The Death Penalty

Recently someone was kind enough to send me this article to 'correct' my understanding of the Church's position on the Death Penalty:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp

Frankly, I find Mr. Akin's reasoning pretty un-compelling. To be fair, he seems to at least be relatively honest about the context of the Cardinal Ratzinger quote he uses. Ratzinger appears to have been explaining why certain disagreements with the Church rise to the level in Canon law were communion can be refused (CIC 915) and why others do not - even though those other disagreements may be over grave and important moral principles. This is not entirely new ground, the modern 'blueprint' for rightfully refusing communion was laid out by John Paul II, who used divorce as the example of grievous public sin.

However, there seem to be three huge gaps in Akins' reasoning when he proceeds to argue that capitol punishment is a matter for our courts, not the Church.

First, although he is correct that the Church does sometimes delegate final moral decision making, it is always clear when it does so. CCC 2309 delegates determination of several factors for Just War to rightful civil authority. Similarly, CCC 2278 puts complex decisions about refusing medical treatment in the hands of patients or those they designate to protect their interests. But while CCC 2266 makes punishment of crimes a rightful role of civil authority, CCC 2267 specifically singles out the death penalty and cites papal authority instead.

The second problem with Akins' assertion that "Judges and Juries Decide" is that, in the US, Judges and Juries do not consider the Church's criteria for the death penalty! Look at CCC 2267:

"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'"

Juries make death penalty decisions on factors like the severity and violence of the crime, not society's safety from the criminal. If you are using different criteria, has the moral decision making even been delegated?

The last problem is the use of the word "prudential". I think that a strong case can be made that Pope John Paul II was, in fact, exercising his prudential judgment in this case. The Catechism of the Council of Trent argued that the death penalty was licit because, ultimately, it upheld the purpose of the law:

"The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives." - Catechism of the Council of Trent (emphasis added)

As Cardinal Dulles explained in his essay in First Things, John Paul II had concluded that, under today's conditions, that same "purpose" is best fulfilled a different way. This is a conclusion that the Bishops, world wide, appear to overwhelmingly agree with. The question then becomes, does "prudential" mean 'optional'? Fortunately, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church directly addresses this:

"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." - LUMEN GENTIUM, #25 (emphasis added)

The phrase "even when he is not speaking ex cathedra" means, 'even when he is not invoking papal infallibility' or, 'even when he is expressing his prudential judgement'. In the case of the death penalty, we have a strong indication of "His mind and will". Our last two popes have addressed the death penalty in public statements on US soil. In addition to the Universal Catechism, we have the local Catechism (UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CATECHISM FOR ADULTS), which identifies the death penalty as a causal factor in our "culture of death". Last, but not least, we have written papal directives, like the important encyclical EVANGELIUM VITAE.

The desire for revenge and retribution are understandable. But as Pope John Paul II explained in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38), we hold certain rights to be inalienable. They cannot be abridged because their origin is from God. The most fundamental of these is the "right to life". Like freedom of speech, the true test of our belief in something is not standing up for it when it is easy, but doing so when it is hard.