|
"For rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that, which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he (the ruler) is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil."
-- Rom. 13:3-4
"And one of the robbers who were hanged, blasphemed Him saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering: rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward for our deeds; but this man hath done no evil."
-- Luke 23:39-41 (Douay-Rheims Bible)
"Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual's right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live."
-- Pope Pius XII - Sept. 14, 1952
Considerable attention has been brought to the subject of Capital Punishment by certain statements issued by Pope John Paul II requesting reevaluations of the application of the death penalty in today's society. Whereas the Catholic Church has always acknowledged the right of legitimate governments to inflict capital punishment on those guilty of proportionate crimes, these pronouncements have been the cause of no little confusion on the part of many. Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, in his Question & Answer column on matters of Catholic Faith responded to this particular question of the Holy Father's statements in what we thought to be a very erudite manner and we shall here quote him in full:
Death PenaltyQuestion from Betty on 11-14-2000
Traditionally, the church has recognized the states right to carry out capital punishment, but since Pope John Paul has recently come out against the death penalty, what is the church's official stand on capital punishment? Thank you.
Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on 11- 15 -2000:(EWTN.com)
It is unfortunate that in recent times the Church's teaching on capital punishment has been presented so unclearly, both by members of the Church as well as of the media and other sectors of society. The Church's teaching on this matter is governed primarily by the natural law, and secondly by the principle of double effect. The Church's teaching on this subject remains fundamentally the same.
The Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor, by virtue of the principle of double effect, can resort to the death penalty. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is "rare, if not virtually nonexistent." The important point here is that the Pope has not, as he cannot, change the constant and fundamental teaching of the Church on this matter, based as it is on the natural law, namely that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend citizens against the aggressor.
What the Pope IS saying is that, in modern society, the modern penal system, along with an intense anti-life culture, makes resorting to the death penalty *disproportionate* to the threatening aggression. (According to the 4th criterion of the principle of double effect, the unintended evil effect of the act of self-defense has to be proportionate to the intended good effect of that act.) Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a "rare" case arises that warrants the death penalty. It would, by the standards of the natural law and the principle of double effect, be morally irresponsible to rule out all such possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately. For these reasons, the Church cannot possibly embrace EITHER a totally PRO-capital punishment teaching OR a totally ANTI-capital punishment teaching.
Those totally opposing all capital punishment can very well be shown to have disrespect for innocent human life. Punishment, in the proper Christian sense, is not a seeking of revenge, as some would portray it, but rather justice meted to those in proportion to their injustice. Punishment is meant as a deterrent to those who do not want to experience the same degree of harm, which they may inflict upon others. The exceptions to this natural instinct of self-preservation could well be understood as found only in such individuals with mental defects (pathology). A person's own life obviously has a paramount worth to that individual and one's placing it at such a value would be a proper and prudent rationalization. For one then to imply that the reality of a person knowing he sacrifices his own life for his act of taking another's innocent life would not be a deterrent is to propose the irrational. It goes against nature itself. The question must be asked of those who propose this position: "from what do they draw to support the implausibility that the death penalty WOULD NOT be a deterrent?"
Proper judicial punishment, then, administered by the legitimate civil government, serves to protect its citizenry by affording the deterrents to that faction of every society who seeks to avoid justice to satisfy personal gain or passion. True justice, if it hopes to be effectual and respected in its application of deterrence must apply proportionality in its punishment of crime. If it does not, and exercises unjustified leniency, then it gives the message that the crime itself will not have a proportionate consequence. The forsaking of capital punishment not only eliminates its deterring presence in heinous capital offenses but also logically demonstrates that that society harbors a greater solicitude for the guilty than for that of the innocent. It goes without saying that lessening the deterrence factor will lessen criminal restraints. Such imprudence, in fact, demonstrates disrespect for (innocent) human life for they are the ones who in the end will invariably suffer the greater consequences of an emasculated justice system.
Let us provide here a discussion on a subject that we have not seen brought up but which factually exists and is of the utmost importance. That is the instances whereby innocent lives will be put in jeopardy merely by the fact that the death penalty is eliminated, should that happen.
Many of us have observed in our day, on far too many occasions, the seeming coldness and indifference exhibited by many found guilty of heinous crimes. Absolutely no emotion or concern demonstrated nor remorse expressed for the suffering and death they have been directly responsible for inflicting upon innocent persons. It demonstrates vividly their total unconcern for the worth of another's life. Yet, these same persons will spare no efforts, at huge taxpayer expense, seeking every means, to attain the sparing of their own lives. We know from this, then, that they place a definite value upon their life and that they do not want to be confronted with the loss of that life. This fact completely dispels the naïve (if not foolhardy) assertions that the death penalty is not a deterrent.
Now to the issue we've been coming to. It is well known in law enforcement that inadvertent witnesses to crimes, in many instances, have had their lives spared solely for the reason that the criminal(s) perpetrating unlawful acts did not want to face the death penalty if they were found guilty of the murdering of such witness(es). Those same criminals, however, having a total contempt for another's life, a pathology above described, would not hesitate to slay witnesses if they were assured there was no death penalty to answer to for such heinous acts. Thus, it is not only reasonable to presume, but an obligation to accept, that many innocent witnesses would be set up for onsite witness execution by the very fact of the elimination of the death penalty statues. We are far enough down the road of anarchy without adding to the carnage with another such irrational injustice as that of eliminating the death penalty.
The preeminent responsibility of any legitimate government law enforcement and judiciary system must be soundly mandated to the greater good and protection of its overall citizenry. Being human, it shall always be subject to error in judgment, but the common goal must be steadfast and not compromised by worst-case emotionalism. God shall correct the errors made by man in His Final Judgment, which, after all is said and done, is the one we should be the most concerned about!
|
