The Catholic Church has in recent decades been associated with political efforts to eliminate the death penalty. In fact, the three most recent popes, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis, have called for the abolition of the death penalty. In 2016, Francis said, “Nowadays the death penalty is unacceptable, however grave the crime of the convicted person.” With such high-profile opposition to the death penalty in the Catholic Church, how could any practicing Catholic support it?
Drawing upon philosophical, scriptural, theological and social scientific arguments, Edward Feser and Joseph M. Bessette explain the perennial teaching of the Church that capital punishment can in principle be legitimate — not only to protect society from immediate physical danger, but also to administer retributive justice and to deter capital crime — in their provocative new book, BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BE SHED: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment.
Feser and Bessette’s book reviews and explains the Catholic Tradition regarding the death penalty, addressing whether it’s inherently evil and if it can be reserved as a just form of punishment in certain cases. The authors also show how some recent statements of Church leaders in opposition to the death penalty are prudential judgments rather than dogma. They also address whether Catholics may, in good conscience, disagree about the application of the death penalty.
Is there a just use of the death penalty? Can it be used to protect the lives of the innocent, inculcate a horror of murder and affirm the dignity of human beings as free and rational creatures who must be held responsible for their actions? Feser and Bessette discuss the aforementioned topics — and more — in BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BE SHED.
Full press release at Christian Newswire.
Long overdue for this book to be published. Capital punishment is perennially valid as punishment, and bishops who assert that Catholic faith requires that Catholics support abolishing the death penalty are completely wrong, both in their opinion and in their misuse of their authority. The Church’s constant and universal teaching has always upheld the validity of the death penalty, besides which Scripture supports its use. Pastoral appeals for mercy or leniency for convicts from some Church authorities do not diminish the death penalty’s legitimacy nor validity nor morality.
Sawyer and ladies and gentlemen: On this feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, it behooves you to listen rather to those who have been anointed to succeed these holy Apostles, and not some “experts”, or “scholars,” or “Phd’s” from high atop their ivory towers! My point: as educated and learned as these authors may be, THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE MAGISTERIUM! They have not been appointed and anointed to lead the Church on life-and-death/moral matters such as capital punishment. People, take your lead from the successors of Sts. Peter and Paul–from the Holy Father and all the bishops united with him, all of whom unanimously call for the ABOLITION of the death penalty. If you do, you will be on surer ground. The death penalty is not…
validly perennial. That is a lie!
Magisterial idolatry is incompatible with Catholicism, and so is magisterial fundamentalism.
WRONG is Sawyer because he has contradicted the Catechism in addition to the fact that he has committed an illogical argument called “red herring”. According to Catechism article 85: “‘The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church [the Magisterium] alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.’ This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.”
The Word of God supports the death penalty in black and white, clear as day. No interpretation of God’s Word can invalidate or negate its support for the death penalty. Since the Magisterium is the servant of God’s Word, it cannot contradict God’s Word. Asserting that the death penalty should be abolished or that it is always immoral to apply would be contradicting God’s Word. Any bishop or pope who makes such a claim is not serving God’s Word; he is making himself greater than God’s Word, and that is idolatry. People who believe such foolish utterances are magisterial fundamentalists. Some of them post on this site.
Sawyer: you contradict yourself. You have acknowledged that the Magisterium is at the service of Scripture. You point out that certain Scriptural passages support the death penalty (no one is disputing that). YET your blind spot–and the blind spot of these authors—is when you neglect the pivotal role of the Magisterium in interpreting those same passages WITH THE ENTIRE PANOPLY OF SCRIPTURE, with Tradition, with the third font of morality (circumstances). Result: self-contradiction.
jon, the Catholic Church cannot contradict herself. That’s the point here. YET your blind spot is perennial agitation as if the Church hasn’t passed through difficult trials before — tests. Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Please, don’t neglect the reality that Catholics are also called to engage their intellect and will, discerning fruits. Not just engaging in Simon-Says-Now.
Jon— Ph.D.s aren’t part of the Church’s teaching magisterium; but three Popes in succession [and each one of them alone] sure as hell are. By the way, YOU are NOT part of the teaching magisterium and it gets tiresome when you act as if you were. [By the way, please acquaint us with your theological credentials to pontificate the way you do. You show me yours and I’ll show you mine.]
roberto vincente: Since when has defense of the teaching of the Magisterium become a personal claim to be part of the same Magisterium? Amazing. Every Catholic is called to adhere to, and defend if need be, the teachings of his bishop and the Holy Father, and a Catholic who does so is not necessarily making pretensions to belong to it. Do argue sensibly please.
jon, only when they defend it correctly.
And, jon, your theological credentials supporting your ability to correctly, and in context, definitively explain Church teaching are …….. EXACTLY WHAT??? I’ve asked you to declare them here about 2O times. No response. Could it be that you have no theological formation obtained by study?Please respond. Inquiring minds want to know.
roberto vicente: If I were forwarding in my comments my own teaching, my own theology, my own morality on the death penalty, then I am obligated to disclose my “theological credentials.” But as it is, what I have been doing here is defending the teachings of the Magisterium, of John Paul II, of Benedict, of Francis, and of all the bishops of the Church—all of whom call for the abolition of the death penalty. This is a calling for all Catholics: faithfulness to the Church’s teachings; and a Catholic doesn’t need to hand his “credentials” to anyone to defend the faith.
jon—as to your 3 July post, below. As I have long suspected, you have no theological expertise to back up your pontificating. But, you see, capital punishment has never been taught to be an INTRINSIC evil. The Catechism itself says capital punishment should not be imposed when lesser measures serve to adequately protect society. I wholeheartedly agree. But the determination whether anything less than capital punishment is adequate to protect society is a prudential judgment—and the right to make such judgments is not restricted to the teaching magisterium. Such judgments are fact-bound and are not amenable to a one-size-fits-all, formulaic response.
Rather, the analysis requires an in-depth knowledge of moral theology. Such…
rvicente: 1) I never claimed that capital punishment is an intrinsic evil. You’re wrong there.
2). rvicente claims that “the determination whether anything less than capital punishment is adequate to protect society is a prudential judgment” is inconsistent with Catholic practice and tradition. It was St. Ignatius of Loyola who taught the principle of “sentire sum Ecclesia”–to think with the Church: not to find any possible opportunity to contradict her, as sadly has become the routine among the habitués of the blog. Therefore, with St. Ignatius’ principle in mind, THE “prudential judgment” for a faithful Catholic to take on this or on any issue is precisely the Magisterium’s which is the ABOLITION of the death penalty…
3). rvicente speaks of “facts”: the principal fact is that in our time there are other means to protect society from a capital criminal short of putting him to death, which violates human dignity; thereby making the death penalty “cruel and unnecessary” as judged rightly by Pope St. John Paul II. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
That should read: “sentire cum Ecclesia” by St. Ignatius of Loyola.
Sawyer, I think your 28 June post is completely accurate—except for the last sentence. The Church’s decision to update its teaching was undeniably a change. But not a change based on “pastoral appeals for mercy or leniency for convicts”. Rather, it was based on capital punishment’s never having been taught to be either an intrinsic good or an intrinsic evil. “Intrinsic” means that an act’s objective status as moral or immoral CANNOT be changed because of a change of circumstances, or the intention of the actor. Unlike a directly procured abortion or blasphemy. So the moral character of something NOT taught to be intrinsically good or evil can be changed, if changed circumstances warrant or even demand. Take the teaching on…
usury [charging interest for a loan of money]. It was not an intrinsic evil, but based on the fact that, at that time, money had no independent value. Once money had independent value both as a convenient method of exchange and as means of buying tangible things such as gold, crop futures, an equity stock, or a bond– the basis for condemning usury disappeared. Since usury was not an INTRINSIC evil, its moral nature needed to be changed. It works the other way, too. When the State’s right to take a human life became more doubtful because of wrongful convictions, etc, etc—the Church continued to allow it BUT ONLY WHEN LESSER MEASURES would serve the purpose.
Sorry to have been so long-winded. But I wanted to give you a more intellectual explanation and defense of the Church’s changed position than jon’s “pray, pay and obey” approach.
NOTE: The word “UNLIKE” in the 6th line of first part of post should be “LIKE”.
“To administer retributive justice” is revenge.
Assuming they are synonyms, what’s wrong with making a criminal pay or suffer for his crimes? There is a medicinal value to retribution. Retributive justice is a valid component of whole justice. As long as revenge/retributive justice toward criminals is administered by the state and not by a vigilante, there is no moral difficulty.
Joel Fargo is correct. To administer the death penalty on a criminal when there are non-bloody means to render justice is indeed REVENGE. What folks like Sawyer (and these authors) would want us to have by their continued support for this rotting relic of the culture of death is continued circulation of vengeance, death, BLOODLUST. Theirs is no justice at all.
Jon,
It’s not revenge if the person being executed is guilty of murder.
The problem is that no “justice” short of death is adequate or commensurate retribution for the crime of murder. The punishment should fit the crime, and some crimes deserve death as retribution. It is false that nonbloody means are always adequate punishment for any conceivable crime; in some cases death is the only adequate and commensurate retributive justice deserved for a heinous crime. That is one of the points that the authors make. If someone steals $1 million and you fine him $5 for the crime, that’s not adequate retributive justice; it’s not justice at all.
Sawyer, by saying that “death is the only adequate and commensurate retributive justice deserved for a heinous crime,” has gone against the very words of Our Savior who denounced the kind of justice he and these authors espouse–the “eye for an eye” kind of justice, which is no justice at all (Matt. 5:38). Sawyer’s position is grossly lacking in logic, justice, Christian love, and proportionality. How? So a criminal has committed murder senselessly. Condemning that same criminal to death when there are other means to protect society short of taking his life is senseless REVENGE, an “eye for an eye”, illogical, merely circulating bloodlust and rage and death. This is injustice. This is inhuman. The Magisterium of the…
the Church has rightly judged so. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
Jon,
I’m having problems with your definition of revenge. Is restitution revenge?
The idea of punishment for crimes involves much more than retributive “justice”. The means used should not be greater [i.e., proportionate] than necessary to protect society from the evildoer. In the concrete circumstance, the means properly employed require a prudential judgment. That prudential judgment is not defined a priori by the Magisterium in some formulaic response. It requires knowledge of moral theology.
Reading rvicente’s use of the principle of “prudential judgment”, I believe he contradicts Lumen Gentium #25 which teaches that “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.”
You see rvicente, when the Holy Father teaches something clearly and repeatedly and with much conviction as JP2 did concerning capital punishment, Catholics are called to adhere to the teaching with a religious submission of mind and will, per…
Lumen Gentium. The Holy Father’s teaching on this regard is not one “prudential judgment” among many. Rather, it is Magisterial teaching which must be adhered to.
I might add that Dr. Feser is a philosopher. I’ve read one of his books entitled, “Scholastic Metaphysics.” It’s not a complete exposition of the topic. But for anyone who’s interested in learning some of the fine points of the subject’s major concepts, he does a pretty good job.
The book’s subtitle says it all: “A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment”. If capital punishment contradicted Catholic faith or doctrine, it would not be possible to provide a Catholic defense of it.
The burden is on critics of the book to point out where its authors have been un-Catholic in their argument. It does not suffice to say that some bishops endorse abolishing capital punishment; that is one of the topics addressed by the authors, who argue that such appeals are based on prudential judgments that are either flawed or non-binding on the Catholic faithful.
The death penalty is Catholic. A good and faithful Catholic must support the death penalty in principle, but any particular application of the death penalty is subject…
“Some bishops”? Some? In fact Sawyer, ALL BISHOPS, all of the Magisterium, call for the abolition of the death penalty. The burden is on those who disobey the Magisterium to justify their position before God for He speaks through those whom He has appointed to oversee His Church. As Our Lord Himself has said to the Apostles into whose offices the bishops have succeeded: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16).
Capital punishment maybe acceptable philosophically; however, its execution has been flawed. Too many innocent people have been sentenced to capital punishment and too many innocent people have been wrongly executed. When I pray to our Lord on the cross, it is a reality that He Himself was the victim of an unjust and cruel sentence of capital punishment.
Harold,
What you said is true. It’s also true that innocent people have been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Do you advocate for the removal of this penalty as well?
Justice Scalia stated: “I think the question, if I got it correctly, was do I think the death penalty is immoral because it will–I have to say it–it will inevitably lead at some point to the condemnation of someone who is innocent. Well, of course it will. I mean, you cannot have any system of human justice that is going to be perfect. And if the death penalty is immoral for that reason, so is life in prison. You think you’re not going to have innocent people put in prison for life? It’s one of the risks of living in an organized human society. And it’s one that we all say, it’s better than the alternative, which is to be subjected to constant crime. I don’t think that the system becomes immoral because it cannot be perfect.”
Woa there com-boxers…it seems that an important question before the the gloves come off is whether these authors have or plan to seek and imprimatur? Does anyone know?
1. The book does not have an imprimatur.
2. An imprimatur isn’t required for this kind of book.
God stamped His Imprimatur after delivering the first death penalty on Adam and Eve.
The man who murdered this five year-old boy deserves execution:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/01/body-missing-5-year-old-boy-found-in-california.html
No life sentence or less would be just retribution for what the perpetrator did to that little boy and his mother. I’d like to hear the pope or the CA bishops explain why anything less than execution would be just punishment for this perpetrator. The murderer’s moral debt to society can only attempt to be justly repaid by forfeiting his life at the hands of the state.
Sawyer,
Execution would be just. But my understanding of John Paul II’s view of Catholic moral teaching is that the death penalty is only permissible if no other means are available to protect society. In the United States, we easily have the financial means to place him in prison permanently and even to isolate him from other inmates. Therefore, I’m against the death penalty in the United States.
Steve, the authors of the book address Pope John Paul II’s statements on capital punishment. In part, they argue that JPII ignored the death penalty’s legitimate function in administering retributive justice; therefore JPII’s prudential judgment was flawed. The purpose of the death penalty is not merely to protect society from further aggression and evil by a heinous criminal; it also serves the purpose of exacting retribution.
Deciding in any specific case that the DP is unwarranted is acceptable; it’s the push to abolish the DP that I object to because that assumes that the DP can never be justified.
Sawyer,
Your points are well taken. I want to spend a little more time with them, so I’ll respond later this evening when I’m home by my computer.
Sawyer,
I’ve not read Feser’s/Bessette’s book, but I’ve a few points. I don’t believe that retribution is a valid Catholic concept. Could you be confusing this term with justice? The death penalty does serve as a greater deterrent than a life sentence so you could use this concept to argue your point. But here’s the rub.
[Continued on Next]
[Continued from Previous]
Back before JPII, the Church held that capital punishment was largely permissible. My sense of JPII, though, is that he felt this was an error because an important condition had been dropped over time from Catholic Tradition: Namely, that capital punishment was only permissible if it’s the only means left to protect society. If what I said is true, it wouldn’t matter if capital punishment is just or retribution because JPII was citing Tradition. Instead, you have to justify the condition that allows capital punishment. As such, I’ve thought that it might be possible to make the case that life without parole is not a sufficient deterrent to quell murder.
Steve, this article by the authors of the book summarizes their argument:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/07/21/why-the-death-penalty-is-still-necessary/
I believe you will find it informative and stimulating.
Sawyer,
Thank you for the link. I presently don’t have a lot of time, but I’ll read it the next time that I deal with the issue. I’m curious because, for me, the whole issue turns on Church Tradition and whether the value of life supersedes justice. Your link and another link associated with it seem to address precisely this issue.
It is not right to say that JP2 “ignored” the “death penalty’s function in administering retributive justice” because he mentions it in Evangelium Vitae #56: “The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is ‘to redress the disorder caused by the offence’. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime…” And if one continues to read Evangelium Vitae, the Holy Father judges that capital punishment in our time is no longer an adequate punishment as it violates human dignity. Plus, Aquinas himself gives only one reason for why a criminal may be executed: and that is to protect society. The Holy Father has rightly placed…
the notion of “retributive justice” away from the kind of justice that Our Lord has condemned (“eye for an eye”), but into the service of human dignity. This is a major blindspot of these authors and of Sawyer’s.