you at least read and consider former editor-in-chief Jody Bottum's reflections on the topic. It's not clear that Joe has done so: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/12/001-christians-and-the-death-penalty-44"

Jody sometimes got a bid hot under the collar. Let's just say that capital punishment is one of his hot button issues, and his article, referenced above, was not one of his more profound pieces of work. I much prefer Gelernter, who, unlike Bottum, as some (real) skin in the game, having been one of those people blown up by the Unibomber (losing an eye and most of one hand in the process). Read the article at the site I referenced.

@Charlie With all due respect, you simply don’t know what you are talking about. For example, you say, “The idea that the covenant with Noah yields an eternal obligation by all governments to shed blood in response to the shedding of blood is not only the result of an ahistorical hermeneutic that ignores the diverse history of interpretation of this passage, but it also founders mightily on one simple fact—the modern state of Israel abolished the death penalty.”

You imply that it is an ahistorical hermeneutic passages of scripture that are clear and unequivocal as being clear and unequivocal. Genesis 9 states that the command is “everlasting” (9:16) and “for all future generations” (9:12).

Of course, I realize that for a liberal Protestant like yourself, “everlasting” means “for a limited time” and “for all future generations” means “not applicable to all future generations.” But it is your view that is ahistorical, not mine.


***but it also founders mightily on one simple fact—the modern state of Israel abolished the death penalty. ***

Did you really just say that? You do realize that the state of Israel is a secular government that has only a tangential relation to the historical Judaism, don’t you?


***This is why Paul, in Romans 12 (and the chapter divisions in the NT were invented much later than the texts themselves) tells the beloved to never avenge themselves but rather to feed and clothe their enemies and to overcome evil with good. They are to "leave room for the wrath of God," meaning quite clearly that the "wrath of God" is not something for Christians to participate in, but rather something they need not try to directly assault.***

Good grief, I don’t even know where to begin trying to correct your confusion on this topic. Perhaps if you had read my article a bit more closely you would have noticed that I directly addressed (a) that vengeance is not longer something individual have a right to carry out themselves, and (b) the State applying the death penalty for murder is not a matter of vengeance.


***What is to be done now, Joe? Put to death the state of Texas?***

Well, since the State can be fallible in carrying out justice, our only recourse is obviously to take all power to enforce justice away from the State. After all, when God gave the command in Gen. 9 he knew that men would carry it out perfectly. If had been able to forsee that some people might be put to death for a murder that they were believed to have commmitted but did not, then he would have never given us such a command.


***It's not clear that Joe has done so***

Um, yes I have. I originally wrote a longer response to Jody’s piece but was asked by him not to publish it.

I think one reason why European countries abolished capital punishment was to distance themselves from their authoritarian or totalitarian pasts. Remember that people were often executed for political reasons, not as punishment for murder. For example, think about the English people who were executed for "treason" (i.e. Anne Boleyn) because they fell out of favor with the royalty. I think one reason why capital punishment remains popular in America is because it is not associated with political repression.

David B. Hart once told me and a room full of students that one of his chief definitions of an incompetent moral theologian is one who thinks he can justify capital punishment from the teachings of Paul or from the Gospel of Christ. Someone brought up the Noachide and Mosaic covenants, and he replied with one of the most eye-opening responses on Paul's understanding of the law and of the cosmos, not to mention what had happened at Easter, that I have ever heard. Ever since then, I've been convinced that arguments of the sort Joe Carter makes here are proof of the most abysmal theological and historical ignorance possible. I hope Dr Hart will write a response.

Capital punishment may not be associated with political repression by white Americans, but for non-white Americans, it may well be. The era of Jim Crow left a long and deep stain on criminal punishment in the US; that one living today can think its residue is remote is a sign of living a rather blessed life.

I just find it interesting that people who ordinarily believe that government is poorly competent switch tunes when it comes to capital punishment. Putting the Noahide covenant aside, I take pro-capital punishment proponents more seriously when they openly embrace the risk that they or their loved ones may be wrongly executed and won't whine about it if it happens; for some reason, most people seem to embrace capital punishment because it's more likely to happen to People Who Are Not Like Us, which from a Christian perspective is not very Christian at all.

@A. Lyttle ***Someone brought up the Noachide and Mosaic covenants, and he replied with one of the most eye-opening responses on Paul's understanding of the law and of the cosmos, not to mention what had happened at Easter, that I have ever heard.***

I would be interested to hear that. Since God's command was "everlasting" and "for all generations" ti would indeed by eye-opening to find that Paul's understanding was that God meant "not everlasting" and "not for all generations."

***I've been convinced that arguments of the sort Joe Carter makes here are proof of the most abysmal theological and historical ignorance possible.***

I have to confess that I'm amused by people who are shocked to find that God commands the death penalty for murder accusing me of "theological and historical ignorance." Like many Christians throughout history, I take God at his word. I try not to twist the meaning of his commands to make them more palatable to my postmodern sensibilities.

"First of all Jesus confronts a crowd about to execute a criminal whose offense was punishable by death in accordance with the Mosaic covenant. Jesus's response is well-known, as is the result. "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible has an interesting analysis of this episode. The Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery before Jesus in order to trap him. If He said the woman should be stoned, they would report Him to the Romans, since Jews were prohibited from imposing the death penalty. If He stated that the woman should not be stoned, He would be directly contradicting Moses.

Jesus turned the tables by deflecting the issue back to the Pharisees. They now would have to either incur the wrath of the Romans or reject the Mosaic Law. To top it all off, the way Jesus put the question to them made them acknowledge their sinfulness.

As the Gospel points out, the Pharisees slipped away, with the eldest going first, indicating the older and wiser members were the first to realize they had been caught in their own snare.

Joe, I appreciate your bringing up this discussion. I've struggled for some time with it, wanting to revisit the issue in light of Bishops' pronouncements. In other words, I didn't want my support of capital punishment to be simply based on my "opinion."
A long time ago, I pinched a book called "special ethics" from my father's library. Admittedly, it's old -- from the 30's -- but of course as a Catholic, I don't believe sound principles have an exp date!
In the book, Jesuit Father Joseph Sullivan iterates church teaching on the point -- in a nutshell, that capital punishment goes to the "protecting innocent life" column.
"The death penalty is a necessary means to deter men from the more atrocious crimes and to preserve public order and peace. This is clear from experience which shows that there are men so depraved and wicked that they can only be deterred from crime by the most potent punishment available...
The death penalty inflicted on the innocent, as mayhappen, is irreparable. This is true, but so may any penalty be irreparable. Therefore, no penalty would in this supposition be lawful. Who can restore the wasted years of prison life to a man who has been found innocent? Moreover, an innocent man may die in prison before his innocence is discovered. This difficulty may happen in a rare and accidental case, but it is a risk that must be run, for otherwise, many dangerous criminals would escape and the common good would be imperiled."
We also see how, as we begin to back away from capital punishment, we must create all manner of silly, manufactured categories of heinousness in order to address our fundamental need to see civil justice prevail. I'm thinking here of "hate crimes," in which the torture & murder of a human being is "graded" according to the victim's ethnicity/creed/sexual inclination.
The horrible dragging death of Henry (?) Byrd by 3 white men in Jasper, Texas, occurred when George W Bush was governor. The defendants received the death penalty in a swift deliberation.
After that incident, a "hate crimes" bill was introduced in the Texas legislature, and opposed by Gov Bush, among many others (myself included, fwiw).
Bush's political opponents tried to paint him as a racist for opposing the measure -- when, as he pointed out at the time, any such act is by definition a "hate" crime -- and deserves to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
From time to time we as a society see crimes of such abhorrent proportions that we MUST reserve the ultimate punishment to express our outrage. This is not revenge, nor does society imply that such a criminal is beyond the reach of God's mercy.

"Like many Christians throughout history, I take God at his word. I try not to twist the meaning of his commands to make them more palatable to my postmodern sensibilities."

Wow. Such theological profundity. I never even thought of taking God at his word, Joe. You sure put me in my place. What erudition! What scholarship!

Sadly, this is what happens when the Church, for the sake of numbers, lowers its seminary admission standards to include secular men who refuse to obey the Magesterium.

for what it's worth, i think capital punishment is defensible from natural law / general revelation, not merely from special revelation.

Pope John Paul II weighs in on this in Evangelium Vitae, and I've included both the relevant passage and its larger context, in addition to a link to the full encyclical:

""From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life" (Gen 9:5): human life is sacred and inviolable



53. "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves ?the creative action of God', and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being". With these words the Instruction Donum Vitae sets forth the central content of God's revelation on the sacredness and inviolability of human life.

Sacred Scripture in fact presents the precept "You shall not kill" as a divine commandment (Ex 20:13; Dt 5:17). As I have already emphasized, this commandment is found in the Deca- logue, at the heart of the Covenant which the Lord makes with his chosen people; but it was already contained in the original covenant between God and humanity after the purifying punishment of the Flood, caused by the spread of sin and violence (cf. Gen 9:5-6).

God proclaims that he is absolute Lord of the life of man, who is formed in his image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26-28). Human life is thus given a sacred and inviolable character, which reflects the inviolability of the Creator himself. Precisely for this reason God will severely judge every violation of the commandment "You shall not kill", the commandment which is at the basis of all life together in society. He is the "goel", the defender of the innocent (cf. Gen 4:9-15; Is 41:14; Jer 50:34; Ps 19:14). God thus shows that he does not delight in the death of the living (cf. Wis 1:13). Only Satan can delight therein: for through his envy death entered the world (cf. Wis 2:24). He who is "a murderer from the beginning", is also "a liar and the father of lies" (Jn 8:44). By deceiving man he leads him to projects of sin and death, making them appear as goals and fruits of life.



54. As explicitly formulated, the precept "You shall not kill" is strongly negative: it indicates the extreme limit which can never be exceeded. Implicitly, however, it encourages a positive attitude of absolute respect for life; it leads to the promotion of life and to progress along the way of a love which gives, receives and serves. The people of the Covenant, although slowly and with some contradictions, progressively matured in this way of thinking, and thus prepared for the great proclamation of Jesus that the commandment to love one's neighbour is like the commandment to love God; "on these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets" (cf. Mt 22:36-40). Saint Paul emphasizes that "the commandment ... you shall not kill ... and any other commandment, are summed up in this phrase: ?You shall love your neighbour as yourself' " (Rom 13:9; cf. Gal 5:14). Taken up and brought to fulfilment in the New Law, the commandment "You shall not kill" stands as an indispensable condition for being able "to enter life" (cf. Mt 19:16-19). In this same perspective, the words of the Apostle John have a categorical ring: "Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him" (1 Jn 3:15).

From the beginning, the living Tradition of the Church-as shown by the Didache, the most ancient non-biblical Christian writing-categorically repeated the commandment "You shall not kill": "There are two ways, a way of life and a way of death; there is a great difference between them... In accordance with the precept of the teaching: you shall not kill ... you shall not put a child to death by abortion nor kill it once it is born ... The way of death is this: ... they show no compassion for the poor, they do not suffer with the suffering, they do not acknowledge their Creator, they kill their children and by abortion cause God's creatures to perish; they drive away the needy, oppress the suffering, they are advocates of the rich and unjust judges of the poor; they are filled with every sin. May you be able to stay ever apart, o children, from all these sins!".

As time passed, the Church's Tradition has always consistently taught the absolute and unchanging value of the commandment "You shall not kill". It is a known fact that in the first centuries, murder was put among the three most serious sins-along with apostasy and adultery-and required a particularly heavy and lengthy public penance before the repentant murderer could be granted forgiveness and readmission to the ecclesial community.



55. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.

Moreover, "legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State".Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.



56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence". Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.
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 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. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".



57. If such great care must be taken to respect every life, even that of criminals and unjust aggressors, the commandment "You shall not kill" has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person. And all the more so in the case of weak and defenceless human beings, who find their ultimate defence against the arrogance and caprice of others only in the absolute binding force of God's commandment.

In effect, the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is a moral truth clearly taught by Sacred Scripture, constantly upheld in the Church's Tradition and consistently proposed by her Magisterium. This consistent teaching is the evident result of that "supernatural sense of the faith" which, inspired and sustained by the Holy Spirit, safeguards the People of God from error when "it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals".
Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life, especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church's Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defence of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The Papal Magisterium, particularly insistent in this regard, has always been seconded by that of the Bishops, with numerous and comprehensive doctrinal and pastoral documents issued either by Episcopal Conferences or by individual Bishops. The Second Vatican Council also addressed the matter forcefully, in a brief but incisive passage.

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. "Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action".

As far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human being is absolutely equal to all others. This equality is the basis of all authentic social relationships which, to be truly such, can only be founded on truth and justice, recognizing and protecting every man and woman as a person and not as an object to be used. Before the moral norm which prohibits the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being "there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the 'poorest of the poor' on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal"."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html


I would also add that the state should not use capital punishment because of the possibility of executing an innocent person. Also, unlike capital punishment, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole allows the convict to make amends and gives him/her a chance at repenting of the evil committed. With capital punishment, there is no such opportunity for conversion.

@Charlie Collier ***I never even thought of taking God at his word, Joe. You sure put me in my place. ***

Perhaps I was being unfair. I should let you explain for yourself whether you are taking God at his word. What do you think think he meant when he said is was "everlasting" and "for all generations?"

Also, fellow Catholics, if you're choosing to dissent from the Holy Father on the issue of capital punishment, aren't you doing the same thing the "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd is doing, and claiming you are more Catholic than the Pope and the Magisterium? Shouldn't we embrace the Church's teachings in their totality even if they are hard to accept and/or go against our political party?

@Michael ***Also, fellow Catholics, if you're choosing to dissent from the Holy Father on the issue of capital punishment, aren't you doing the same thing the "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd is doing, and claiming you are more Catholic than the Pope and the Magisterium?***

I suspect the current Pope would say "no." After all, Cardinal Ratzinger said:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if 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. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it 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."

Mr. Carter, thanks for reminding me of that statement from Cardinal Ratzinger, and I agree that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil and that distinguishes it from abortion, murder, and euthanasia.

To my fellow Catholics, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

"2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'"

So why would bloodless means be insufficient means of rehabilitating a criminal, even in the case of murder? Why isn't life imprisonment without the possibility of parole enough? I can understand using death penalty if there is no means of restraining the and confining the convict to keep him/her from murdering other people, but since we have high security prisons and can lock someone away for life, why aren't bloodless means sufficient now?

Joe,
First of all, the Noachide covenant begins at verse 8, according to both Rabbinic and Patristic tradition, so the everlasting and forever business is not relevant to the prescriptions regarding the law that Noah and his sons are to follow. That law is a matter of dispensation, but the covenant is God's promise that he will not drown the world again, no matter what. You are conflating passages that are not clearly linked in Genesis.
Second of all, the Noah story is an old Mesopotamian myth. God never said anything of the sort to anyone, because Noah never existed. Al of those passages may be scripture, but the early Christian tradition generally treated them--if at all--allegorically. Even if that were not so, Christians are not supposed to read the Bible as a Christian Koran, literally infallible in every part. Otherwise Paul would not have said to the Galatians that the law of Moses was defective because it was delivered by an angel through a human mediator, and that Christians who follow the works of the law for the sake of righteousness (which would include criminal prescriptions) are cut off from Christ.
Thirs of all, if you really want to cross swords with Dr Hart over interpretations of Paul, be careful. He's hardly a push-over.

Michael,
My position falls well within the contours of the Magisterium's pronouncements that you've enumerated above. Please note that most of the references to prohibitions against taking human life include the important modifier, "innocent" human life.
In death penalty cases, we are not talking about "innocent" human life. Paragraph 55 in fact acknowledges that there exist situations "in which values proposed by God's law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice...
Legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State..."
The death penalty falls under the category of "protecting innocent life" against dangerous and depraved predators.
It is thus not inconsistent for a pro-life Catholic to be in favor of the death penalty. In our society, such a sentence is not given lightly, but is reserved -- should be reserved -- for exceptionally heinous crimes.
Nowhere in the paragraphs you cite above, nor in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, can I find an absolute prohibition against the death penalty.
On the other hand, about abortion and euthanasia, the Magisterium is quite unambiguous. These are intrinsically evil acts, and therefore always wrong. Not the case with capital punishment. Catholics in good faith may agree or disagree with regard to the death penalty -- but not with regard to abortion or euthanasia.

if the gospels are reliable, there is at least one person in the bible who believes certain crimes "deserve" death. that person is the repentant thief on the cross. since jesus thought the repentant thief to be so holy as to be ready for paradise that day, my inclination is to agree with the repentant thief.

it is possible to be holy and to be wrong about capital punishment. possible but unlikely.

Catherine,

First of all, I agree that capital punishment, along with war, is not intrinsically wrong, unlike the taking of innocent human life (i.e. abortion, murder, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc.), and I agree with the statement of then-Cardinal Ratzinger quoted above. Let me refine better what I'm getting at

Here is the key point from Evangelium Vitae:

"The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence". Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.
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 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. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person"."

So why aren't bloodless means sufficient, and shouldn't we trust our bishops to guide us as to whether or not capital punishment is no longer needed? Even if there can be disagreement on capital punishment and war, if the Pope writes in an encyclical that circumstances where capital punishment are necessary are "very rare, if not practically non-existent", due to our modern penal system, shouldn't we trust his judgement even if he is not speaking infallibly?

The same thing with war, if our Pope is very concerned about a war and sends one of his Cardinals to our President on several occasions urging him not to go to war, shouldn't we as Catholics defer to our Pope's judgment rather than our President's and refuse to support or fight in that war?

That's more or less what I'm getting at. Even if there are multiple permissible positions on these topics, our Pope and his brother bishops are the successors of the apostles, and I think the Holy Father especially receives graces from God to lead the Church that the rest of us don't have, so shouldn't we defer to the Pope who is the shepherd of the Church instituted by Christ, even if he isn't speaking infallibly?

Well, for starters, Joe, you and I have a very different view of the Word of God. My view, which is hardly liberal Protestant (you seem to have a need to beat that dead horse) and is in fact what I take to be orthodox and catholic, is that the primary referent of the Word of God is the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word/Son spoken/made flesh in Jesus of Nazareth. So when we speak of listening to and obeying God's Word, we're going to end up in different places if we start with christology, on the one hand, or with some particular theory about the inspired scriptures, on the other. Christian faith is faith in God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—a trinitarian faith that flowed forth not from the inerrant Bible, which didn't exist when the Word became flesh, but from the life and work of the Jew Jesus first and foremost, and from his mostly Jewish disciples' witness to that life and work thereafter.

I don't mind "Word of God" as shorthand for the Bible, but it makes a rather significant difference to how one reads and interprets that Bible if one's theology of the Bible makes it more or less like the Koran—a text of direction dictation from God to page—as some of your locutions come close to making it. But the bigger issue, the much bigger issue, is identifying the unifying center of the Bible, and your reflections on the death penalty do nothing to relieve my concern that Jesus has for you almost nothing to do with "what the Bible says" about blood sacrifice and the death penalty. I, on the other, doing my best to obey the Word of God made flesh in Jesus, find it impossible to do that without reading the "Word of God" in and through the life and work of the Word of God, Jesus Christ.

So that's for starters. I'm not going to make Jesus yield to a prior interpretation of Genesis 9:6, but, if need be, the other way around, and I'm going to do that because of who Jesus is—the Word of God.

But you also play fast and loose with Genesis 9. The eternal covenant is established in the text at 9:9, and there is no clear indication in the text that the bloodshedding instruction at 9:6 is included in the covenant that God will observe in perpetuity. Rather, that language applies specifically to God's promise never again to flood the earth. I don't discredit the attempt to read the two pericopes together, but speaking as if it's clear as day that the everlasting covenant established at 9:8–17 obviously refers also to the bloodshedding passage at 9:6 is not persuasive.

Moreover, there's nothing here whatsoever about government or governing authorities. You are reading back into Genesis 9 your understanding of governing authority from Romans 13. That's not necessarily problematic, but it's a contestable reading, like any other. Thus glib assertions about doing the obvious will of God as clearly contained in a few verses of Genesis are just that—glib assertions. Much more needs to be said and demonstrated, but instead of doing that, you flatter your worst conservative evangelical conceits by assuming you're the only guy who knows how to read the Bible. Give us all a break.

Joe - Fair enough. Thanks.

I'm with Caroline Walker and Fr. Sullivan. Manson's cell phone use illustrates that, even in a godless secular or neopagan society, capital punishment *does* serve legitimate societal interests. Venerable John Paul II (who I am sure is a saint) did argue that in modern times society can be adequately protected from evildoers through incarceration. But Manson again refutes this notion (as do the many escapes from Mexican prisons). Evildoers spread a significant amount of harm from behind bars. (And rest assured there are myriad people bent like Manson currently incarcerated in America alone.) And we should not ignore opportunity costs, callous as this may sound: Society does not have unlimited resources to coddle prisoners, as evidenced by California's budget mess. The Law teaches. Arizona's message in this case would have come across more clearly w/o the unconscionable delay.

Agree with the comment that the covenant mentioned regarding Noah is the promise of a loving , merciful God ( who is to reveal Himself more fully , in The Son , later ) to never again destroy all the world by waters of a flood .

The comment that The Lord 's Blood is the everlasting atonement is also the biblical truth we proclaim !

Otherwise , even the guards who have been made to be killers , even in the line of duty in prisons would have to be then avenged ..to become a never ending chain !

In our own times , The Feast of Mercy supports the position of the Bishops well - total forgiveness of sins and punishement for the repentant who meets the conditions !

Hope that all who are in jail ministry and such would look deeper into this devotion !

There is the real life incident of St.Maria Goretti , whose killer converted after unrepentant years in jail , when the saint appeared to him , in a vision !

Prison ministers trained to be exorcism experts, even to request help of fellow inmates of the condemned , through fasting and prayers - such could be the ways a Christian land would be expected to witness and who knows if such would be the real power that drives down all sorts of murders !

Glad our Bishops are on the side of truth !

While I agree that God allows the state to punish (or extract vengeance from) malefactors, I've read nothing in scripture that requires the state to kill those who commit grave crimes. I agree that capital punishment is permitted, I don't agree that it's prudent or just. The reason for my prudential doubts is the demonstrated fallibility of the criminal justice system. I'm only familiar with the USian CJS but any other is unlikely to be a lot better and the probability of condemning the wrong man is much too high. I'm am not taking the position that "if even one man is falsely condemned". That is too strict a standard. What I am talking about is the reasonable judgement that the chain from detecting, indicting to trying and sentencing in the specific cases of rape and murder produces the likelihood that 20% of those convicted did not do the crime that they were convicted of. I am in the space business and if an unmanned satellite has even half a percent chance of failure prior to launch, it doesn't go until what's suspect, gets fixed. The confidence level of correctness for capital cases would have to be at least as high as the confidence in a satellite that costs $100M to get to orbit before I could go along.

I cannot say that capital punishment is forbidden by the Catholic faith, but I can say for certainty that in the United States of America, there is little real use for it.

We must remember that we DON'T live under the Noahic covenant any longer. We live under the covenant of Christ. We haven't lived under the Noahic covenant since the Abrahamic covenant! I find it a little strange that a Protestant of all people would hearken back to the Old Law and place such a strong emphasis on it as binding today.

Under the Old Law we lived under a system of strict justice. The punishment for sin had to match the sin itself, that was the only way to rid the stain of the sin from Israel. If someone murdered, the only justice was to kill them. If someone stole your ox, they would need to make up for that. Under the New Law, however, we live under superabundant grace, not strict justice. We can now get rid of sin by grace, rather than killing the sinner. Jesus took the justice of God upon himself.

It is no longer proper practice to murder someone for their sins. Jesus has taken care of that eternal penalty. Rather, we pray for the sinner, for their conversion. Is their soul worth any less than our own simply because they have killed a man? Will not the angels rejoice at their conversion? How can we take away their chance at salvation by ending their lives? How can we condemn them to a place of eternal torment out revenge?

Scripture also says that the wages of sin is death. All sin. All sin no matter how small is an infinite sin against an infinite God. If the government can execute limitless revenge on murderers, why can they not execute revenge on a small lie, on the shoplifter, and kill them too? An unrepentant shoplifter will end up in the same place as an unrepentant murderer, no? Is not God's vengeance on both, the same? The governments need to truly execute each and every one of us to stay in line with your interpretation of this Scripture.

Caroline,

You make your defense of capital punishment based on the defense of human life, but then you say, "From time to time we as a society see crimes of such abhorrent proportions that we MUST reserve the ultimate punishment to express our outrage." Expressing outrage is a very different matter than protecting human life. It seems clear to me that the Catholic Church cannot (and does not) forbid the death penalty altogether. But John Paul II says we "ought not 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." I do not read in there anything about expressing outrage, or even about deterrence. John Paul II is clearly saying, it seems to me, that the only justification for execution would be that an offender has proven so dangerous that society cannot defend itself against against any future harm he might do except by killing him. I think by those standards executing a Hannibal Lecter would clearly be justified, but not a Karla Faye Tucker. It is really difficult to believe that every one of the 152 death warrants George Bush signed was for a person who was so dangerous that no prison could hold them.

It seems to me what contemporary Catholic teaching requires is looking at each capital offender as a separate case and asking if he or she is so dangerous that sentencing to a supermax prison won't be sufficient to protect society. Now, if John Paul II were still alive, he and you and I might differ on individual cases, but I think his position would be that we must all agree to judge by the same criteria. And I think the criteria exclude execution for the purpose of expressing outrage or for deterring other potential offenders.

How loving is it to the members of the murdered victim's families, and to the momory of each victim, to keep their murderer alive?

"I cannot say that capital punishment is forbidden by the Catholic faith, but I can say for certainty that in the United States of America, there is little real use for it."

Really? Why is that? What is your reply to Gelernter's assertion:

"In fact, we execute murderers in order to make a communal proclamation: that murder is intolerable. A deliberate murderer embodies evil so terrible that it defiles the community. Thus the late social philosopher Robert Nisbet wrote: “Until a catharsis has been effected through trial, through the finding of guilt and then punishment, the community is anxious, fearful, apprehensive, and, above all, contaminated.”

" I think by those standards executing a Hannibal Lecter would clearly be justified, but not a Karla Faye Tucker."

See Gelernter, "What Do Murderers Deserve?", who deals precisely with the hard case of Karla Faye Tucker. On the other hand, I believe a truly repentant Christian would want to be executed for his crime.

"And I think the criteria exclude execution for the purpose of expressing outrage or for deterring other potential offenders."

What about capital punishment so society can affirm the absolute sacredness of human life? I know that is paradoxical, but isn't all of Christianity based on a paradox?

Also, just because some guy is Pope, I fail to see how he can simply overturn nineteen centuries of consistent Christian doctrine regarding the right and power of the state to sentence murderers to death. He may have his opinion, but against the full weight of the Tradition, that's all it is--an opinion.

"So why aren't bloodless means sufficient, and shouldn't we trust our bishops to guide us as to whether or not capital punishment is no longer needed?"

Because they aren't and because this is an issue beyond the competence of bishops. I trust them as much on criminal justice matters as I do on economics and foreign policy--which is to say not at all. How funny that people who denounce bishops for their inability to make their priests keep their zippers up suddenly decide that bishops are the font of all wisdom when it comes to liberal social doctrine.

Just a quick thought, as most here are far more learned than me in these matters. I believe the admonition by Jesus to turn the other cheek is directed at each of us as individuals. I am supposed to "turn the other cheek" and not repay violence directed towards me in kind, but I don't have the right to turn someone else's cheek for them, i.e. tolerate their abuse, torture, or murder when I have the capacity to stop it. Nor can I excuse the offender or lessen his punishment beneath what is established by law as being appropriate without the consent of the offended (just as the offended may not reasonably ask for a harsher penalty than the law allows). That's why a victim can choose not to press charges, but for the state to do so when they can competently prove their case is a miscarriage of justice. For the state to "turn the other cheek" on behalf of the victim is not an act of humility and grace, nor is it a display of Christian virtue, it is a miscarriage of justice.

For instance, if one could violently intervene to save their neighbor's family from being shot by a deranged murderer (say by killing the gunman), no one would hold them liable for the killing, nor would anyone suggest that someone should have turned the other cheek. If society is collectively responsible for turning the other cheek, why is it rightly judged as just when you kill the soon-to-be murderer in the act, but not just when the murderer is successful in his evil act, convicted via due process, and consequently gives the only equivalent payment for the intentional taking of an innocent human life with malice aforethought (his own life)? If "turn the other cheek" applies to such cases after the act, then surely it applies during the act, since we would be primarily concerned with responses to violence and not just consequences or punishment.

It's interesting that folks use the teaching of Jesus regarding turning the other cheek, which was explicitly describing physical assault and abuse of your own person, and implicitly understood to advocate suffering abuse with grace, humility, and forgiveness, and try to apply it to the handling of violent crimes by the state. To follow this logic to its end, one would have to postulate that the state cannot intervene on anyone's behalf in a violent situation. For instance, police could not shoot a gunman on a killing spree or use violent force to stop someone from being beaten. Taken to the extreme, society based on a fast and loose interpretation of "turn the other cheek" results in anarchy. It doesn't work; not because Jesus didn't understand human nature or the role of the state, but precisely because his admonition was directed at an individual's response to abuse of his own person, and not the state's authority to wield punishment.

I believe that the question of whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent is irrelevant to the central question of its validity. It's all about justice. I have sat in graduate level classes on human rights where every aspect of capital punishment was debated, except for justice. God distributes grace to whom He will precisely because, through the atonement of Jesus on which our righteousness is based, the Father does not violate His own perfectly holy and perfectly just nature. If a state (especially a secular state) does not apply equivalent sentences for first degree murder, it is not exhibiting grace or forgiveness, it's devaluing the lost human life.

In any case, I count my brother or sister's life as being greater than my own piety. Most of us have violated the "turn the other cheek" principle on many occasions and for far less important matters. If the concept really did apply to violent interdiction and legal consequences, I would be willing to risk my own piety to save my fellow man. Again in the extreme, if it applies to society, where does it stop? Did Jesus mean that the state cannot intervene violently to stop gang violence, slavery, war crimes, genocide? I think not. I doubt any of you want to live in a world where the state "turns the other cheek".

And lastly, one fellow suggested that this Noah business was all a bunch of allegory and mythology, and the Noahic law is not a good starting point for this discussion. Noah never existed, etc. Well, most of the time when people reject literal interpretations of the Bible's historical accounts, they suppose that we're supposed to extract the principle and not take the history seriously. Now we're supposed to reject the history and the principle? Sheesh...I'm not sufficiently informed as to have ever heard of the seminary professor you keep referencing, but I humbly suggest that his ruminations probably hold little water when compared to the mainstream canon of Christian theology (or most of the readers here). You might want to find some debating points that carry significantly more weight than constantly referring to your favorite professor (no offense to his person or achievements).

Of course, the question of justly-administered capital punishment is a whole 'nother thing altogether....

I could easily come up with a very comprehensive list of individuals who ruined the livelihoods, lives, and welfare of millions, maybe billions on this planet due to the Great Recession, all who violated God's laws and moral codes to the extreme.

I don't suggest providing me with the authority to determine what justice demands of these folks.

Likewise:
I would think those who like smaller government would be prudent as to what powers they give the government should someone of different political persuasion and a sense of bloodthirsty imagery of justice come to power.

Just saying.

Quite frankly, I don't trust any man with this power, considering how corruptly it has been historically used.

For another view, see:

"Christians and the Death Penalty" by Joseph Bottum. First Things (August/September 2005)

"The State Without an Executioner" by R.R. Reno April 28, 2008 First Things On The Square

"My personal belief is that capital punishment remains a better deterrent, and therefore better protection of our polity and our citizens, than mere incarceration, even for life without parole."

Maybe the DPIC (Death Penalty Info center) stats will disagree with you and the others here who espouse death penalty. From 1990-2009 murder crimes in death penalty states consistently outnumbered murders in non-death penatly states, see link :

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/home

As for JP2, he made this church teaching plainly "in your face" for the world to see when he pardoned assassin agca ali who shot JP2.

"Maybe the DPIC (Death Penalty Info center) stats will disagree with you and the others here who espouse death penalty. From 1990-2009 murder crimes in death penalty states consistently outnumbered murders in non-death penatly states, see link :"

Capital punishment is not about deterrence, or vengeance. It's an affirmation of the sanctity of human life, a communal statement that we will not tolerate murder or murderers to live among us. It is a profoundly life-affirming act, and those who try to weasel out of the obligation to kill those who kill the innocent among us do not seem to realize the extent to which abolishing capital punishment diminishes the value of human life.

"As for JP2, he made this church teaching plainly "in your face" for the world to see when he pardoned assassin agca ali who shot JP2."

Individual pardon is one thing. I, as an aggrieved party, can forgive those who wrong me--indeed, as a Christian, I am obliged to do so. As an individual, however, I cannot forgive someone who has wronged someone else. And, as a society, we are also obligated to uphold the value of human life by exacting the penalty for the taking of human life. The individual victim may forgive (though who speaks for the dead?), but society cannot.

"I could easily come up with a very comprehensive list of individuals who ruined the livelihoods, lives, and welfare of millions, maybe billions on this planet due to the Great Recession, all who violated God's laws and moral codes to the extreme. "

Indeed, you could easily do that. But it would be entirely fatuous.

"My personal belief is that capital punishment remains a better deterrent, and therefore better protection of our polity and our citizens, than mere incarceration, even for life without parole."

Lampy diodowe

Joe Carter asks “What do you think he meant when he said is was "everlasting" and "for all generations?"”

I suggest that That this is spoken economically, as in other places in Scripture. As Bl John Henry Newman points out:
“Again, the Mosaic Dispensation was an Economy, simulating (so to say) unchangeableness, when from the first it was destined to be abolished.”

And
“What, for instance, is the revelation of general moral laws, their infringement, their tedious victory, the endurance of the wicked, and the "winking at the times of ignorance," but an "Economia" of greater truths untold, the best practical communication of them which our minds in their present state will admit?”

Moreover, why read “whoever sheds man’s blood...” as only applicable to murder? Why not apply it to all cases of culpable homicide?

Of course, I do support capital punishment in certain cases - to forestall or repress a coup d’état or a popular uprising; to maintain discipline in an army in the field; to keep order in a beleaguered city, or, when a state of siege has been declared and the constitutional guarantees suspended.

If you want to argue that the death penalty is consistent with Christian teaching you can find excerpts from the Bible to support that argument. If you want to argue the opposite, that the death penalty is inconsistent with Christian teaching, you can also find support in the Bible for that argument. I would suggest that nothing could be more inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus in the Gospel than the death penalty, and because the death penalty was applied to Jesus, it's difficult to think of anything more abhorrent. If the death penalty should be applied to murderers then it should have been applied to Moses, who was a murderer, and it arguably should have been applied to Paul, who was an accomplice in the death of Stephen. Of course you can look outside the Bible and find overwhelming objective evidence that the death penalty is not a deterrent, that objectively innocent people have received a sentence of execution, and that it is applied disproportionately to the poor and to ethnic minorities, the ones Jesus would be shunning us for if he came to the world today instead of 2000 years ago. I think John Paul II got this one right.

Stuart Koehl,

I think you present the best account available of the symbolic action of capital punishment, but it's very difficult to square with the God made know in Christ. For as Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, God makes the rain to fall and the sun to shine on the just and the unjust alike. Is the God of the Bible not then, according to the logic of symbolic action you present, the God of life? Why does God give life to murderers?

Moreover, the God of the Bible is the same God whose definitive response to the death-dealing ways of the world is not to meet them with a greater or more precise death-dealing but rather to subject his own Son to that death—to subject the life of his own life, as the creed would have it, his very "self." And this, according to classic Christian doctrine, is what the fully human response to the evil of the world looks like.

If, at the end of the day, the murder of an innocent requires the bloodshed of the murderer in order for the value of life to be affirmed, then the gospel is not true, because the resurrection of Jesus, the ultimate innocent victim, was not the response that God should have made.

Stuart Koehl writes:
“The individual victim may forgive (though who speaks for the dead?), but society cannot.”

But our practice is the reverse: the Public Prosecutor is the master of the instance; only he can raise an indictment; he may desert the diet at any time; no sentence can be passed, even after verdict, unless he moves for it. On the other hand, no victim of any crime can prevent the Public Prosecutor from raising an indictment against the offender. Even after sentence, the executive’s power of pardon is unrestricted.

Now, the reason, surely, is that crimes are regarded as wrongs against the public, on account of the alarm and insecurity they produce and, for this reason, offenders are pursued, tried and punished by public officials, at the public expense.

The victim’s claim to justice is pursued by raising an action for repetition, restitution or damages; punishment is inflicted only in the public interest.

"Why does God give life to murderers?"

It has something to do with free will.

"nd this, according to classic Christian doctrine, is what the fully human response to the evil of the world looks like. "

So it will be in the Kingdom. But the Kingdom, while here, is not yet here (paradox again), and until the Parousia we shall live in a fallen world where rulers are given the power of the sword.

"If, at the end of the day, the murder of an innocent requires the bloodshed of the murderer in order for the value of life to be affirmed, then the gospel is not true, because the resurrection of Jesus, the ultimate innocent victim, was not the response that God should have made."

Christ voluntarily gave up his life for the life of the world, that we should be freed from bondage to sin and death. The resurrection of Christ is an inevitable consequence of his divine nature, for, as Basil the Great says, it was unthinkable that the author of life should be subject to death and corruption. Through his resurrection, we are offered the promise of life eternal--but the gift is freely given, and must be received freely in return.

Moreover, the Jesus of Nazareth who suffered under Pontius Pilate and arose on the Third Day is the same person who said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's". God gives life to man, but when a man commits murder, he destroys something divine, and his life is forfeit to the state--his life becomes Caesar's to take or to spare, according to Caesar's justice. The "Wise Thief" on the cross tells his comrade on Christ's left side to desist from mocking Jesus, because "we deserve it". Jesus does not spare the wise thief from the agony of the cross, nor does he spare the thief's life, but rather tells him that "today you will be in paradise with me". Apparently, Jesus himself understood the necessity of capital punishment in this world, and it strikes me that many Christians who oppose capital punishment do so because they have no faith in God's ultimate mercy and justice.

Just to clarify, Mr. Koehl, God's response to the murder of Jesus was not the shedding of the evildoers' blood but forgiveness. And we, who are called upon to learn about the very nature of the divine love of life from Christ Jesus, are supposed to affirm the necessity of shedding blood as a response to murder?

Divinity in humanity may be a paradox. This is just incoherence.

Once you render unto God what is God's, what exactly is left for Caesar? Pray tell. The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus, and he responded with a rhetorical flourish that turns the tables and traps all of those who fail to think for a moment about the source of all that is, their lives included.

Or have you forgotten that Jesus' stance towards the powers that be was so congenial that it cost him his life at their hands.

WWJD?

Would he strap the man down? Would he inject the poison? Or would Jesus prefer pulling the lever that opens the trap door for the hanging? Maybe we should ask

HWJK? (How would Jesus kill)

"Just to clarify, Mr. Koehl, God's response to the murder of Jesus was not the shedding of the evildoers' blood but forgiveness."

But you are not God, and neither am I. The victim can forgive; society cannot.

"Once you render unto God what is God's, what exactly is left for Caesar?"

God wants loving children, so we owe God our love and obedience. However, we also owe Caesar our obedience when that does not contradict the will of God. God is neutral on taxation, but God is not neutral on murder. Moreover, the Church saw it this way for 1900+ years, during which time it marshaled profound arguments for the state having the power of the sword. Only in the past few decades, due to a failure of will and the rise of moral equivocation, have doubts emerged about this. I will stick with the Tradition of the past 1900 years, thanks. If for no other reason than a man has to be able to shoot his own dog.

"Would he strap the man down? Would he inject the poison? Or would Jesus prefer pulling the lever that opens the trap door for the hanging? Maybe we should ask"

Jesus does more than that, if you will remember the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. What is taking a life as compared to consigning a soul to the outer darkness? Which is why we in the Byzantine Churches pray constantly "For a good defense before the awesome judgment seat of Christ".

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

To push responsibility for capital punishment on the state is just a deceptive way for individual Americans to avoid feeling responsible for killing criminals. But in fact, we all become directly responsible as voting citizens of a democracy. Deceptive delegation of violence and murder to the state is just a way of making killing abstract, of falsely distancing ourselves from murder by making it a collective act. When we voice our support for punishment by death, we are directly contradicting Jesus, for we are all sinners and it is not some abstract and distant state that kills the sinners among us (however terrible their crimes), but all of us as citizens a collective democratic body, just like the crowd of Jews about to stone the woman caught in adultery.

Christ forbade divorce & remarriage and said that Moses permitted the Jews to do so because of the hardness of their hearts. My understanding of the Old Testament practice of capital punishment is that it functioned in the same way. And I have always understood the Church's previously endorsement of capital punishment as having been conditional. During the times it was practiced justly,it was the only adequate way to prevent the morally corrupted and the insane from hurting and killing others.

What is particularly disturbing about these comments is the complete disregard for Church authority when it contradicts a right-wing political agenda. This article, instead, shows the real underlying agenda that has begun to creep into First Things. This publication is becoming less and less about Christian values and more and more about Christian justifications for American neo-conservative values. These things are not the same, and it is particularly surrounding issues like capital punishment and America's imperialist wars, both current and historical, that it becomes clear who is looking to the Magisterium, the Holy Father and the Saints for answers, and who is looking to Fox News and the American conservative community. That said, one can do the same thing on the left surrounding issues like abortion. For all you Catholics, especially, stop picking and choosing according to American partisan politics and approach these issues with the mind of the Church and in a spirit of prayer.

why does "not punishing" = "forgiving?"

why does "punishing" = "not forgiving?"

these equations are not necessarily true.

it seems clear to me that we are to forgive always. but we are also to pursue justice, including retributive justice.

but we may never enjoy punishing.

"For all you Catholics, especially, stop picking and choosing according to American partisan politics and approach these issues with the mind of the Church and in a spirit of prayer."

Amen to that! That's one of the points I was trying to make in one of my previous comments, and the point that Archbishop Chaput makes in his book "Render Unto Caesar". And for the record, I was once a diehard conservative Republican and very active in College Republican circles, due to a. What caused me to leave is I saw that not everything the party supported was in accordance with the teachings of my Catholic faith, and so I left.
What I've come to realize, and Cardinal Francis George makes this clear in a chapter of his book "The Difference God Makes", is that we should not seek to be liberal or conservative, but to be Catholic, to put our Catholic faith and the teachings of our Catholic faith above all else. We should be looking to our priests, our bishops, and especially the Holy Father for guidance, because our Catholic faith should influence everything we do, and those Catholics involved in public life especially should seek the intercession of St. Thomas More. He's the quintessential role model for Catholics involved in political life. He wouldn't betray his Catholic faith even when it cost him his career and, ultimately, his life, and his saying "I remain the King's good servant, but God's first" should guide all Catholic involvement in political life. We are to live and preach the Truth in season and out, and we will be criticized by both the left and the right for doing so, but we should be loyal to the Church and her teachings above all else.
-Michael B.

By this logic/principle, doctors who perform abortions and the women who have them (as well as consenting parents, partners) should be executed. A life for a life. I cannot accept that the same system which allows the murder of the unborn should kill those who exercise that freedom, wrong as it is.

"To push responsibility for capital punishment on the state is just a deceptive way for individual Americans to avoid feeling responsible for killing criminals."

You would prefer that justice become a private matter, as it is in primitive societies?

"And I have always understood the Church's previously endorsement of capital punishment as having been conditional. During the times it was practiced justly,it was the only adequate way to prevent the morally corrupted and the insane from hurting and killing others. "

That shows a rather sketchy understanding both of history and of the moral case for capital punishment.

"What is particularly disturbing about these comments is the complete disregard for Church authority when it contradicts a right-wing political agenda."

Which Church authority? The one that spoke consistently for 1900 years, or the one that decided it knew better based on the experience of the last 100 years?

"it seems clear to me that we are to forgive always. but we are also to pursue justice, including retributive justice. "

Amen to that.

"but we may never enjoy punishing."

We may, however, take satisfaction in having done our duty, both to the living and to the dead.

"He wouldn't betray his Catholic faith even when it cost him his career and, ultimately, his life, and his saying "I remain the King's good servant, but God's first" should guide all Catholic involvement in political life. We are to live and preach the Truth in season and out, and we will be criticized by both the left and the right for doing so, but we should be loyal to the Church and her teachings above all else. "

More was always something of a weasel, though, and it is ironic that his name should be invoked in a discussion of capital punishment given his proclivity for burning Lutherans during his time as Henry VIII's chancellor. For while the Fathers were almost unanimous in their belief that the state had an obligation to put murderers to death, they held almost as unanimously that true belief could not be compelled.

I noticed a typo in my most recent comment. The affected portion should read as follows:

"I was once a diehard conservative Republican and very active in College Republican circles. What caused me to leave is I saw that not everything the party supported was in accordance with the teachings of my Catholic faith, and so I left."

I apologize for the typo.

-Michael B.

Thanks, again, Joe for a thought-out essay on a controversial topic. I agree with you (and Mr. Koehl) for the most part, and don't feel the Magesterium disagrees either. Contrary to Mr. Calhoun's raising of the shebboleths of Fox News and neo-cons, I find the Church's Tradition speaks well on the topic. Being a member of a state (MT) that is trying to replace the death penalty with life without parole I have heard much testimony before legislative committees on public TV and find that it is the progressives (political and Christian) with their agenda creeping into the argument with conflations of abortion and euthanasia with capital punishment (as well as the economics - yuk). Plain and simple, there is no direct Biblical nor Magesterial decree against the death penalty. 1900 years of Tradition back this up as do many Biblical quotes. It was saddening to have to see lobbyists of the Diocese corrected by well-studied Catholic legislators on the words of Pope Benedict, etc. Jesus, Himself did not contradict Pilate when Pilate's "power" to kill was raised. Nor did He correct Dismas (the good thief) when "we deserve it" came up. His focus seemed more eternal. That being mentioned, the death penalty should be exceedingly rare. Nonetheless, the population of other prisoners and prison employees deserve protection, too. That may require a final option greater than further life without parole. Use of the death penalty does not preclude the sentenced from making contrition. I seem to recall many a catch-phrase such as "make peace with your Maker", etc. In God's economy, our physical lives don't even compare to eternity, either with or without Him.

Stuart,

“For while the Fathers were almost unanimous in their belief that the state had an obligation to put murderers to death, they held almost as unanimously that true belief could not be compelled”

An exception is Augustine, who in 412, began to argue that government should in fact compel the Donatists to conform to the church.

"An exception is Augustine, who in 412, began to argue that government should in fact compel the Donatists to conform to the church."

As in most things, Augustine was the odd man out. It is interesting in examining how the Church dealt with heretics in the post-Constantinian period. Except in cases where religious dissidents used violence (e.g., the Donatists in Africa, the Paulicans in Asia Minor) or challenged state authority, it was extremely rare for heretics to be executed or even imprisoned. Most of the time, they were simply deposed from office (if clerics) and exiled--witness the cases of Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius Sergeius and many more. Even as late as Justinian the Great, the Cyrillian ("monophysite") factions enjoyed a great deal of freedom; their subsequent persecution had more to do with imperial politics than with theology, and until the Arab conquest of the 7th century, the Church of Constantinople never ceased attempting to find a formula for reconciliation (hence the fifth and sixth Ecumenical Councils).

Heresy only becomes a capital offense in the Middle Ages, and it took repeated Papal bulls to make it so. Why violence was seen as necessary to enforce conformity is a subject that could generate a book in itself.

To Steve, many thanks for the kind words. You wrote:

"That being mentioned, the death penalty should be exceedingly rare."

I agree. It is certainly an abuse of the state's authority to employ capital punishment for crimes against property (as was the case in Georgian England, where more than 200 offenses were punishable by death). I myself would limit it to premeditated murder and to violent rape (which is also an attempt to obliterate a person, albeit one which leaves the body alive).

But if you look at the statistics for the United States, at least, you will find that capital punishment is imposed quite infrequently, in light of the approximately 50,000 murders that occur in the U.S. every year; fewer sentences still are actually executed. As I see it, the problem in the U.S. is the inconsistency with which capital punishment is imposed, and then with the extended process of appeals that invariably follows.

The notion that an innocent man might accidentally be executed bothers me very little. In the first place, there are many safeguards in place to minimize the risk, and in the second place, as a Christian who believes in life in the world to come, I feel sure that those who suffered injustice here will be more than compensated thereafter. Ironically, the advent of DNA testing, which death penalty opponents like to use to "prove" that innocent men have been executed (to date they have not managed to do this--and in one spectacular case, it proved decisively that one man death penalty opponents felt certain had been framed was in fact guilty), will henceforth almost certainly guarantee that no innocent man will ever be put to death in this country, again. All it would take is a simple statute that prohibits the death penalty in cases where DNA evidence is not available or has not been used by the prosecution.

"Use of the death penalty does not preclude the sentenced from making contrition. I seem to recall many a catch-phrase such as "make peace with your Maker", etc. In God's economy, our physical lives don't even compare to eternity, either with or without Him."

Quite so. I also recall Samuel Johnson's aphorism, "Nothing so concentrates a man's mind as the knowledge that he is to be hanged in a fortnight".

More was *not* a "weasel." He was a great man. He had an extremely challenging cross to bear in his life, and is in the view of Catholics, like myself, a saint. In those days it was death to steal a loaf of bread. And many more Catholics than Protestants have died for their faith in England.

In our time we agonize endlessly over a few dozen of the most heinous criminals while a million innocents are ripped to shreds without anesthesia. I can see More now, sadly shaking his head.

†

"More was *not* a "weasel." He was a great man."

Everybody is entitled to an opinion. That one is yours. I was never very impressed by "A Man For All Seasons", and less so with More's early life, his careerism, his social climbing, his trimming, and his intellectual arrogance (the story of his trip to the Shrine of St. Thomas Beckett at Canterbury with Erasmus is highly disedifying). I suspect More's canonization, like that of Joan of Arc, had a lot more to do with the cause for which he died than for any personal sanctity.

"But you are not God, and neither am I. The victim can forgive; society cannot."

Stuart, as we approach good friday, remember the 'society' that opted to free barabas and crucify Christ instead. That society forgave barabas the murderer unequivocally. Vox populi was never Vox Dei, by the way. Secondly, how could you know who JP2 absolved the sins of mehmet for? Is it not possible that JP2 granted ali the absolution from the sacrament of reconcilitation, thus as the viacar of Christ making that forgiveness for and in behalf of the spiritual body of Christ?

"Secondly, how could you know who JP2 absolved the sins of mehmet for? Is it not possible that JP2 granted ali the absolution from the sacrament of reconcilitation, thus as the viacar of Christ making that forgiveness for and in behalf of the spiritual body of Christ?"

The authority of the Pope does not extend into the temporal realm (Pope Pius XII renounced the temporal supremacy of the Pope in 1958), and the Sacrament of Reconciliation is available only to those who have been fully initiated into the Church. But even if Pope John Paul II did choose to absolve Mehmet Ali Aga of his sins, that does not absolve him of his crimes. Let me put it another way: a priest (or better still, a bishop) molests a child. The Pope absolves him of his sin through confession and reconciliation. Do you think this means society can thus forgive his offense and need not prosecute and punish him? Get real.

Also, don't assign to the Bishop of Rome authority he does not claim for himself.

"The notion that an innocent man might accidentally be executed bothers me very little. ... as a Christian who believes in life in the world to come, I feel sure that those who suffered injustice here will be more than compensated thereafter."

Chilling.

Pro-life is pro "all" life, no? Or should we start choosing for which lives we are "pro" and which "anti"."

How about our obligation to the life that the murderer took?? I think we owe more to that life than to the one who chose to commit murder! There is nothing contradictory in taking a pro-life stance and supporting capital punishment for murder.

In answer Stuart's rebuttals:

"To push responsibility for capital punishment on the state is just a deceptive way for individual Americans to avoid feeling responsible for killing criminals."

Stuart: "You would prefer that justice become a private matter, as it is in primitive societies?"

No, I would prefer that capital punishment be outlawed completely and that the criminally dangerous and insane be kept in prisons where they can no longer hurt anyone. Also, many many people on death row have been later proven innocent, often after their execution. If we as a country apply capital punishment, especially in the hasty and racist way it is often applied, their blood is on our hands. Also, to dismiss as irrelevant the possibility that a criminal, over the course of his life, can become reconciled to God seems very unchristian, and to claim that impending execution can somehow be viewed as a positive way to bring about conversion, as some commentators have, is really disgusting and decidedly unchristian. Perhaps the prospect of state execution has brought about repentance and conversion in the past, but to use these instances of God miraculously using human evil to bring about His goodness as a justification for capital punishment is very backwards.

"And I have always understood the Church's previous endorsement of capital punishment as having been conditional. During the times it was practiced justly,it was the only adequate way to prevent the morally corrupted and the insane from hurting and killing others. "

Stuart: "That shows a rather sketchy understanding both of history and of the moral case for capital punishment."

Perhaps, but I trust my bishops as the heirs to the apostles, that on issues like this they are well informed by Tradition and guided, as Bishops, in a particular way by the Holy Spirit.

"What is particularly disturbing about these comments is the complete disregard for Church authority when it contradicts a right-wing political agenda."

Stuart: "Which Church authority? The one that spoke consistently for 1900 years, or the one that decided it knew better based on the experience of the last 100 years?"

The Church Authority that is alive, teaching, moving forward & applying the ancient deposit of faith to circumstances that present new problems but also new possibilities for greater justice.

"No, I would prefer that capital punishment be outlawed completely and that the criminally dangerous and insane be kept in prisons where they can no longer hurt anyone."

That's not why we execute murderers. We execute murderers to affirm that human life is so sacred that nothing other than the forfeiture of life can atone for it.

"Also, many many people on death row have been later proven innocent, often after their execution."

" If we as a country apply capital punishment, especially in the hasty and racist way it is often applied, their blood is on our hands."

Hasty? It usually takes decades from conviction to the time the condemned is strapped to a gurney, during which interval he has manifold opportunities to appeal his conviction. If we have a problem, it is our inconsistency in the application of the death penalty. It isn't that we execute too many minorities, it's that too many white murderers dodge the needle.

"Perhaps, but I trust my bishops as the heirs to the apostles, that on issues like this they are well informed by Tradition and guided, as Bishops, in a particular way by the Holy Spirit."

Oh, goodie for you. I know too many bishops to be very sanguine about their ability to formulate coherent legal, social, economic and foreign policy. This is an area in which the Church yields to the prudential judgment of the state, and for very good reason.

"The Church Authority that is alive, teaching, moving forward & applying the ancient deposit of faith to circumstances that present new problems but also new possibilities for greater justice."

Don't make me laugh so hard while I am eating. Try, instead, to remember the words of Napoleon's uncle, Cardinal Fesch. During the period when Napoleon was negotiating the Concordat with the Catholic Church, Fesch informed Napoleon that the Pope was unwilling to yield on a particular point. Napoleon threw one of his famous tantrums. "Unless the Pope yields", he shouted, "I will destroy the Church". Fesch smiled wryly and responded, "Sire, we bishops have been trying to do that for eighteen centuries, and have not succeeded yet".

But if that doesn't put matter in perspective, try John Chrysostom, who said "I fear not many bishops will be saved", and "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops".


Name two from the last fifty years. As I said, DNA evidence will make it practically impossible to execute an innocent man. All it requires is a law stating that the maximum sentence in cases where DNA is lacking is life imprisonment without parole.

Mr. Koehl,

You seem to think that God's action in Jesus has nothing to do with how we are to behave--that Jesus died to forgive our sins but our actions (and particularly our political actions) are to be governed by other considerations entirely. I agree with Charlie--this is not faithfulness to the Gospel. We are not, by nature, God. That is of course true. But we are made in God's image and are in the course of being deified by the work of the Holy Spirit, and we have been commanded by Jesus to imitate God precisely in his grace and generosity to the wicked. Surely that is the starting point for any Christian ethic with regard to violence, and the other dicta found in Scripture should be interpreted in the light of this. Your response amounts to trivializing the central truths of our faith.

Do you think this means society can thus forgive his offense and need not prosecute and punish him? Get real."

Stuart, I doubt you are the only person who can speak for society. Can society forgive? Yes it can, ask the japanese who were just recently reminded of hiroshima and nagasaki. And then again you conveniently forget about my example of barabas the murderer and about the jewish society forgiving him and choosing to crucify Christ, so much for society. As for assigning authority to the bishop of rome, the privelege was never mine. "Whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And I never claimed that justice should never be served out as you try to show. Life sentences are for the most part more punishing than a "one time big time" execution.

Stuart, in answer to your post,

Killing those who murder for any other reason but keeping them from killing others just doesn't agree with the Gospels when we look at the state not as some abstract tool through which God carries out retribution, but instead as a collective group of citizens similar to, as I said above, the Jews about to stone the woman in adultery. They were carrying out what, according to the Law, they believed was just. Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy, and in his Sermon on the Mount taught: 'You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you do not resist evil, but whosoever shall strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,' admonished us to 'love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,' then was himself executed brutally by a violent state.

To your doubts about executions of the innocent in this country, there have been 39 executions since 1970 in which substantial evidence pointing to the defendant's innocence has later come to light. Here's a website listing their names:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/deathpenalty/executinginnocent/

Concerning bishops, yes, there have been many corrupt bishops in the past, and there are probably many today (the abuse scandals), but a bishop's personal corruption does not affect his ability to teach the faith. History tells us that the Borgia Popes were corrupt and sinful men, but their personal corruption did not contaminate or undermine the constant teachings of the Church that we receive today. It is a miracle of God that Popes like this, and other corrupt bishops and priests, didn't destroy the Church or corrupt her teachings. But, they did not, and Bishops, for all their faults, still teach the faith today.
It is not just the USCCB that opposes capital punishment in the context of our modern society, but the Pope himself (it's in the catechism, as many posters have already pointed out). These are not simply secular issues to be left to the state. Condoning institutionalized violence, especially unnecessary violence like capital punishment in today's world, has deep spiritual and cultural consequences, and the Bishops are right to urge Christians to resist such things and to work to build a society that honors life and is merciful and just.

Thank you Dr. Hart for admirably defending christian opposition to the death penalty and reaffirming our obligation to resist it.

I too favor the death penalty . . . so long as the Scriptural procedures are followed. Let's see what those are:

“If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness." Numbers 35:30.

"On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness." Deuteronomy 17:6

"The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. " Deuteronomy 17:7

"“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established." Deuteronomy 19:15

“‘And you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Deuteronomy 5:20

"If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. " Deuteronomy 19:16-18

Now I take the two witnesses to be actual eyewitnesses, not expert witnesses who use DNA or fingerprints or ballistic tests. (After all, I don't believe forensic experts existed during the time of Moses.) I have nothing against such witnesses. In fact, I believe they are very valuable. But to insure that someone isn't false convicted and put to death, Scripture seems to dictate that at least two people can testify truthfully that they saw the act and, if a witness lies and it can be proven, he is to be put to death.

I think it is rather selective to defend the death penalty from Scripture without also insisting that Biblical rules of evidence and procedure be followed. Admittedly, this would reduce significantly the number of cases for which the death penalty could be applied, but if we are going to follow the Bible, we need to follow all of it and not just selected parts that fit into a predetermined agenda.

Oh, and by the way, notice that it is the witnesses who must begin the execution of the penalty. That should be followed as well IF we are going to use Scripture as our defense of the death penalty.

Perhaps, but I trust my bishops as the heirs to the apostles, that on issues like this they are well informed by Tradition and guided, as Bishops, in a particular way by the Holy Spirit. Also, just because some guy is Pope, I fail to see how he can simply overturn nineteen centuries of consistent Christian doctrine regarding the right and power of the state to sentence murderers to death. He may have his opinion, but against the full weight of the Tradition, that's all it is--an opinion.

I don't think we should execute all murderers. However, I think there are some cases where the crime is so heinous that it shows disrespect for human life to allow the killer to live. Even more depressing is the way Joe disregards the work of Christ, and indeed the way Paul in Romans 12 and 13 proclaims this very work. For "blood sacrifice" is not something that is tangential to the work of the Messiah, but is indeed at its very heart. And the witness of the New Testament is that the only blood that needs to be shed already has beenthe sacrifice of Christ puts to an end the need for the shedding of blood. Those who have been made new by the blood of the Lamb have been set free from the world's unbeliefand from the blood-demanding and blood-letting ways of that unbelief.

@Chan
"I don't think we should execute all murderers. However, I think there are some cases where the crime is so heinous that it shows disrespect for human life to allow the killer to live."

In some countries like Sweden there isn't a life or death sentence. The longest you can get put away is 23 years. The prisons there are also very different, and set up more for reform. If we truly want to change peoples lives, we should start with prison reform!