Contrary to the “seamless garment” argument,
there is a real distinction which sets
the death penalty apart from abortion and euthanasia.

The death penalty and Church teaching
By Carl H. Horst

n It too often is urged by some bishops, priests and other commentators that the death penalty is contrary to the teaching of the Church.1 Unfortunately, such remarks mislead the faithful. As will be briefly demonstrated, the Church does not teach that the death penalty is intrinsically evil, but rather that “legitimate public authority” may inflict the death penalty subject to certain limitations.

The Church’s teaching is set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.2 The Catechism provides that “legitimate public authority” may inflict the death penalty for the protection of society and only if necessary.3 The teaching is rooted in both biblical scholarship and tradition.

Apart from the Old Testament, several passages of the New Testament concede the right of civil authority to impose the death penalty.4 Consequently, for nearly 1,000 years the Church has taught that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. St. Thomas Aquinas instructed that it is “lawful to kill a malefactor, insofar as it is ordered to the welfare of the entire community.” In 1210, Pope Innocent III expressly declared that civil authority “can pass sentence requiring the shedding of blood without mortal sin as long as it proceed to exact the penalty not from hatred, but after judicial process; not rashly, but according to the law.” Subsequently, the Church’s teaching was set forth in the 1566 Roman Catechism issued following the Council of Trent.5 More recently, in 1952, Pope Pius XII declared that “it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.”6

Most recently questions have arisen concerning the import of Pope John Paul II’s recent pronouncements concerning the death penalty. In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II did not change the Church’s teaching, but rather emphasized that, whereas there are four purposes of punishment, only the second, protection of society, ought to be the consideration in judging whether capital punishment is justified and that the death penalty may be used only if it is necessary in order to achieve that purpose. In this regard, Catholics may differ in their prudential judgments as to whether a particular society needs to employ such a penalty, in certain cases, for self protection.

In his address “Ecclesia in America,” given recently while visiting Mexico City, John Paul II again expressed his concern regarding abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty. Similarly, while in St. Louis, John Paul II expressed his concern over an impending execution. However, in his Mexico City address, as in other documents, the subject of the death penalty is dealt with separately. A proper understanding of the distinction between abortion and euthanasia and the death penalty is necessary to a complete understanding of the Holy Father’s comments. Whereas, euthanasia and abortion have been condemned as intrinsically evil, the death penalty has not.7 Contrary to the “seamless garment” argument, there is a real distinction which sets the death penalty apart from euthanasia and abortion. Those who advance such an argument, in which they seek to link opposition to abortion and euthanasia with opposition to the death penalty, can point to nothing in Scripture or Tradition to support their position.

Although individual members of the hierarchy, including the Holy Father, have spoken out against the death penalty, such statements do not indicate that the death penalty is contrary to the teaching of the Church, but rather such statements present a deep personal opposition to the death penalty and/or a plea for mercy. In doing so, their statements are deserving of thoughtful consideration, but they do not bind the consciences of Catholics to their judgment.8

Thus, a Catholic may properly support or oppose the death penalty. He may not maintain, however, that infliction of the death penalty contravenes the Fifth Commandment, nor that it is intrinsically evil. No bishop, priest, or layman may add his prudential judgments to the list of Church teachings and enjoin them as obligatory.

The question remains: is capital punishment necessary? That is a prudential judgment for each society to make. There are many contingent factors. The principles set forth in the Catechism are binding upon all; however, the application of those principles leaves room for differences of opinion.

In deciding whether the death penalty is “necessary” one needs to consider the extent of the danger of violent criminal activity which currently exists in the community, as well as the circumstances which limit imposition of the death penalty. Today, at the end of the 20th century, American society, unlike any other society in the world, offers an extraordinary degree of personal freedom. Unfortunately, that freedom is accompanied by an extraordinary amount of violence resulting in homicides including domestic violence, workplace violence, drive-by shootings, burglaries and robberies.

Nevertheless, in over 80% of these cases the death penalty is not permissible. In California, only those cases involving multiple murders, or where the murder occurred during the commission of a robbery or burglary, as well as more limited special circumstances, may the death penalty be sought. Additionally, typically in California even in those cases which involve special circumstances, the death penalty will not be sought by prosecutors unless there is other evidence that the defendant was previously convicted of violent crimes, or has previously engaged in violent activity. 9

Today, given the unprecedented personal liberty offered in American society, the extraordinary level of violence resulting in homicides and the very narrow circumstances which may result in the death penalty, there is a sound basis for concluding that, at least in California, “bloodless means are [not] sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons.”10

Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents June 2000

Back to Catholic Information Center Main Periodical Page