How does one reconcile the traditional church position regarding the death penalty with John Paul II’s argument in Evangelium Vitae?

How does one reconcile the traditional church position regarding the death penalty with John Paul II’s argument in Evangelium Vitae? What do St. Augustine and St. Thomas say about the death penalty? What positions do contemporary moral theologians take? What has Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, said about the death penalty? Is the Church’s current teaching teaching on capital punishment a contradiction or a repudiation of its past support?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains capital punishment in these words: “The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When the guilty party willingly accepts it, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.[1]


The catechism continues: “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 [i.e., the convicted murderer], authority [should] limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.[2]

“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 nonexistent’.”[3]
In John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, (The Gospel of Life), he stated that “the nature and extent of the punishment [for capital crimes] must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not to 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 to the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”[4]

The paragraph in the second (1997) edition of the Catechism reads: “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” (2267). This replaces the first (1992) edition, which said: “the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty”[5] (Emphasis mine). This change in the second edition of the Catechism was clearly influenced by the pope’s 1995 encyclical.

John Paul further elaborated on his opposition to the death penalty in a pastoral visit to the U.S. “The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of Life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently…for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”[6]

Many who oppose the death penalty place it alongside abortion and euthanasia as to be equally condemned. However, in 1983 Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, in his Consistent Ethic of Life, made it clear that capital punishment should not be equated with the crimes of abortion and euthanasia.[7] And as recently as 2004, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, wrote: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia…. 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.”[8] (Emphasis mine).

According to the Catechism, in situations where the death penalty is morally permissible,[9] it is left to those who have public responsibility to make such a decision whether the conditions in a particular case justifies execution. When John Paul wrote: “such cases [of executing the criminal] are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (EV no. 56), it is important to note that the phrase “very rare” and “practically non-existent” does not translate as non-existent.
It may seem that Church teaching is ambiguous concerning capital punishment, especially in light of Pope John Paul’s encyclical and Cardinal Ratzinger’s memo where he wrote “a legitimate diversity of opinion” regarding capital punishment may exist. How do (we as) theologians interpret such diversity?

Scripture is often mentioned in support of the death penalty. The passage from Exodus: “An eye for eye,” is most often cited. Opponents quote Ezekiel (33:11): “As I live, says the Lord God, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man’s conversion, that he may live.” In fact, there are many more offenses that were capital crimes, such as adultery or striking or cursing a parent. Nevertheless, there seems to be a progression of mercy, such as is in Ezekiel and in the New Testament’s Sermon on the Mount where Jesus focuses on mercy and reconciliation, rather than the stringent requirements of capital justice.

In the early Church Christians refused to participate in war and capital punishment, but when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, opposition to the death penalty declined. “Tertullian argued that Christians should refrain from participation in civil government, because, among other things, it would entail the condemnation and execution of criminals…” and “Saint Ambrose, in a letter written to a magistrate concerning capital punishment, Ambrose instructed that the example of Jesus and the adulteress should be followed as a model.”[10]

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas argued in favor of the death penalty because, as he believed, it would deter the wicked and protect society. St. Augustine wrote in the fifth century A.D.: The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions as when God authorizes...the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law...[11] St. Thomas Aquinas responded in part: We observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away…the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death’ for the sake of the common good.[12]

In the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, commenting on the Fifth Commandment, it states: “The prohibition does not apply to the civil magistrate, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which he punishes the guilty and protects the innocent. The just use of the civil sword, when wielded by the hand of justice, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment that prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.[13]

Recently it has been argued that, “It is nearly the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes and numerous catechisms is that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation).

Most recently, Avery Cardinal Dulles says both Scripture and tradition agree, ‘The State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death’.”[14]


Yet even Augustine was willing to make exceptions. While he supports the right of the state to use capital punishment, he urged: “Do not have a person put to death, and you will have someone who can be reformed.”[15] “This is mirrored in Evangelium Vitae in paragraph 27, to seek to render “criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.”

For those who claim that there is no precedence for a pope to question the legitimacy of capital punishment, the ninth-century Pope St. Nicholas I taught: “Without hesitation and in every possible circumstance, save the life of the body and soul of each individual. You should save from death not only the innocent but also criminals, because Christ has saved you from the death of the soul (emphasis mine).”[16] So Pope John Paul II was not completely breaking from tradition.

Also consider that in American society the death penalty is often pursued as a method of retaliation rather than divine justice; hence John Paul’s critique of such application. John Paul, in his encyclical and many other speeches and homilies was principally concerned that capital punishment further eroded the respect for the dignity of human life.

I further agree with Professor David Smolin when he states: “The death penalty should generally not be employed, he (Pope John Paul) seems to imply, both because it is no longer necessary to the protective function of the state, and also because its use (particularly when unnecessary to protect human life) has the inadvertent cultural impact of furthering the culture of death represented by practices such as abortion and euthanasia”(emphasis mine). However, in spite of the attractiveness of that argument, I, like Smolin, can also agree with [Supreme Court] Justice Scalia when he suggests that “the popularity of the death penalty in the United States is a sign that Americans still discern God’s authority over and behind the state; from this perspective maintenance of the death penalty is a helpful antidote to the democratic tendency to forget that God’s authority (rather than the people’s authority) is the ultimate foundation of state authority.”[17]


It does seem a paradox that one can appreciate both the pope’s belief that the death penalty seemingly perpetuates the culture of death and others’ argument, [like Justice Scalia’s], that considers the death penalty a tangible sign of God’s ultimate authority over human life.


However, Professor Steven Long argues, as long as “wrongful homicide” [abortion] is “legally affirmed and protected as a right” then the “primary medicinal end of the death penalty” is obstructed from view due to the “radical [cultural] devaluation of life.”[18]


I would agree that the application of the death penalty does, in reality, add to the killing of our culture of death; instead of fostering justice for the common good, as St. Thomas argued, justice is actually hampered due to a lack of an understanding of the dignity of human life. In other words, capital punishment may still be biblically and theologically valid, but “the prudence of its application is affected by the culture of death.”[19] Pope John Paul II taught that justice could only be found when and where every human life is “respected, protected, loved, and served.” He asked, “How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? (EV no. 20)”[20]


What, I believe, John Paul II was emphasizing in Evangelium Vitae was the intrinsic dignity of the human person, especially in our modern culture that has compromised human dignity, particularly through abortion and euthanasia. Therefore, I argue, as do others, that in order to redress the harm – indeed the injustice and evil – wrought by abortion and euthanasia, we ought not impose the death penalty so as to emphasize that all human life is sacred – guilty and non-guilty.


Yet, it is important for the critics of the death penalty to recall what Avery Cardinal Dulles of Fordham University said: “The Catholic Magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty.”[21]
One could argue that the death penalty does more harm than good given our current cultural situation where there is such an unparalleled contempt for human life. In Evangelium Vitae John Paul II argues that the use of capital punishment will not improve our society due to its widespread acceptance of abortion and the mentality of a culture of death. In fact, “the death penalty may in fact reinforce our worst instincts, so that it is more medicinal not to inflict such punishment” because the death penalty reinforces “a notion that life is expendable.”[22]


Consequently, this would explain why the teaching of the Catechism maintains that refraining from the death penalty is more in keeping with the current societal conditions of the common good. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger explained the current teaching along similar lines: “Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue [the death penalty] as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances.”[23]


This clearly underlines John Paul’s assertion that “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.”[24] (Italics mine). Therefore if the state withholds execution of those who deserve death, this act will drive home the sanctity of each and every human life, especially the unborn – those who are innocent of a crime and have done nothing to merit death.


Although this teaching is not taught infallibly, Catholics should still seek religious submission of mind and will to the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.[25]
There are those who argue for the application of capital punishment with recourse to the right and duty of legitimate public authority to safeguard human dignity and promote the common good; others argue against capital punishment on grounds of human dignity and the common good.


Abortion and euthanasia both take innocent lives; capital punishment takes the lives of convicted murderers. Therefore there is an amount of toleration for diversity of opinion concerning capital punishment. However, Pope John Paul wrote in Evangelium Vitae that the cases where the executions of the convicted criminal are necessary are very rare, if practically non-existent. Nevertheless, others maintain that they are not completely non-existent.


I believe the best argument against capital punishment relates to its application in light of the culture of death. The intrinsic worth of the human person as created in the image of God is obscured by the cultural diminishment of the value of human life. It follows then that by applying capital punishment, the intended desire, namely to show honor and respect for the human life of the slain, is not achieved; rather human life is further devalued by the exacting of another human life, even though biblically and theological it can be argued to be just and equitable.


When justice is limited to bloodless means of punishment, the good of all human life is respected and the momentum of a nefarious mentality that views human life as disposable decreases.


Due to the contempt for human life described in Evangelium Vitae, the application of capital punishment is not fostering the common good, but is actually harmful. Using St. Thomas’ reasoning, in today’s situation the death penalty may lead to the commission of more numerous, grievous sins by strengthening and encouraging the idea that human life is dispensable.

Therefore, Pope John Paul’s acknowledgment of the state’s right to employ the death penalty, while insisting on its limited use, is not a contradiction of Catholic tradition nor does it mean that that “a development of doctrine has occurred.”[26]


Therefore it would seem clear that Catholicism and the death penalty are not mutually exclusive. Both the Catechism and the pope’s encyclical do not necessarily contradict the principle that the state has the right to employ capital punishment; they do, nevertheless, seem to signify a shift in understanding, as I have shown and described in the above paragraphs.
However, Catholic social teaching is built upon two equal foundations: the innate dignity of the human person and the common good. “Moreover, for John Paul II, the punishment of any crime should not only seek to redress wrong and protect society. It should also encourage the possibility of repentance, restitution and rehabilitation on the part of the criminal.”[27]


Unfortunately our society looks to violence for quick solutions to multifaceted human problems. Opposition to capital punishment is a clear expression of our belief in the matchless worth and dignity of each human being from the moment of his or her conception, as creatures made in the image and likeness of God. The pope’s teaching is evident: even those who have taken human life are to be treated with the utmost dignity.


In John’s gospel when Jesus refuses to condemn the woman caught in the act of adultery, his words and actions make us acutely aware of the dignity of human life.[28]


As I have stated above St. Augustine asked that the death penalty not be used on anyone, not even on those who have committed the most heinous of crimes. Augustine’s argument was based on his claim that the human dignity of being made in the “image of God” can be obscured but never erased.


St. Thomas Aquinas justified the use of the death penalty when used for the sake of preserving the common good of society. At the same time, however, he also argued that if a convicted criminal could be imprisoned and kept from being a danger to society, hence removing his threat to the common good, the state would not be justified in killing such a criminal.


Since Vatican Council II, especially in its document, Gaudium et Spes, the inviolable right to life has come to the fore: “There is an ever growing awareness of the sublime dignity of the human person, who stands above all things and whose rights and duties are universal… The social order and its developments must constantly yield to the good of the person, since the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons and not the other way around.”[29] The document continues: “everyone must consider his every neighbor without exception as another self, taking into account first of all his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity… The teaching of Christ even requires that we forgive injustices, and extend the law of love to include every enemy, according to the command of the New Law…”[30]


In conclusion I reiterate that the Church is consistent in upholding the dignity and sacredness of human life from the moment of conception until natural death.


In “Confronting a Culture of Violence,” the U.S. bishops state: “A consistent ethic of life remains the surest foundation of our life together.” As we become more aware of the Gospel challenges of our Christian vocation through theological reflection to daily achieve greater union with Christ, we will envision a culture of life and a civilization of love that will no longer include the death penalty. Pope John Paul seemingly places the dignity of the human person at the heart of the Church’s mission. “To rediscover and make others rediscover the inviolable dignity of every human person makes up an essential task, in a certain sense, the central and unifying task of the service which the Church and the lay faithful in her are called to render to the human family.”[31]

Archbishop Charles Chaput helps us to understand that, “The Church’s critique of capital punishment is not an evasion of justice. Victims and their survivors have a right to redress, and the state has a right to enforce that redress and impose grave punishment for grave crimes. It is not an absolute rejection of lethal force by the state. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.”[32]


Consequently, rather than claiming that capital punishment is unjust, the pope was arguing for the promotion of Gospel values. For the pope (and bishops) it seems that abolition of capital punishment would reiterate the belief in the unique worth and dignity of every human being from the moment of conception, as creatures made in the image and likeness of the God who is indeed the Lord of all life. Therefore, to bring about the culture of life, Christians must proclaim the truth of the human person: a steadfast affirmation of the value and sanctity of all human life.


According to the Catechism, the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish criminals in cases of extreme gravity with the death penalty. Nonetheless Pope John Paul exhorted us not to impose the death penalty so as to emphasize that all human life is sacred, in hopes of reversing the dangerous precedent of the prevailing culture of death that has cheapened life and rendered it disposable.


In analyzing John Paul II’s encyclical and the Catechism, the punishment of crimes should both seek to redress wrong and protect society. It has long been part of our tradition to leave open the possibility of repentance, restitution and rehabilitation on the part of the criminal. In America many hold the death penalty to be the best way to deal with capital crime. However, the Church holds a belief in the unique worth and dignity of each person from the moment of conception, creatures made in the image and likeness of God - even those who have taken life must be treated with dignity.


It would seem that the growing number of opponents to capital punishment and the traditional adherents of the church teaching that permits capital punishment will continue to coexist in tension for years to come. Though Evangelium Vitae was not a repudiation of past teachings, there does, however, seem to be some evolution in the understanding of the application of capital punishment.


Therefore, in light of the current cultural situation, withholding the employment of capital punishment will actually serve to promote the value of life as opposed to the former support of capital punishment. The pope, in his wisdom, has directed the Church in a new direction without rejecting, contradicting, or repudiating its past support of capital punishment.

THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE 21ST CENTURY

At the death of Pope John Paul II accolades for his teaching and his ministry were legion. Many leading Christian leaders, including Evangelicals, extolled his memory. As a Catholic I was encouraged by this unity among Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike. One of the main reasons for such high praise for Pope John Paul II was his constant and consistent teaching on the dignity of all human life and his challenge to the Culture of Death.


But what about his condemnation of the death penalty? Attempting to weave the seamless garment of a consistent life ethic is difficult business among our Christian neighbors – and even Catholics. One can quote Pope John Paul II on any subject and many Catholics will get teary-eyed, but quote his Saint Louis speech or Evangelium Vitae, which, for all practical purposes, called for an end to the death penalty, and your Christian friends may suddenly look at you as if you are speaking Latin.


I have heard “good Christians” give citations of Genesis 9:6, “... If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,” and from Deuteronomy, “If a man guilty of a capital offense he is to be put to death.”(Dt. 21:22) Even many Catholics hold this view, and although they often do not cite scripture, they do convey the same idea.


Of course, there are other passages in Exodus that can be cited which call for the death penalty. “Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death” (EX 21:15); “Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death.” (EX 21:17). “If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they chastise him, his father and mother shall have him apprehended and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where they shall say to those city elders, ‘This son of ours is a stubborn and unruly fellow who will not listen to us; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all his fellow citizens shall stone him to death. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel, on hearing of it, shall fear.” (Exodus 21:18-21) I’d say. Many of us would have been stoned to death years ago.


There are others like it. “You must keep the Sabbath as something sacred. Whoever desecrates it shall be put to death. (EX 31:14). Anyone who does work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.(EX 35:2) According to these strictures, death row should be extremely crowded - or empty. Are there Christians who would seriously consider applying these Scriptures today? I doubt it.


Even if Pope John Paul II and the Roman Catholic Church had not called for a moratorium on the death penalty, the Word of God ought to challenge Christians. St. Paul wrote, “Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse them...do not repay anyone evil for evil... Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink...do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good” (Rom. 12.20). “Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 13.9 10). If there can be any justice in exacting pain upon the criminal it ought to be done by our overflowing graciousness and hospitality.


Many Catholics are sincere in their beliefs, but Catholics are not the only ones slow to take up the protest – so are our Bible-Christian brothers and sisters as well. Clearly the punishment of wrongdoers is justified in the Catholic and Christian Tradition, but punishment should also have a medicinal, redemptive purpose. Therefore, must we offer the convicted murderer upon the altar of American justice? How much more ought Christians to love the notorious sinners, those most in need of the Lord’s mercy – and ours? Is not the call of the gospel to love the loveless? Are we not all loveless? St. Paul wrote, “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom 5.8). Therefore, what gives us the right to cast stones? Did not Christ himself say, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone?” (Jn. 8.7)


Many Christians who legitimize their stance on the death penalty also claim as a tenet of their faith that no one is good, “all have fallen short of the glory of God” even the newborn is stained with the effects of Adam’s sin. Therefore those who claim that the convicted murderer deserves death betray an inconsistency in their theology. Christ came to call the sinner – even the most wretched. Was not Christ’s blood enough to cover the sins of murderers?


There is another great irony in this owing to the fact that for many years Protestants condemned the Catholic Church for its complicity in the Inquisition. How many people were put to death for heresy, not to mention other crimes, is still debated. However, as we entered the new millennium, the Pope called upon all Catholics to ask for forgiveness for the sins of the members of the Body of Christ throughout history. He has also asked us to work for the abolishment of the death penalty. As any student of history knows, or should know, the post-

Reformation violence and bloodshed in England, Italy, Germany, and elsewhere, did not discriminate between Protestants and Catholics, and those executioners and mercenaries who dealt the lethal blows were Protestant and Catholic alike.
The New Catechism of the Catholic Church, in referring to the death penalty, calls the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity very rare, if not practically non-existent. The U.S. Bishops have called capital punishment “cruel and unnecessary punishment.”


There will be those who argue that in the letters of Saint Paul one will find legitimate authority given to the Christians to execute the criminal in such verses as Romans “Let everyone be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.


Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves,” (13:1-2) or “For it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.”(Rom.13:4). Had we literally obeyed that then perhaps slavery would never have been abolished and abortion would never be opposed since both were legally sanctioned.


However, the passage from Paul continues: “Whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.”(Rom. 13:9-10). Or previously in Chapter 12, “Bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse them.... Do not repay anyone evil for evil.” (Vss 14 and17a). Christ said, “Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” (Mt. 9:13)


Is not the call of the gospel to love the loveless? In the words of the hymn My Song is Love Unknown written by Samuel Grossman in the 1600's, the message of the gospel is clear. My song is love unknown, My Savior’s love to me, love to the loveless shown, that they might lovely be. O who am I that for my sake My Lord shall take frail flesh and die? Are we not all loveless? Dare we claim for ourselves moral and spiritual superiority and condone the state sanctioned killing of yet another citizen?


Catholics maintain that we are born in a state of original sin, inherent to each individual, yet Catholics do not claim that human nature is totally corrupted. Suffice it to say my reason for delineating these points of reference is to challenge the position of some pro-lifers who distinguish between innocent life and guilty life. Catholics are called to be pro-life across the board, from the moment of conception until natural death, be it innocent or guilty life.
Christian pro-lifers who claim that the babies eliminated by choice are innocent and the convicted murderers are guilty, deserving of death, betray an inconsistency in their own theology. Christ came to call the sinner – even the most wretched. Was not Christ’s blood enough to cover the sins of murderers?

However, the execution of the guilty party removes his opportunity for conversion and repentance, or in the least, cuts the time short. And the decision to execute belies the tenet of faith that holds that no one is beyond the scope of God’s mercy.


I have been told “sin is sin” when I have tried to differentiate between venial and mortal sin. Yet if sin is sin, then why are some sins so grave that we must call for the death of the sinner? Did not God say in Ezekiel “I do not desire the death of the sinner”? Why then do we?


Christ came to call the sinner, even the most wretched! Christ Jesus was pro-guilty life, thank God! Christ Jesus was for Barabbas, who, though guilty, He took the guilty man’s place. Of course, we recognize ourselves in Barabbas.
During his ministry, how did Jesus respond to those who were guilty of a capital crime? One of his opening salvos in the Sermon on the Mount, was Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. We must show mercy to even the worst sinner, even ourselves. Later in the same chapter, (5:21-22, 25-26) "You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.' But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,'...and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”


Christ taught us that we must love our enemies, not that it would be a good idea, but that we must love them. It is a mandate from the Lord himself. It is a difficult one to hear let alone heed. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Mt 5:43-48).


In the Hebrew Scriptures, When Cain slew Abel, the LORD asked Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" He answered, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" The LORD then said: "What have you done! Listen: your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil.... You shall become a restless wanderer on the earth." Cain said to the LORD: "My punishment is too great to bear...anyone may kill me at sight." "Not so!" the LORD said to him. "If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold." (Genesis 4:9-15)


The Word of the Lord came to Ezekiel, “As I live, says the Lord GOD, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man's conversion, that he may live.” (EZ. 33:11)


Returning then to the New Testament, in Matthew, “If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.”(Mt. 6:14-15). Or "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.” (Mt 7:1-2)
The gospel of Luke offers the same words, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.”(Lk. 6:36-37). We must recall that “The Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” (Lk. 19.10) Is it not our task to carry on the work of the Lord? Did not Christ say that we are to raise the dead, not add to the killing?


Jesus said, "Be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful," and "The Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost." What about the good shepherd of Matthew 18? Christ did not give us an exception to the rule ‘love thy neighbor.’ Otherwise, the Good Shepherd would have remained with the loyal ninety-nine sheep and let the one lost one plummet over the edge of the cliff to its death.
What about forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation? The Christian journey teaches us to love those especially difficult to love. In one of the Catholic prayers associated with the rosary, one of the lines reads, “...lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most in need of mercy.” What better example than those who have taken the life of another.


The Lord Jesus said, ‘forgive as I have forgiven you. If you do not forgive others their offenses committed against you, I will not forgive you your offenses against me?’ No man, by killing another, can restore the deceased to life, nor bring about any happiness in this world or the next; only an injustice and an assault upon the law of charity.


Mother Teresa said and wrote that we are called to love those in the world, those in our midst who is the most unlovable. In another of her famous quotes, she reminded us that it hurt Jesus to love us. Therefore we must also love our neighbor until it hurts. As Christians, we ought to apply these teachings of Christ to our understanding of capital punishment. The prisoners upon death row, both the guilty and the wrongly convicted, must be afforded the dignity of a human beings created in the image and likeness of God.


Until now we have yet to see Christ face to face with someone guilty of a crime punishable by death. In John 8. 3-11, the famous story dealing with the Woman Caught in the very act of Adultery places us there. “The scribes brought a woman to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” When Jesus answered them he said, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” In response, they went away one by one. Left alone with the woman, Jesus did not condemn her, but told her: “Go, and sin no more.” Jesus dismisses the woman and He is caught in the very act of mercy.


In Luke’s Passion narrative, Jesus himself is a victim to the state-sanctioned death penalty. Archbishop Fulton Sheen referred to the so-called “good thief” to Christ’s right as the thief who stole paradise. He is the only person in all of the gospels promised paradise on the spot. Imagine it: a convicted felon, dying upon the gibbet of the cross – the equivalent of the electric chair under the Roman Empire – is the first person to be promised paradise, and all on his execution day! What does this say to us as we whisk the inmates off hogtied to a gurney dispatching them to the netherworld?


Finally, let us recall the last parable Christ spoke in the Gospel of Matthew 25, “…the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me… Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least ones of mine, you did for me.' (Mt. 25.31-46) Jesus did not say “when I was in prison you executed me!” Jesus did not say, “Deprive the prisoner of his life because of his heinous crime and the exorbitant costs of maintaining him as an inmate.” Jesus said when I was in prison, you visited me. Christ’s words should be enough, but no treatise on this issue would be complete without consulting the Apostle Paul, he himself executed by the state for his subversive views, and Saint John, exiled to the Isle of Patmos for his. ( St. Paul’s letter to the Romans was quoted above).


In John’s first epistle, “Whoever says he is in the light, yet hates his brother, is still in the darkness”(1 Jn 2:9). “In this way the love of God was revealed to us: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him. In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another....There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.” (1 Jn. 4:9-11, 18-20).


In conclusion, therefore, let us cast away our fear of loving the unlovable. Let us abandon ourselves to mercy and seek to love as God loves. May all faithful Catholics and faithful Christians, work to abolish the death penalty in the name of Christ, the Prince of Peace! Let us remember that the merciful are blessed and whatsoever we do to the least ones in our midst, we do to Christ!
The Christian journey teaches us to love and forgive those especially difficult to love. Even murderers must be afforded the dignity of human beings created in the image and likeness of God and redeemed by the Precious Blood of the Lamb of God.


However, the execution of the guilty party removes or shortens his opportunity for conversion and repentance, or in the least, it cuts the time short. Execution also seems to deny that God is capable of forgiving all sin. And Capital Punishment can neither restore the victim’s life nor lessen the grief and pain of the survivors. Only mercy and love can uplift and assuage grief. We must stand with victims of crime –including the children of those who are incarcerated. “We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals…The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life” (US Bishops 1999).


As the US bishops have written, “The antidote to violence is love, not more violence.” Pope John Paul II wrote, “…a sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform” (Evangelium Vitae, 27).

Jesus said, love your enemies not execute your enemies. We must challenge political thinking in order to change hearts. The scaffold is still dripping blood and the scarlet blade is still poised to execute justice. For those who quote the Hebrew Scriptures in support of the death penalty, the Lord is clear in Ezekiel, "As I live, I do not desire the death of the sinner but that he turn back to me and live. Do I derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? Do I not rather rejoice when he turns from his evil way that he may live? (Ezek. 18.23,32)."


The United States is the only Western industrialized nation today that utilizes capital punishment. Increasingly the bishops have spoken out against its use, and Pope John Paul II and individual bishops have sought clemency for persons scheduled to be executed. There are forceful reasons for opposing capital punishment—its utter inhumanity and its complete irreversibility, as well as concern about its discriminatory use and an imperfect legal system that has sentenced innocent people to death. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “If...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 with the dignity of the human person” (CCC 2267). Executing the guilty does not honor victims, nor does it uplift the living or even assuage their pain – only love and forgiveness can do that. State-sanctioned killing affects us all because it diminishes the value of all human life. Capital punishment also cuts short the guilty person's opportunity for spiritual conversion and repentance. The consequences of widespread loss of respect for the dignity of human life—seen in pervasive violence, toleration of abortion, and increasingly vocal support for assisted suicide and research that destroys human embryos—make it all the more urgent to reject lethal punishment and uphold the inviolability of every human life. “Our witness to respect for life shines most brightly when we demand respect for each and every human life, including the lives of those who fail to show that respect for others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 22). Thus we are called to extend God's love to all human beings created in his image, including those convicted of serious crimes. In so doing, we can help to make "unconditional respect for life the foundation of a new society" (The Gospel of Life, no. 77).


The author, Victor Hugo, an avid abolitionist of the death penalty in the Nineteenth Century, wrote the following words in his novel Les Misérables concerning a convicted murderer placed upon the scaffold of the guillotine.
“He whom man kills God restores to life. He whom his brothers drive away finds the Father....We may be indifferent to the death penalty and not declare ourselves either way so long as we have not seen a guillotine with our own eyes. But when we do, the shock is violent, and we are compelled to choose sides, for or against. Some admire it, others loathe it. The guillotine is the law made concrete; it is called the Avenger. It is not neutral and does not permit you to remain neutral....I didn't believe it could be so monstrous...Death belongs to God alone.
By what right do men touch that unknown thing?”


Hugo prayed that one day criminals “that were once scourged with anger shall be bathed with love. The Cross shall replace the gallows.” Let us pray. It is time to abolish the death penalty. Let us pursue justice without vengeance, and build a culture of life where we will be so committed to the dignity of human life that we will not sanction the killing of any human person for any reason.


[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph no. 2266. (The Catechism will be denoted as CCC).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter, 25 March 1995, paragraph no. 56.
[5] 1992 version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph no. 2266.
[6] Pope John Paul II’s homily, January 27, 1999, St. Louis, MO.
[7] Avery Cardinal Dulles, Catholicism & Capital Punishment, FIRST THINGS, vol. 112, April 2001, pp. 30-35.
[8] Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles, memorandum of Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick, first made public in July 2004.
[9] CCC 2267.
[10] “He Beareth not the Sword in Vain: the Church, the Courts, and Capital Punishment,” by Patrick M. Laurence. Ave Maria Law Review, Spring 2003.
[11] Augustine, City of God, Book 1, chapter 21.
[12] Summa Theologiae, Part II-II, Q. 64, art. 2
[13] Roman Catechism, Council of Trent, Part III, paragraph II.
[14] “Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Death Penalty” by Steven A. Long. The Thomist, 1999, pp. 511-52.
[15]Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 13, paragraph no. 8.
[16] Robert Fastiggi, in “Antonin Scalia and His Critics: The Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty,” First Things, vol. 126 (October 2002): 8-18
[17] David Smolin, in “Antonin Scalia and His Critics: The Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty,” First Things, vol. 126 (October 2002): 8-18
[18] Steven Long, in “Antonin Scalia and His Critics: The Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty,” First Things, vol. 126 (October 2002): 8-18.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Judie Brown, in “Antonin Scalia and His Critics: The Church, the Courts, and the Death Penalty,” First Things, vol. 126 (October 2002): 8-18
[21] Avery Cardinal Dulles, “Catholicism and Capital Punishment,” First Things vol. 112, pp. 30-35.
[22] Laurence, He Beareth the Sword Not in Vain.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] no. 25 (1964).
[26] Laurence, He Beareth Not the Sword in Vain.
[27] Ibid.
[28] John 8:1-11
[29] Gaudium et spes, No. 26.
[30] Ibid., Nos. 27-28.
[31] Evangelium Vitae, No. 45.
[32] Justice, Mercy, and Capital Punishment By the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., March 2005, USCC.