Recently,
Pope Leo XIV echoed the sentiment of his immediate predecessor, Pope Francis,
on the admissibility of the death penalty. In so doing, he joined Francis'
departure from hundreds of Popes and Tradition prior. Other sound articles have
examined the Tradition on the death penalty, such as “Two
problems with Dignitas Infinita” by Dr. Edward Feser.
What
this article will do is examine two aspects of Leo's (and Francis's) argument.
First: Why
appealing to human dignity as a disqualifier of the death penalty, Leo
necessarily disqualifies any punishment that is ordinarily an affront to the
human person.
Second: A
rebuttal to the assertion that the death penalty uniquely deprives the guilty
from the opportunity to repent.
Pope
Leo stated: “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on
the inviolability and dignity of the person.”
In
saying this, Leo appealed to the right to life that is natural and properly due
to the human person. Man, in the image of God, is a moral creature with various
obligations and due rights associated with that dignity.
In
saying man’s dignity is “inviolable,” Leo implies that a man guilty of, say,
murder, is always due his right to life since that is a right due to man
naturally.
Leo added:
“The right to life is the very foundation of every other human right.”
But if a
guilty man retains his right to that which is his right naturally, then by
the same reasoning, so too would imprisonment or even a monetary fine violate
the guilty man’s dignity. After all, freedom is a right of man naturally. The
right to one’s possessions is a right of man naturally.
"The
Ten Commandments...bring to light the essential duties, and therefore,
indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human
person." (CCC#2070)
The
Catechism section on the 7th commandment (Thou Shall Not Steal) specifically
states man’s right to his own money flows from his dignity:
"In
economic matters, respect for human dignity requires the practice...of
the virtue of justice, to preserve our neighbor's rights and render him what
is his due." (CCC#2407)
And yet,
in punishing the guilty, monetary fines are often given. But if man’s dignity
is “inviolable” in the context that Popes Leo and Francis have applied, then a
monetary fine would violate the seventh commandment as robbery of the guilty
man—an affront to his inherent dignity by which he has the right to his own
possessions. It would merely be a lesser affront to the guilty man than the
death penalty. But it equates to the two latest popes endorsing a lesser sin by
their own reasoning.
OBJECTION
TO DEATH PENALTY DEPRIVING THE GUILTY A CHANCE TO REPENT
Leo also
singled out the death penalty suggesting it was an impediment to repentance. He
stated:
“Effective
systems of detention can be and have been developed that protect citizens while
at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the
possibility of redemption.”
Therefore,
a defender of Pope Leo might argue that the death penalty is different than
imprisonment or a monetary fine on this notion that the death penalty deprives
the guilty of a chance to repent.
However,
not only does the death penalty not deprive the guilty of a chance to repent,
but tradition has interpreted the death penalty as a mechanism by which the
guilty is moved to repentance. For example:
“They
also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to
God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the
point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to
make a highly probable judgment that they would never come away from evil to
the right use of their powers.” (St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra
Gentiles, 3.146)
According
to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to
deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as
He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate
according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to
others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without
grievously harming others.
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica, 2.2.64.2)
“It
is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the
public peace. ... because there is hope
that the malefactor will be reformed by this punishment.” (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis 13, 1588)
Even
in the case of the execution of one condemned to death, the State does
not dispose of the individual's right to life. It is then reserved to the
public power to deprive the condemned of the 'good' of life, in expiation of
his fault, after he, through his crime, has dispossessed himself of his
'right' to life.
(Pope Pius XII, Address
to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System,
September 14, 1952)
"The
sentence of death, however, can and sometimes does move the condemned person to
repentance and conversion. There is a large body of Christian literature on the
value of prayers and pastoral ministry for convicts on death row or on the
scaffold. In cases where the criminal seems incapable of being reintegrated
into human society, the death penalty may be a way of achieving the
criminal’s reconciliation with God." (Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., Catholicism
& Capital Punishment, First Things, April 2001)
No comments:
Post a Comment