The History of the Catholics' Position on Death Penalty - Research Paper Example

Outline I. Introduction: Christian support for death penalty and aim of the paper II. Themes from the Bible justifying death penalty III. Different literatures discussing the controversial issue of death penalty IV. Why death penalty is not against God’s will? and who are the executioners? V. How it serves the four rules of punishment VI. Forgiveness and mercy preached by Jesus VII. Should state show forgiveness? VIII. What changes took place in church preaching? IX. Conflict faced by the church X. Conclusion: going back to the Christian themes and evaluating the current saying in this issue. The History of Catholic Church on Death Penalty Interdependency between the state and the church has often led to controversies and complications. Death penalty is also such an issue where the state and the church have differed from time to time. Mosaic Law in the Old Testament mentions 36 crimes, which lead to the punishment of execution. These include “stoning, burning, decapitation or strangulation…. Idolatry, magic, blasphemy, violation of the Sabbath, murder, adultery, bestiality, pederasty and incest” (Dulles, 133). Murder was suitable to call for the capital punishment or death penalty – “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image” (Dulles, 133). Sometimes God has been supposed to punish His criminals with the death penalty. In this context instances might be given of Dathan, Abiram and Korah. Again, the same punishment might be inflicted by agents of God like Daniel and Mordecai to punish the guilty ones with death. Jesus does not condemn the state to impose death penalty. During his crucifixion, Jesus tells Pilate (who has the power to crucify him) that his power comes from God. Thus the Christians in the early days supported death penalty as the divine punishment catered to Ananias and Sapphira for their deception. Paul defends the position of death as a punishment for offense by stating the ‘magistrate who holds authority “does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer”’ (Dulles, 133). This represents that the will of God is imposed upon the executioner who is not directly involved in the act. However the New Testament does not support death penalty. The paper traces the history of the Catholics’ position on death penalty, drawing on the changes undergone in their approach. In the Christian convention the Fathers and Doctors belonging to the Church rendered their undisputed support towards capital punishment. Some of the priests like St. Ambrose did forbid capital sentences or execution but St. Augustine explains the first commandment (which does not permit killing) in The City of God saying that when killing is permitted by God or when He gives the power to an individual for a certain period of time, the authority for killing lies in the sword in the hand of the executioner. In such a case the person is not involved directly and hence he does not defy the law of God “Thou shalt not kill”(Dulles, 134). It is God Himself who is directly involved in the act and the executioners representing state’s authority are not responsible for the killing but the criminals are put to death according to God’s will. During the Middle Ages the religious courts were advised to abstain from delivering death penalty while civil courts had the right to impose it in case of the foremost crimes. Pope Innocent III sought the followers of Peter Waldo for reunion with the church and to acknowledge its proposition – “The secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise judgment of blood, provided that it punishes with justice, not out of hatred, with prudence, not precipitation” (Dulles, 134). Thus the real meaning of the law of God mentioned before implies that one cannot kill out of his or her personal gains and satisfaction. Even the Roman Catechism, which was issued in 1566, supports the practice of capital punishment. This recommends that God has delivered the decisions of life and death to the civil authorities and this authority should be used through abiding by the fifth commandment. This will therefore not imply the crime of murder. In the modern times the Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctors of the Church opine that criminals should pay the death penalty and this has been supported by respected personalities like Francisco de Vitora, Thomas More and Francisco Suarez. John Henry Newman asserted that the magistrate who have the power to hold the sword and the church should give permission to its access and use, similar to the cases of Moses, Joshua and Samuel who used it to condemn hateful offenses. Therefore it has been argued that the infliction of death penalty is not a violation of the God’s will. The state while imposing this penalty is not trying to rule over human life but simply accepts that the offender has “deprived himself of the right to life” (Dulles, 138). He states in this respect, “Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.” (Dulles, 138) However judging from the other side there are certain objectives of criminal punishment outlined by the Catholic convention. There are four key ends, which need to be met through punishment of criminals – “rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence and retribution” (Dulles, 138). Now, capital punishment does not fulfill the rehabilitation objective, as it does not give another opportunity to the criminal to reunite with the society. Going by the second rule, defense against the criminal is ascertained through death penalty but according to John Paul II (in his work Evangelium Vitae) thinking of such extreme measure to remove the threat of crime from the society is not effective in the modern times when the penal system does not propose execution to be the only measure for protecting the society against the criminals. It is often believed that when a person is executed the pain and horror will keep others away from such crimes. But the priests at the churches are gradually objecting to pictures of horror and violence pertaining to the Roman Colosseum and “Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World explicitly disapproved of mutilation and torture as offensive to human dignity” (Dulles, 139). In modern times deaths are often executed in private and via less painful and humiliating measures. This might not act as deterrent. Retribution signifies that “guilt calls for punishment” and the degree of punishment increases with severity of guilt. State is a symbolic representation of the justice rendered by God. In the modern days with the democratic framework more at work, state represents the will of the people governed and not the will of God. In this light it is perceived as a “self-assertive act of vengeance” (Dulles, 140). Thus the necessity of capital punishment in different situations is subject to doubts. Certain experts even criticize this penalty based on the fact that it cheapens the worth of life and this will bring about a casual approach towards the acts of abortion, suicide and mercy death. Some even hold the view that death penalty does not follow the preaching of forgiveness by Jesus. Jesus has taught forgiveness to be imparted by people who have been the victims. However though personal forgiveness is admirable this does not free the offender form his or her obligations to justice. As indicated by John Paul II, “reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness” (Dulles, 141). Hence Pius XII inferred that the state could not forgive crimes because it is responsible for the law and order. Now since the church stands for the mercy of the Divine, it tolerates the offenders but at times it needs to impose penalties. In the Middle Ages the ecclesiastical courts has wide range of power over the system of justice but in later times this was reduced to religious issues and cases. The Catholic authority has been protesting against the practice of capital punishment in recent years. Pope John Paul II in his work Evangelium Vitae observes, ‘“as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system”, cases in which execution of the offender is absolutely necessary “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent”’ (Dulles, 142). In January 1999, Pope John Paul II pleaded for the removal of death penalty along with bishops from other nations. American bishops have intervened in many cases to plead for mercy and confusion arises with respect to the circumstances in which death penalty should be meted out. Jean Paul XXII says, “the new evangelisation 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…I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Paul II, Silvestrini, Silvestrini and Vereb, 318). Clement of Alexandria initialized a more philosophical and methodical way of combing the philosophies of Greek convention with the ideas and principles of Christianity around ca 150. The essential purpose of punishment was “correction of the punished” and this also indicated “correction was a “blessing” preventing a person from doing wrongs (Norko). He compared the criminal with a disease explaining how a doctor would carefully treat the diseased part to save the body. “Since diseases of the soul are even more serious, ….He asserted that the death penalty is a specific benefit to the condemned for it relieves him of his life of greed and vice” (Norko). As Constantine accepted Christianity it was becoming eventually tougher for the churches to face the questions about their responsibilities towards the people of the state. The circumstances were changing and the church has to change its approach. The Bishop of Milan, Ambrose (340-397) discussed the application of death penalty. When Emperor Theodosius murdered the citizens of Thessalonica during the summer of 390, Ambrose called him to repent for the death penalty and then released. He recollected the Gospel, saying, “everyone that taketh the sword shall perish with the sword” (Norko). Augustine who was baptized b Ambrose however reveals conflicting ideas about the death penalty. On one hand he defends the authority to inflict the punishment and on the other, he preaches for mercy. Acquinas while defending the death penalty says, “By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others.... Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful.” (Norko) The above words justify the infliction of death penalty. Therefore conflicting views have been existent and are still present in today’s church. “From the early 4th century, the Christian church has tied its fate to that of the government authorities and the government has always wanted to use the death penalty as their ultimate form of social control” (Burkhead, 102). Certain basic Christian themes from the Bible center upon “creation, covenant, incarnation, discipleship, death and resurrection”, emphasizing upon the dignity of human life and the nature of community one requires for the flourish of humankind (Overberg). The recent teachings of the Church have began to evaluate the death penalty in this context. Therefore it is quite comprehendible that the Catholic Church and the entire Catholic belief stands on the importance of a basic human right, that is the right to live. God has bestowed the blessing of life to human beings, and all mortal inhabitants can or should do is to nourish it, instead of destroying. Even the criminals can be subjected to mercy after the process of confession. The main decisive factor to a life is according to the Catholic belief is the supreme God, all human beings are His creation, therefore he is the only one who possesses the power to decide their fates according to their own deeds. If a human being takes up the task to punish his fellow person to punish in some way then he is subjected to God’s wrath too. It is quite clear here that the highest punishment of death penalty is not acceptable by the God, according to the Catholic belief. Therefore the above discussion shows the changes developed in Catholic teachings over time with respect to death penalty. Works Cited 1. Burkhead, Micahel, Dow. A life for a life: an American debate over the death penalty. North Carolina, USA: McFarland. 2009 2. Dulles, Avery. “Catholicism and Capital Punishment”, In, Curran, Charles E. Change in official Catholic moral teaching. New Jersey: Paulist Press, 2003. 3. Norko, Michael A. “The Death Penalty in Catholic Teaching and Medicine: Intersections and Places for Dialogue”, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 36.4 (2008): 470-481. 19 October 2010 4. Overberg, Kenneth R. “Respect Life: The Bible and the Death Penalty Today”, Scriptures From Scratch, American Catholic, October 2000. 19 October 2010. 5. Paul II, John, Silvestrini, Achille, Silvestrini, Cardinal Achille and Jerome M Vereb. A Pilgrim Pope. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Publishing, 1999. Read More