Catholic and Enjoying It!
Sez he:
Would it be a sin if I sat on a jury and voted for the death penalty?
Why are you asking me to sit in judgment of your soul?
If so, is it a subject of grave matter, or would the maximum offense be of a venial nature?
Do you think killing people who do not need to be killed is grave matter?
If it is not sin, then can we take the current position which you stated as being the current teaching of the Church merely private opinion of a Pope?
Do you think that when the pope writes an encyclical he is just shooting the breeze and not giving the teaching of the Church? No. He is giving the teaching of the Church. That teaching, just to remind you, is this:
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
Because of this, the practical teaching of the Church, given by JPII, B16, and Francis and echoed by the all the bishops of the world, including our own, is “Abolish the death penalty.”
Or does it have the binding nature, even stronger than that of the Church’s position on abortion?
What does that even mean? The Church’s teaching is not divvied up between “binding teaching” and “stuff you can feel free to blow off”. Still less is it the case that it is divided between “the stuff on abortion” and “the stuff pitted against abortion you can definitely ignore and even feel free to fight the Church over”. Here’s the deal:
Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (Lumen Gentium, no. 25)
Note the bold face text. This means that the goal of the faithful Catholic is not to figure out which teachings of the Church are binding and only listen to them while spending all your real time and energy fighting the Church on stuff that does not accessorize your politics. Rather, it is to assume that all of the Church’s guidance, even the prudential stuff and especially the prudential stuff that does not accessorize your politics, is reliable and should be implemented unless there is a damn good reason not to.
The great lie that Lefty dissenters from Church teaching tell is that “primacy of conscience” allows you to completely ignore any Catholic teaching you don’t like. The great lie that “faithful conservative Catholic” dissenters from Church teaching tell is that “prudential judgment” allows you to completely ignore any Catholic teaching you don’t like. The lie proceeds by the claim that only “binding teaching” needs to be obeyed and that “prudential judgment” refers to whether, not how, the disciple should obey the Church. So (the story goes) if you really want to kill some guy with capital punishment (despite the fact there is no necessity to do so), well just feel free to “prudently” ignore the Church and execute the guy. Accordingly, the question the death penalty advocate is constantly asking is “When do we get to kill somebody?” (That, by the way, is the entire subtext of your letter.)
The approach the Church always takes is “How can we possibly avoid taking human life if at all possible?” The whole thrust and approach is different and is ordered toward mercy and redemption. The goal is not to cross all the ts and dot all the i’s and get through all the proper hoops so that (at last!) we can kill somebody and feel terrific about it. The goal is to find a way toward seeing, if at all possible, that human life–yes, even guilty human life–might be spared and redeemed. The entire end goal of your whole line of questioning is a search for some way, if at all possible, to take kill. The entire end goal of the Church is a search for some way, if at all possible, to save human life–and save it eternally.
In the end, it’s not complex. The Church says to respect and preserve all human life from conception to natural death. Yes, it is true that sometimes human life must be taken in order to protect the innocent. So we must sometimes kill in war or shoot a criminal who is endangering the innocent. But there is no need to execute criminals. So don’t. The rest of the civilized world gets this. No Catholic should be eager to stay on a list with Communist China, North Korea, and a gaggle of Islamic despotisms.
Thank you for your insights.
I hope this answers your questions. Thanks for writing!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In