Second of two parts
My dear friends,
How did the Church move from centuries of passive acceptance of the death penalty to what some people today would call active opposition?
As I said in my last column, the Church has not repudiated its previous teaching that the state, in order to ensure the common good, has the right to take the life of a convicted criminal. What we are saying today is that those situations are “very rare if not practically non-existent.” (Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, paragraph #56)
This is not so much a change as a progression in a doctrine. At one point, the church understood that, in order to protect the common good, the state had the right to execute people who had done serious harm to the community. We judged that, at certain times, the heinousness of a crime justified the taking of a person's life. Moreover, we believed that such a radical step would serve as a deterrent to anyone else who might be contemplating a similar offense.
Unfortunately, we have found the opposite to be true: Violence begets violence.
Not only does the threat of death no longer serve as a deterrent; in many cases today it is viewed as the only way to be heard. More criminals seem to seek notoriety through escalating violence, such as killing dozens of people before committing suicide.
Does it make sense, then, to kill people in order to show that killing is wrong? As Florida's bishops stated in their recent letter to Gov. Jeb Bush: This “is a piercing contradiction that touches our very souls.”
Our understanding of another principle also has been expanded. We have realized that we must be consistent when preaching about the sacredness of every human life.
When we say that all life comes from God, and that it must be protected “from womb to tomb,” we must make it clear that our teaching applies even to the life of a criminal. That life is as precious in God's eyes as the life of a child in a mother's womb, for God created both “in his image and likeness.”
So when the bishops or the Holy Father plead for a stay of execution for a convicted murderer, those are the principles we are upholding. We are never, in any way, defending or excusing the actions of those who are on Death Row.
Should they be punished for their deeds? Yes. Persons convicted of heinous murders have forfeited their right to live in society, and should be detained for the rest of their days without any possibility of parole.
Supporters of the death penalty, of course, question whether justice is served by sparing the life of an individual who showed callous disregard for the lives or suffering of others. But on this question, too, our theology has progressed.
While justice may be served by taking “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” the Son of God came down from heaven to calls us beyond justice, to mercy.
That, he said, is how the Father deals with us. For every sin we commit is an infinite offense against the God who gave us life. And he is merciful. He forgives us time and again. Otherwise there would be no point in going to confession.
Unfortunately, we do not feel the infinite impact of our sin against God in the way that we feel the impact of a grievous murder. We do not suffer for our sins against God the way the families of innocent victims suffer for their loved ones.
But our sinfulness is an equally hurtful slap in the face of Almighty God. And as he forgives us, we are called to forgive others.
It is a difficult teaching to accept. In the daily fray of life, we do not readily forgive even those we love"our wives and husbands, our relatives and friends. It is infinitely more difficult to forgive strangers whose harrowing crimes deprived us of loved ones, whose actions violated the basic tenets of humanity.
But that is precisely what Christ calls us to do. And that is the teaching the bishops are upholding whenever they speak about the death penalty.
