Name:
Institution:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
History of the Catholic Church on the Death Penalty
Introduction
Death penalty is also called capital punishment and it constitutes the execution of an individual as a form of a punishment for a particular offense through a distinct judicial process. The relative crimes are commonly known as capital offenses and in most instances, they are murder related. Historical evidence affirms that the punishment has been practiced since historical times. However, emergent researches show that this mode of punishment has recently been compounded by various complexities that basically stem from moral as well as religious principles. This has culminated in to the abolition of the practice in various countries. Notably, this has been greatly influenced by the changes in the religious teachings regarding the same. It is against this background that this paper provides a concise history of the Catholic Church on capital punishment. Further, it lays particular emphasis on how the issue has changed over time in this context.
Numerous authors of whom Benn (2002) is represented affirm that the issue of death penalty in the Catholic Church has undergone various developments since historical times. Initially, this was acceptable provided it would enhance public safety by protecting the entire population against the dangerous actions and behavior of the aggressor. However, despite accepting the punishment the church indicated that the public needed to employ the same as a last resort and generally refrain from using it. However, this contention was modified by Pope John Paul II on the premise that public security in the modern times was a concern that had been effectively addressed by the state. As such, he contended that respect of life superseded all other intentions and needed to be accorded preference over public security.
Lifton and Greg (2000) ascertain that its transition underwent various successive phases that began with acceptance and justification of capital punishment especially where serious crimes were involved. Then, it is indicated that the church began to question the right of the state with regard to enforcing the same. The final phase entailed rejection of the same by the Catholic Church. Notably, these constitute the basement upon which the history of the church in this respect is inclined.
This transition dates back to over two hundred years ago when the Catholic Christians refrained from killing in the judicial system, in the military an in self defense. Regardless of the fact that this does not directly imply that these Christians were against capital punishment, Benn (2002) asserts that it was an indication of following their biblical teachings that opposed killing.
This era was also referred to as Christian pacifism. Capital punishment, just like slavery was tolerated as opposed to accepted. Modern pacifist views however widely agree that this traditional practice was controversial because the early proponents assumed their anti life attitude when they entered in the public domain. Nevertheless, these Christians perceived themselves to have been influenced by the biblical teachings. Notably, this was practiced when the church had not been formally recognized as a distinct religious institution.
With time, the initial perspectives underwent various changes that culminated in the acceptance of capital punishment by the church. In the regard, Schabas (2002) indicate that the church allowed the state to administer the punishment to the offenders. However, it is noted that this acceptance was indirect because the church was not directly involved in the process. For instance, Benn (2002) cites that the clerics were not allowed to attend the administration of the same. However, it is indicated that at this point in time, any teachings regarding capital punishment were non existent.
In his review, Zipes (1999) asserts that the church’s position on this was influenced by the position of prominent personalities within it such Thomas Aquinas. In this regard, St. Aquinas advocated for death penalty and argued that any individual who undermined the wellbeing of the society in any way needed to be sacrificed in order to further the overall good of the society. According to him, the common good that basically benefited the entire society was vitally important than the particular good that was only beneficial to an individual.
Benn (2002) shows that this was a reflection of moral teachings that asserted that a moral individual needed to further the greatest degree of happiness for the greatest percentage of the population. Thus he argued that persons that compromised the ability of the society to attain its common good needed to be gotten rid of through capital punishment. According to Benn (2002), he also based this on the analogous biblical reference that proposes the amputation of a limb in order to enhance the wellbeing of the rest of the body. In this, St. Aquinas likened the state to the human body and the aggressor to the limb. In the modern context, this has been rejected on the premise that order within the society can still be maintained without having to administer capital punishment.
The next phase included was still characterized by the acceptance by the church and accordance of this responsibility to the state. However, Lifton and Greg (2000) indicate that this was also accompanied by the challenge by the church to the state to exercise this only on religious and/or moral grounds. Notably, this has been greatly implicated for reviving the discussion regarding capital punishment within the religious sphere. Thus numerous bishops and other religious personalities from different backgrounds came together to discuss the viability of death penalty.
The final phase of the church on this matter was proposal for incarceration that was brought to the fore by Pope John Paul II. This was perpetuated by the changes in the interpretation of the catechism. Initially, Benn (2002) indicates that this mode of punishment was employed in instances of extreme gravity. The church’s teaching in this regard asserts that the death penalty can only be enforced in cases where the guilt of the offender has been established and the responsibility for the capital punishment fully determined. In addition, it permits the use of capital punishment if all other options can not protect the public against the activities and behaviors of the aggressor. In this respect, the church proposes the use of alternative modes of punishment if they can effectively protect the rest of the population against the guilty party. This according to the church is a more liberal position because it enhances the dignity of the offender and maintains the safety and overall good of the society at the same time.
Notably, the current criminal justice system has devised viable measures that would achieve his goal. For instance, Benn (2002) shows that lifetime imprisonment can protect the public against the implications of the activities of the offender and at the same time uphold the worth of the offender. In this regard therefore, the church considers execution to be non existent and /or very rare.
It is in this consideration that Pope John Paul II removed the public safety qualification from the initial position of the church. As indicated earlier, the Catholic church accepted the death penalty because it threatened the overall safety and security of the society. Thus by removing this qualifying statement, the church condoned this form of punishment and maintained that the respect for life and a person’s dignity and worth was comparatively more important than public safety. In his review, Benn (2002) indicates that the church also changed its position because it regarded the capital punishment administered by the state to be a means of vengeance. Notably, this contravened its teachings that advocate for reconciliation. Various controversies in this regard question why Aquinas advocated for the same. In response, the Catholic Church argues that the traditional position was influenced by the need to deter and prevent capital crime.
Conclusion
From the review, it is certain that the position of the Catholic Church on death punishment has undergone various developments in the last two hundred years. In historical times, the punishment was accepted by the church because of its ability to safeguard the safety of the society. The church then began to distance itself from the issue. This is manifested through its prohibition of the presence of the clerics during the administration of the same. This position then changed when the church required the state to base the administration of this punishment on fundamental ethical and religious principles. Finally, the church changed its position to condemnation of the practice and argued that in modern times, respect for life is more important than public security.
References
Benn, C. (2002). Historical Background of Death Punishment. Oxford: University Press.
Lifton, R. & Greg, M. (2000). Who Owns Death? USA: William Morrow.
Schabas, W. (2002). Analyzing Death Penalty. Cambridge: University Press.
Zipes, J. (1999). Capital Punishment: From a Religious Point of View. USA: Rutledge.
