Catholic View of the Death Penalty - Research Paper Example

Catholic View of the Death Penalty Capital punishment is a that arouses strong emotions and attracts several divergent views. Some of these views vary at one point or another with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Some catholic leaders claim openly that the state has a right to inflict the death penalty on offenders. Other leaders are categorical about the issue arguing that no Christian can tolerate death penalty. Several schools of thought have emerged from within the Catholic Church trying to justify or oppose the death penalty. These different justifications have occurred over time with the overall opinion of the church changing. In 1992, the church approved the first universal catechism. According to Pope John Paul II, the text was a complete exposition of catholic doctrine. This would enable everyone to understand what the church believes, celebrates, lives and prays (Daly, Doody, and Paffenroth, pp. 50). However, the publication was revised within a short time and particularly the section dealing with the death penalty. The first section of the death penalty was based on the traditional catholic principle, which gave the death penalty a moral definition. It gave the public authority the right and duty to punish offenders with the gravity of the crime which included the death penalty. This was to redress the disorder and damage caused by the crime. However, it proposed bloodless means as a way of defending human lives against aggressors and provide public safety (Hodgkinson and Schabas, pp 97). The public authority was supposed to use bloodless means to conform to human dignity of the offender. This was the earlier catholic teaching permitting capital punishments to defend life and maintain public order. The use of bloodless means was preferred in line with Christian calling to show mercy instead of vengeance. When the catechism publication was revised in 1997, the purpose of capital punishment had been removed. The notion of capital punishment as deterrence to other capital crimes was also reduced. Prior to this release, the pope had issued a letter about human life that addressed several moral issues regarding defending human life. This letter revealed capital offender as human beings who deserved humanity and condemned death penalty. This letter had an impact on Vatican commissioners overseeing the revisions. The catechism was supposed to be a teaching guide that upholds morals to about 1.1 billion Catholics around the world. The argument of the death penalty as a protection of public order was scrubbed and justified with the defense of human life against aggressors. Death penalty could only be used to protect the society from capital criminals (Owens, Carlson, and Elshtain, pp. 60). The document provided a restricted application of the death penalty and the cases requiring execution were very few or nonexistent. This issue was given a broader discussion of legitimate defense and human morality. The public authority had to respect personal and social rights of the criminal. Criminals were also provided with the opportunity to regain their freedom by including remedies for both the offender and the criminals. The church had considered introducing morality on the death penalty before the first catechism publication. Biblical convictions about good and evil, sin and redemption, justice and mercy acted as the basis for shifting the view of the death penalty. According to the bible, life is a precious gift from God and human beings were created in God’s image. Jesus was crucified between two capital criminals as a way of redeeming human beings. Individuals who deny the dignity of fellow humans required dignity as a gift from God rather than something earned through behavior. However, the Law of Moses in the Old Testament prescribes death for about thirty six offenses (Campbell, pp. 15). Early Catholic Christians used this justification to punish capital offenders by convicting them to death. Biblical excerpts such as a limb for limb, tooth for tooth, and eye for eye acted as justification for execution (Overberg, pp. 25). Interpretations of the Mosaic Law used by Jesus condemning those who speak evil of their father or mother to death were used by catholic leader who supported capital punishment. The repentant thief crucified alongside Jesus acknowledged death as justice for his own crime. Several people enlisted this event as an argument to favor the death penalty by Christians. The author of Hebrews recommended death without pity to those who rejected Torah. These scriptures were, however, intended to limit the retribution exacted on offenses and not to act as minimum punishment. Commands found in Genesis allowing leaders to shed blood murderers have a poetic character and not legal intent. These verses lack a moral purpose for application in literal legal processes. According to the catholic doctrine, Christians are supposed to read and interpret whole passages instead of concentrating on individual verses. Jewish scriptures used by Jesus advocate for protecting human life, showing mercy, and rejecting vengeance. When Cain killed Abel, God exiled him and marked his face to protect his life from anyone who wanted to kill him. Jesus also protected an adulterous woman who faced death by stoning due to her actions according to Mosaic Laws. Christians in the Catholic Church used these scriptures to recommend death penalties as punishment for certain crimes. It was the duty of civil authorities to exact capital punishment for certain crimes to prevent chaos in the society (Turow, pp. 69). Many of the church fathers, therefore, acknowledged the use of force in defending the society against injustices. Other leaders resisted state sanctioned violence as a means of providing justice. Eminent writers such as Tertullian of Carthage preferred mercy and an aversion to punishment that required bloodshed. Following the rise of the Christian state and the Edict of Milan, Christian authorities unanimously adopted capital punishment. Leaders such as Augustine of Hippo asserted that legal execution and war do not contravene the commandment “you shall not kill.” He, however, maintained the need for a clear motive when carrying out capital punishment. Judges and executioners who carried out death penalties were supposed to have internal remorse. Pope Innocent III also proposed capital punishment as long as it had justice and prudence. Clerics were barred from pronouncing punishment with bloodshed or witness execution of criminals. This was to exercise the solemn teaching of the church about human dignity, justice, and mercy. The church allowed Christians to participate in capital punishment due to increased alliances between the church and civil authorities. However, popes, bishops, clergy, and monks were not supposed to have direct involvement in such activities (Norko, pp. 54). Scholars such as Thomas Aquinas recommended the death penalty for crimes such as murder and treason. Recently, catholic leaders have reversed their view about criminal execution by advocating Christ’s love. Jesus preached about love for neighbors, human dignity, and forgiveness for sinners. Christians are required to show love to others just as Jesus loved human beings and died for them. According to Pope Benedict XVI, the church is not responsible for creating a just society. The church can participate in public policy but should not engage itself in the political battle for justice. The church should not replace the state in legal affairs and must avoid taking sidelines in the fight for justice. The church has a mission to promote cultural life for all human beings, whether innocent or guilty. Christian faith has an important role in moral debates and should advocate for justice for all human beings. Many European countries began to question the right to impose death on citizens after the Second World War. In 1974, American Catholic Bishops declared their opposition for capital punishment recommended by the law. U.S. bishops have continuously intervened on death penalty, which has also spread to other countries. The reason behind these interventions is to limit, restrain or stop the use of capital punishment by civil authorities. The U.S conference of catholic Bishops has continuously called for an end to death penalties as punishment to criminals (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, pp. 5). In 1999, they appealed against the punishment and published the document a document to encourage responsibility, rehabilitation, and restoration for criminals. In 2005, the bishops began educating Catholics, non-Catholics, and legislators about their teachings, which condemn prisoner execution. The church began by evaluating the court decisions that led to the resumption of capital punishment. This began by recognizing values such as preservation of order, protection of innocent life, and justice through the law. According to the bishops, this evaluation is to give prisoners enough time to reform instead of terminating their lives. Capital punishment defends the society against certain criminals but does not provide deterrence for future criminals. This has caused a lot of doubt in the church regarding the death penalty as a form of punishment. Executing one criminal does not eliminate the resurgence of other criminals in the society. Capital offenders require rehabilitation and restoration to human morality and values. Death penalty is not justified in the traditional purposes of punishment, and it should be discouraged from the civil society. The traditional purpose of punishment was to rehabilitate criminals and reintegrate them with the society after reformation. The justice system has several systematic flaws when applying capital punishment. There is a well documented racial and economic inequality experienced during trials and sentencing of capital offenders. Catholic bishops have identified mistaken convictions of death row criminals who have been exonerated. There is no empirical support to prove that executing criminals prevents potential offenders from committing crimes. Capital punishment only prevents crimes from executed criminals but not potential offenders. Over the last forty years, the Catholic Church has experienced developments in its teachings regarding the death penalty. The church has displayed reservations against state sponsored executions, except in highly secretive circumstances. These developments have attracted controversy from different ranks of catholic Christians. American Catholics such as Justice Scalia argue that it was imprudent to alter traditional teachings about capital punishments (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, pp. 4). Changing the catechism was necessary to abolish Christian support for death penalties and encourage Christian love and life protection. According to Pope John Paul II, capital punishment was necessary in specific circumstances, which are rare or non-existent. Capital punishment is, therefore, applicable in rare cases where it is impossible to incarcerate someone safely to prevent them from harming the society. Other forms of punishment such as long jail terms are applicable instead of capital punishment. Church pastors are supposed to receive guidance from the Holy Spirit and apply justice in controversial matters such as the death penalty. These judgments are made for the common good in line with Christian commandments. Capital punishment can have a deleterious effect on future criminals when administered publicly. Public executions corrupt moral health of viewers due to pain and humiliation experienced by offenders. This causes more harm on criminals and does not provide the required balance between crime and punishment. Private executions presumed painless do not contribute to the deterrence of other criminals. Future criminals do not witness torture and pain that can prevent them from future crimes. Works Cited Daly, Doody, J., and Paffenroth, Kim. Augustine and history. Lanham: Lexington Books.2008. Print. Campbell, Ward. Exoneration Inflation:  Justice Scalia’s Concurrence in Kansas vs. Marsh. The Journal for the Advancement of Criminal Justice, pp. 52.2008. Print Hodgkinson, Peter., and Schabas, William. Capital punishment: strategies for abolition. New York: Cambridge University Press.2003. Print Norko, Michael, Albert. The death penalty in catholic teaching and medicine: intersections and places for dialogue. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law online, 36 (4), PP.470-481.2008. Print Overberg, Kenneth. The death penalty: why the church speaks a countercultural message. From http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0195.asp. [Accessed 2012, June 20]. 2012. Owens, Carlson, J., and Elshtain, Erick. Religion and the Death Penalty. Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishers. 2004. Print. Turow, Scott. Ultimate punishment. London: Picador. 2004. Print U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, United States Catechism for Adults, Washington D.C., pp. 394. 2006. Print Read More