The Death Penalty, Evil or Not?

I continued to be baffled by statements made about the death penalty by people who should know Church Teaching on the matter, yet continue to say things like “it is always wrong to resort to violence”, or “the death penalty should be abolished”, or “How can civilized countries use the death penalty?”.

In fact, this is so easily refuted that it is a real wonder that Catholics, especially Catholics who have read the Official Church documents about the death penalty, keep getting it wrong.

So, I ask, is it according to Church Teaching to abolish (which, in current English usage, means: “1 : to end the observance or effect of : ANNUL 2 : DESTROY”. From Webster’s online dictionary) the death penalty? No, no it is not according to Church Teaching to abolish the death penalty.

First, let us ask this—is the death penalty an intrinsic evil, like abortion or adultery? The answer is NO. That means that there are times that it can be morally resorted to, and it is even a moral obligation in some situations (unlike abortion or adultery, which actions are wrong always and at all times and can never be resorted to licitly). Why? Because the death penalty is a matter of self-defense, and civil government is obliged to protect citizens from an aggressor, even if the only way to do this is to put the aggressor to death. The Church teaches that in such a case the aggressor has brought his own death upon himself. Given this obligation there has to be some mechanism in the system of law to allow for a case, however rare, when an aggressor must be put to death in order to defend people. Thus, it cannot be “abolished.”

But let me bring one more matter to the fore—most people assume an aggressor can be put in jail for life and thus society is protected. But at the moment, there are people in prison who have already racked up a number of life sentences for murder, and continue, in prison, to murder other inmates, and are given only more life sentences for punishment. One has to ask—what about protecting those other prisoners? If murderers cannot be kept from killing other prisoners, well, those other prisoners should be protected, even if the death penalty needs to be resorted to. At some point perhaps it will happen that when people are put in prison for life they are put in a prison such that they cannot kill another human being. If this cannot happen then those murderers must be stopped in the defense of other prisoners.

One final point though—it also sometimes happens that a prisoner is likely to escape or be released in the future, and upon this release, whether by escaping or being legally put back into society, there is a serious risk of that person killing again. Such a person would also be legitimately given the death penalty.

Lastly, below is an article from the Q & A section at EWTN. It is by a good priest and is faithful to the Teaching of the Church. It was easier to just post it here in its entirety rather than link it—sorry about what amounts to a rather long blog!…

From 01-20-2005 on EWTN
The question:

“I am a Correction Officer in a State system that is soon to have its first execution of a serial killer. If this individual were to escape or be released in the far future, there is a great certainty that he would kill again. Our State's Bishops have urged us to sign a petition to eliminate the death penalty from our State statutes. Our Death Penalty is very rarely utilized and only in the most heinous cases. I found myself unable to sign the petition in this case and unsure if I have in fact separated myself from the Church by not adopting a radical pro life position in this regard. Have I excommunicated myself from the sacraments? I have not been to communion since the petition drive as I am concerned about committing a more grievous sin of receiving communion unworthily.
Hoping I can resolve this…”


The Answer, by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco

“You are on solid Catholic ground. According to the Church's teaching, resorting to the death penalty in a case in which the aggressor cannot be stopped from further aggression is not only morally permissible but also obligatory. Consider the following:
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 matter 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.”


And a question on jury duty and capital cases…

From 01-13-2005 on EWTN
The question:

“What does a faithful Catholic Christian do with regard to serving on a jury where there is a potential for a death sentence?” (I’ve just posted the actual question, not the rest of the comments by this enquirer).


The Answer, by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco

(first he writes the same basic thesis as in the first question, above, and then this)…


“How does this apply to your question? Informed in conscience that it is the duty of the temporal authority - not the Church, not the individual citizen - to determine whether capital punishment is necessary, a Catholic juror may proceed in good conscience to participate in a trial in which capital punishment is a possibility.”