USCCB & Death Penalty

A good faithful Catholic sent me this link by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops regarding the death penalty. They are various quotations about the death penalty taken mostly from their pamphlet A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, and the idea is that they want the faithful lay to be against the death penalty. I want to examine each of the bullet points and this, by extension, should suffice as a response to the longer pamphlet. 

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. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
—Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999

I have one question I would like to raise and I would like to isolate one point made by the Pope. First, does being "unconditionally pro-life" mean that I cannot take someone else's life to defend the life of another? Yes, the context is about the death penalty, but the underlying principle has broader implications. Second, I would like noted that the Pope believes the death penalty is cruel. This will become relevant later. 

Twenty-five years ago, our Conference of bishops first called for an end to the death penalty. We renew this call to seize a new moment and new momentum. This is a time to teach clearly, encourage reflection, and call for common action in the Catholic community to bring about an end to the use of the death penalty in our land.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

If the Bishops wish to teach clearly, then we would like to know what exactly is the teaching of the Church regarding the issue? This is very lightly touched on in the booklet. When one considers that the push to abolish the death penalty is only very recent, this raises a red flag that indicates this is something very new and foreign to the teaching of the Church. This by itself doesn't mean it is inconsistent or contrary to previous Church teaching, but it is something we should be aware of. 

No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

This is perfectly consistent with keeping the death penalty on the books. I do not disagree with this statement. What I take issue with is reducing the death penalty to a matter of mere consequence, when it is not. On page 11 of the booklet, it reads, 

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution;

This is the most fundamental aspect of capital punishment because it is a matter of principle. The other purposes are secondary. Principles hold no matter what the consequences are. So, to address the issue of capital punishment as if it were only a matter of consequences about defense with no reference to the issue of the intrinsic justice it serves to the person is sloppy at best, dishonest at worst (and no, the part I just quoted is not a bullet point on the list). 

Now the point the Pope made about capital punishment being cruel becomes relevant. If within the Catholic Tradition, one of the purposes of capital punishment is just retribution, then in order to make the two statements consistent, we would have to say that there are some cases of justice that are cruel. I would hope my reader would conclude like I do that this is an absurd conclusion. So, then, we must reject one of the two statements. Because it is granted that the long standing tradition of the Church is that capital punishment is a matter of justice, it is a safer bet to say the Pope was in a well-intentioned error in saying the death penalty is cruel. 

While the Old Testament includes some passages about taking the life of one who kills, the Old Testament and the teaching of Christ in the New Testament call us to protect life, practice mercy, and reject vengeance.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

This is not entirely true. But say, for a moment, that it is. How can it be that the teaching of Christ tells us to protect life, practice mercy and reject vengeance, but push for the abolition of the death penalty on the grounds that it doesn't protect life, it doesn't practice mercy, and it is vengeful, when the Church teaches that the death penalty is a matter of justice. Does Christ then teach that we should no longer be just? Obviously not. Was the Church wrong in teaching that the death penalty is just? Then Christ did not protect His church from error. We should conclude, at least if one wants to be a Catholic, that there is error in the quoted statement above. What is that error then? 

The first would be a false dichotomy. The distinction between one passage being in the Old Testament and one passage being in the New Testament isn't relevant. When Christians bring this up, what they usually mean is the Old Covenant vs the New Covenant. That distinction matters a lot when it comes to how Christians should live. Here is the most relevant passage concerning the death penalty in the Old Testament. 

Genesis 9:6

6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

The reason for capital punishment for capital crimes is primarily because the victim is made in the image of God, and we must protect that image. The attack on the image of God is an attack on God. There is also hint of capital punishment being just as a matter of lex talonis, which is developed further in the Law. However, it must be noted that this God ordained punishment is not a matter of the Law, that is, the Mosaic Law, or even the Old Covenant made with Abraham. This pre-dates all of that. Therefore, the distinction between the Old Testament and New Testament isn't all that relevant here. 

A second problem would be one of consistency. If the Old Testament does include passages about mercy, life and vengeance, and also about the death penalty, then one has to say there is an inconsistency in how God established the Law. I doubt any faithful Christian would want to go there. I will say more about vengeance later (and let it be noted that talk about the death penalty has not-so-subtly shifted from being about justice to vengeance). 

When Cain killed Abel, God did not end Cain's life. Instead, he sent Cain into exile, not only sparing his life but protecting it by putting a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight (Gn 4:15).
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Yes, and unless God begins marking criminals, we will continue to carry out justice as God commanded us to (and is assumed what would happen anyways in Genesis 4:15).  

When the state, in our names and with our taxes, ends a human life despite having non-lethal alternatives, it suggests that society can overcome violence with violence. The use of the death penalty ought to be abandoned not only for what it does to those who are executed, but for what it does to all of society.—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

I always thought the bit about taxes was a bad appeal. This isn't all that relevant of a point because I think bringing up the cost is a smokescreen, but let it be asked, if the death penalty were free, would you be in favor it? If not, then money isn't a real objection, and should be dropped. Anyways, the statement is true, we can overcome violence with violence. This isn't controversial. Violence ended slavery in the United States by way of Civil War. Violence ended Hitler's world conquest by defeating him in WWII. Violence ended North Korea's Communist push into South Korea, and now South Korea is a free and prosperous country that makes Hyundai cars, while North Koreans starve under a brutal dictator. Yes, violence can overcome violence. Consider too the violence God unleashed upon Egypt in order to free the slaves. Do the Bishops want to say God should not overcome violence with violence?

Further, why should the death penalty be abandoned for what it does to the executed and to society if the Church teaches it is just retribution? If the Bishops want to say what it does is some kind of harm, they need to show that it does do that. And they haven't. 

Our faith and Catholic teaching offer a moral framework for choices about the use of the death penalty. A principled Catholic response to crime and punishment is rooted in our convictions about good and evil, sin and redemption, justice and mercy. It is also shaped by our commitment to the life and dignity of every human person, and the common good. The opening chapters of the Book of Genesis teach that every life is a precious gift from God (see Genesis 2:7, 21-23). This gift must be respected and protected.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

And the death penalty is not inconsistent with that. In fact, it is in some cases necessary for the common good.  

Each of us is called to respect the life and dignity of every human being. Even when people deny the dignity of others, we must still recognize that their dignity is a gift from God and is not something that is earned or lost through their behavior. Respect for life applies to all, even the perpetrators of terrible acts. Punishment should be consistent with the demands of justice and with respect for human life and dignity.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

This is problematic on a few grounds. First, it assumes that the death penalty is a violation of human dignity. But if that is the case, then it cannot be just, and the Church does teach it is just. Second, if life cannot be forfeited by certain acts, then the Bishops have to explain passages like Genesis 9:6, and others in the New Testament. Third, capital punishment is consistent with the demands of justice, which is precisely why the Church teaches the primary aim of capital punishment is just retribution.

In Catholic teaching the state has the recourse to impose the death penalty upon criminals convicted of heinous crimes if this ultimate sanction is the only available means to protect society from a grave threat to human life. However, this right should not be exercised when other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more respectful of human life.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

This is fatal to the case of the Bishops. I agree with the Church that the State has the right to impose the death penalty. But if that is the case, then why do the Bishops want to take away that right? Advising the state to not sentence people to death and making it illegal for them to do is are two completely different things. If the State has the right to impose the death penalty, then what the Bishops are pushing for the faithful to do is to violate that right of the state! But violating rights are unjust, and so is this position that the Bishops are advocating for. 

Take a similar case, my right to a weapon. It is true that in many cases, I do not need to use my weapon. It is also true that in this current time of peace, use of my weapon is not necessary. And it is may also be true that I can recourse to other forms justice that have no use of my weapon. But does it follow from these givens that it should therefore be illegal for me to own a weapon? Clearly not! I may be in a time of peace now, but we cannot predict what will happen in the future. My options should be open, and so should the States. It wouldn't follow from my lack of need to use lethality that it should therefore be illegal to be lethal, and so it is with the state. 

Let's look at the passage that deals directly with the State's right to impose the death penalty. 

Romans 13:1-5
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Let it be clear that there is no qualification here about the death penalty (the sword in v.4) being the last resort. The purpose of the death penalty as used by the state is to carry out the wrath (or vengeance) of God. And God's wrath is always just. To deny the State the use of the death penalty is to deny it's divinely appointed mission to carry out the wrath of God. We should not interfere with such duties. Further, that the point of the States divine mission is to put fear into criminals does indicate that it does serve some kind of deterrence. Because Christians adhere to scripture over social studies, any study that claims the death penalty is not a deterrent should immediately be met with suspicion.  Finally, that an individual receives justice irrespective to his impact to society at large also shows that the protection of society is a secondary consideration of the state, and so should not overrule the primary considerations of justice. 

We also share the hurt and horror, the loss and heartache that are the result of unspeakable acts of violence. We have presided at the funerals of police officers killed in the line of duty and have consoled parents who have lost children. We have heard the anger and despair of victims families who feel ignored by the criminal justice system, society as a whole, and, at times, even the Church. Our family of faith must care for sisters and brothers who have been wounded by violence and support them in their loss and search for justice. They deserve our compassion, solidarity, and support spiritual, pastoral, and personal. However, standing with families of victims does not compel us to support the use of the death penalty.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Well, you know who is compelled to support the death penalty because of the numerous unjust deaths they suffered? The Saints. 

Revelation 6:9-11
9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; 10 they cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

Supporters of the death penalty are in good company, I think. 

For many left behind, a death sentence offers the illusion of closure and vindication. No act, even an execution, can bring back a loved one or heal terrible wounds. The pain and loss of one death cannot be wiped away by another death.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Sure, but I don't know that closure was ever one of the purposes of the death penalty. 

The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. Our goal is not just to proclaim a position, but to persuade Catholics and others to join us in working to end the use of the death penalty. We seek to help build a culture of life in which our nation will no longer try to teach that killing is wrong by killing those who kill.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

And I am more than willing to have a conversation about this with my fellow Catholics. Such conversations have spurred me to write this response, and hopefully this will give occasion for may more conversations in the future. I am not persuaded, with all due respect to the Bishops, but we should continue the conversation as many Catholics are confused by this, and conversations should clear up these confusions. 

[Punishment] ought not 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 in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
—John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), 1995

I haven't read Evangelium Vitae, so I don't want to say too much about this quotation. First, why believe that capital punishment is an extreme punishment? Presumably, there is nothing wrong with punishment per se, and presumably, the Pope believes in punishment being proportional to the crime. If so, then in some cases, capital punishment for capital crimes is not an extreme, but appropriately proportional. In other words, just. Can there ever be such a case as extreme justice? 

Second, the Pope is reducing capital punishment as a matter of consequence (defending society) with no regard to the intrinsic justice it serves, and so ignore crucial parts of Church teaching on the matter. 

Third, the Pope believes that the penal system is sufficient of a replacement of the death penalty to protect society. But this assumes that those in prison are not a part of society, which is false. Prisoners are still subject to social justice, and so should not be ignored. If the Pope wants to say that removing a criminal will protect society, then by placing that criminal with other criminals, you are only transferring that danger to the vicinity of other criminals, and that is not just for the other criminals. The Pope has not protected society by removing dangerous criminals, he has only condensed the dangerous parts of society. It's just a sweeping under the rug and is not a real solution. Further, we must consider the guards who watch these criminals, and consider the increased danger that is posed to them when we only condense the danger around them. Surely, prison guards are a part of society as well, so why treat them as if they weren't because they work in prisons? 

Others question whether our criminal justice system can indeed protect society. They point to examples of the release of offenders who subsequently commit horrible acts of violence. But in the face of a growing culture of death, every effort should be made to promote a culture of life. Therefore, we believe that the primary response to these situations should not be the use of the death penalty but should instead be the promotion of needed reform of the criminal justice system so that society is more effectively protected.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

A speeding up of the death penalty in California is one reform I support. 

Public policies that treat some lives as unworthy of protection, or that are perceived as vengeful, fracture the moral conviction that human life is sacred.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13 show that the death penalty is not subject to these criticisms. 

Defending all human life should unite us as people of life and for life.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

Agreed. 

We hope and pray that this campaign will help bring an end to the use of the death penalty. This end may come through an act of Congress or a definitive court decision; more likely the death penalty will be abandoned and wither away through the everyday choices of prosecutors and legislators, judges and jurors, and ordinary citizens who make a commitment to respect human life in every situation. We look forward to the day when our society chooses not to answer violence with violence.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

The day society chooses not to answer violence with violence (and I have already addressed that such answers aren't bad anyways), is the day Christ returns. Until then, we must exact justice as God commands.  

For the Catholic community, this issue -- like all life issues -- is more than public policy. It involves our faith and the central principle that human life is sacred. Church teaching on the life and dignity of every human person should guide all our decisions about life, including the use of the death penalty. We are called to reflect on what the Lords command, You shall not kill (Ex 20:13) means for us today.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

There is an equivocation on the word "kill" here. Obviously, there is a difference between killing a murder. If I eat a fish, I would have to kill a fish, but I wouldn't murder a fish. If I ended the life of someone to who wanted to end mine, I killed him in self defense, but I didn't murder him in self defense. The law reflects this difference, which is why we don't go to jail for killing in self defense, and is why manslaughter (the unintentional killing of a person) is a different charge than murder. So we know there is a difference, and the Hebrew does recognize this difference. For example, 

Numbers 35:16 

But if he struck him down with an instrument of iron, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.

The two underlined words have two different Hebrew words. The Hebrew verb for "murder" is "ratsakh" and is used in the passage above as "ratsach" for "murderer". The word for death is "muth" and is used as a description of capital punishment. Exodus 20:13 uses the word "ratsakh" and not "muth", and so the more accurate translation is "You shall not murder", and is what many, if not most, translations have. The word "kill" is too broad and we shouldn't understand it as just the ending of a life. So, unless the Bishops want us to understand that the State is murdering people through capital punishment despite their admission that capital punishment is just, Exodus 20:13 doesn't help their case. 

In his encyclical The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II told us that we have an inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.18 This Catholic campaign brings us together for common action to end the use of the death penalty, to reject a culture of death, and to build a culture of life. It poses an old and fundamental choice: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live. (Dt 30:19)
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

How pro-life could I be if instead of pushing for capital punishment for capital crimes, I wanted to impose a $10 fine? Wouldn't that communicate that I believe life is worth only $10? In order to be pro-life, that is, to recognize and defend the value of life, I would have to advocate for punishments that are proportional to the crime, which is why crimes that take life away deserve punishments take take life away. Anything less than that is to devalue the life of the victim.  Choose life yes, so that you may live. But if you choose death, then you will not live.