www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The death penalty and moral relativism

Gentlepersons,

Today Henry Karlson showed me EWTN "expert" Rev. Stephen Torraco's response to an inquirer about the death penalty. Fr. Torraco argues that:



I say this fails to acknowledge that as the ultimate authority of morality, Christ's Church has a huge role to play in determining what constitutes justice, and that Father Torraco's position reduces the bishops to just another bunch of lobbyists. Comments?

Catholics seem in large part in the US ambivalent about the death penalty. Are our deacons, priests, and bishops doing a good job in teaching us about why executions can be tantamount to state-sponsored murders? Are constituencies in the Latin Church undercutting this? Is the alignment of the Republican Party with antiabortion efforts but also with death penalty supporters causing us to be relativistic about murder?

Let the games begin. I'll be watching for a burning red folder by tomorrow.

-Ikey

[This message has been edited by Ikey Criswell (edited 05-16-2001).]

"Are our deacons, priests, and bishops doing a good job in teaching us about why executions can be tantamount to state-sponsored murders?"

Some yes, some no. Hard to generalize because there are different opinions about this among the clergy.

Are constituencies in the Latin Church undercutting this?

Absolutely, without question.

"Is the alignment of the Republican Party with antiabortion efforts but also with death penalty supporters causing us to be relativistic about murder?"

Absolutely, without question, this is a substantial part of it. Another part of it, however, is purely American -- as Catholics (and Orthodox for that matter), have become more inculturated into our secular, Protestant-based (best to say "Post-Protestant"), culture, they have assimilated to American values, and one of those is the death penalty. The fact that the death penalty is so widely supported by Americans reflects something in our culture, and that something has been adopted by American Catholics and Orthodox as well. The fact that the one major political party that is consistently antiabortion is also very pro-death penalty clearly exacerbates matters, but I don't think it's the root cause.

Frankly, Fr. Torraco's piece is amusing, because it ignores the fact that the Pope has made specific clemency pleas in American d.p. cases numerous times! Obviously, Fr. Torraco and the Pope disagree, because a clemency plea is basically saying "Look, State, please don't execute this man because we think that's immoral" -- in other words, the Pope is very much second-guessing the State in its determination of what is a "rare" case. In addition, Fr. Torraco seems to view the Papal and CCC statements on this issue as referring to a case-by-case analysis, when the CCC text is really talking about a systemic/cultural analysis -- ie, not does this person really, really deserve it but rather does this society, given its resources, really need to execute people in order to ensure public safety. The latter test is what's in the CCC, and the USA fails in flying colors, which is probably why the Pope keeps issuing clemency pleas in American d.p. cases to begin with.

Brendan

Dear Ikey,

Some mediocre and humble reflections on this day before my last exam.

The statement you quote certainly could be taken that way, but I don't think it's meant like that.

Christ's Church is the highest authority of morality, and does have a large part in not just determining, but also declaring what constitutes true justice, and should enjoy that role, and the state should take notes (perhaps if I took better notes, I would have an easier time with this final... ). But crimes committed by those condemned with the D.P. are committed against the state, and not the Church.

The state has, in my opinion, the authority to see if the D.P. is warranted, and this authority derives from the people; and the state exists to serve the people, and protect them from severely violent criminals (granted these days, we can lock them up in a cell rather than strap them to a table and shoot them up with something). It isn't the Church that runs the country, but the nation's own government. So if true church/state separation is to exist, the Church can't have any direct influence (e.g. casting a decisive vote) in the matter. However the Church should use all the resources at its disposal to protect human life, even that of condemned criminals.

I've often thought of the passage in the Gospel of Jesus' trial. Jesus tells Pilate that he would have no power over Him were it not given to him from above. While I suppose this refers primarily to that historical situation, I think it is also, by extension, a general statement. Governments get their power from the people, but in a way also have power from God, and are doubly responsible to Him; I've always viewed the activity of governments as one of caring for those in their care, and such is like the work of God (granted the best example of this isn't the U.S. govt., but no one's perfect). So, if governments get their power from the people, they have a right and duty to serve the people in the cause of justice. If governments participate in an activity that is akin to God's care for His people, they have the obligation to listen to His modern day prophets and apostles, and take them seriously. But ultimately, after all the pros and cons are weighed, the decision can and should lie squarely with the state.

Does this mean that the state always does things the right way, or even wants to always do the right thing? Nah. There are more motivations for the D.P. than just executing justice, pardon the pun. Part of the deliberation that should occur when deciding whether to mete this punishment out or not should be the motivation behind administering it; and those directly in charge of such affairs should have the moral courage to weed out bad motivations. I don't think the motivations are always true and just, but that still doesn't take such authority away from the state. An abuse of power, even one as heinous as executing people for less than the best, true, and just reason for doing so, still does not negate the power to do so in the first place.

I could be incredibly wrong in my assessment of things, and that wouldn't shock me, so I'll be listening for responses or corrections. But now, back to studying for finals...

God bless.

Dear Friends,

Personally, I believe that the death penalty makes a philosphical statement about evil which is not only unChristian - it's anti-Christian.

To execute people for their criminal, evil acts seems to me to make the assumption that evil is in those people only, and not also in us.

We feel uncomfortable with the thought of people committing horrific acts of murder etc. not solely because of the acts themselves, but also because they make us question and doubt ourselves.

Evil is an uncomfortable fact and it is a personal thing, the "Evil One."

Rather than confronting the evil that is in us with repentance and the Grace of Christ, some would rather see evil, that is always only in 'others,' destroyed through executing those few who are guilty of being evil.

And vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord. We have no authority to play God ever. God gives life, we have no right to take it away. To do so would be like those who asked Christ about conquering the Romans. To do so, Christ said, would make them no better than they.

Alex

Dear Ikey,

"I'd say the Church gets its authority from Christ Jesus our King and this supercedes."

I agree with you 150%. But my problem with such a statement in relation to what I'd said is that not all states are Christian. I'd sure like them all to be, my first preference personally being that East and West reunite. As people of faith we believe that Christ is our King, and the Church gets authority from Him, and this supercedes temporal authority. As I see it, the state doesn't "have to believe" that. As far as it can tell, that's one option out of many ideologies/theologies it could adopt. But objectively I think the state has the right to use the death penalty, with due consideration and deliberation of course, when it sees it as the only way. I like what Alex had to say, I always do, but on this point, though I agree in practice, in theory I sorta disagree (please don't hate me! I'm just a nice guy with more than the share I want of life's problems, trying to do better on his religion final than he did in his last philosophy final ).

"Do you think it does so by exercising its moral authority in correcting secular notions of justice? Does the state have to obey the Church if in this arena if it is to conform itself to Christ?"

I think the Church should exercise its moral authority to try and correct secular notions of justice. Yet another point on which we agree. And if the state wants to conform itself to Christ, it must obey the Church. My point, as above, is that the state "doesn't" have to conform itself to Christ, from its perspective. We as Christians would say it can and should do so. But it doesn't have to, just like if I tell a Hindu friend to convert, he doesn't have to do so either, if he doesn't believe it.

Congratulations on graduating! I hope you enjoy the break in between. I know I will...

Historically, the Church has not always had direct influence in the politics of nations. We can see that during the time of the persecutions, before St. Constantine, certainly no one would claim that Caesar recognized the authority of the Church. Yet, I would say, even when a given state does not recognize the authority of the Church, that does not justify one in saying the Church can only act as advisor and has no real authority. I believe that even in such circumstances, the Church is a real authority, but its authority is not recognized -- or, if it is recognized as an authority, it is recognized as a rival authority which must be dealt with severely.

As the Church's mission is within the world, even as it is outside the world, the Church is to work for the benefit of humanity. Each state has only temporal authority, while the Church's authority transcends that temporality. While we can not blame George Bush from denying the authority of the Vatican, Catholics should recognize that the Vatican has more moral authority than George Bush. The state acts upon laws, and laws are not always on firm moral ground. If the state is the supreme source for determining those laws, and how to justly apply them, then there is no longer any critique which can be had of the state -- it becomes supreme. However, by the fact that a state is only a temporal authority, it can not be supreme. It is not the final authority on morality, even if it tries to take that role. This explains why it is possible to judge the morality of a state's actions; if the state was final authority and determiner of morality, then there would be no possibility for that criticism to be justified.

When it comes to the death penalty, for example, I do not think we can say it is up to the state to determine when it is "necessary" to enact it. Nero thought it was necessary for Rome to have Sts. Peter and Paul put to death! Did he have that authority? No. Did he have the power? Yes. Power does not equate with authority.

And while it is true that we should not necessarily expect everyone to understand that the Church is the supreme moral authority, I think what is really needed right now is that those who are within the Church should recognize the Church's authority as supreme. It makes sense that someone who has no spiritual belief will think the state is the final authority, but it does not make sense for someone who believes in any religion to believe the state to be superior it (Catholic or non-Catholic). To suggest that the only influence that the Church can have is that of an outside moral conscience, and one that is not capable of understanding the true situation and making the right moral decision and that it must bow its head before the real authority, the state, in making moral decisions for it -- this flies in the face of history, and flies in the face of the Church making ANY statements on morality.

St. John Chrysostom didn't think his influence, his authority was merely suggestive. And it was because of his real power, his real authority, that he was seen as a threat and put into exile. Sometimes I think we, as Christians, do try for the path of least resistance. We are willing to bow to the state, and make it practically more important than the Church. While we need to be wise in our actions and how we respond, I do think we have more to do than just tell the state: go ahead, do as you see fit, for you are the final authority on the issue.


[This message has been edited by Henry Karlson (edited 05-17-2001).]

Henry --

Excellent post.

IMO, though, a lot of our attitudes towards this issue are formed by our American constitutional religion, if you will. The separation of church and state is an American "dogma" that must be firmly believed by all Americans (and as a practical matter, it works well in a pluralistic society). The problem, however, lies in the reality that this rule of pragmatism has been extended to virtually exclude all spiritual values from the public forum, such that if the State or its actors is seen as making decisions based on religious (or, in our nondenom country, we prefer the more slippery and amorphous term "moral") values, it is perceived that the boundary between Church and State has been crossed. In effect, the way that this has headed for the past few decades, religion and state are divorced from each other, and religion has been effectively *banned* from the public space. It's against that radical background (and it is rather radical, looking around the world) that the kind of statement made by the EWTN priest must be understood, IMO.

Brendan

I live in Ohio, where we only execute mentally ill and/or retarded people. So far, it's only been Wilford Berry the "volunteer", a deeply disturbed man who had been unsuccessful in his suicide attempts for years, and finally got the State to do it for him - with the enthusiastic encouragement of the Attorney General.

We have spent much of the past month dithering over the execution of Jay D. Scott, a paranoid schizophrenic. His first execution date passed because of an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court - which failed because Ohio law says as long as the person can understand that he is going to die, they are competent to be executed. On the second try this past Tuesday evening, Mr. Scott already had the IV lines in his arms when things came to a halt because of a Federal Appeals Court. They left the IVs in for an hour or so because prison officials thought things might get resolved in time to proceed with the execution before the death warrant ran out at midnight. Darn it, it didn't - in fact it's still up in the air, so they'll just have to go through all that bureaucratic paperwork again next time, if'n'when the court gives them another shot at it.

Sheesh.


Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Sharon,

Why is it we make excuses for those on death row [mentally ill, abused as a child, et cetera]?

Where is all the concern for the victim? I see next-to-no concern for the victim who was killed while attempting to make a living at the store.

Michael,

This thread is on the death penalty. By no means does a condemnation of the death penalty imply a lack of concern or sympathy for the victim. It's a different discussion.

Murder is horrible. It is not made less horrible or somehow "balanced" when the State does tit-for-tat and kills the perpetrator. And an observation that a condemned man is retarded, or a clearly diagnosed schizophrenic is hardly an excuse. What these men did was wrong. Horribly, terribly wrong - but there are appropriate (and far less expensive!!!) punishments which do not involve State sanctioned killing, especially of those with diminished capacity.

Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Sharon,

I must respectfully disagree.

From what I have seen with the ant-death penalty crowd, all of their sympathy and concern is for the man or woman on death row and almost none of the sympathy is for the victim, only as a fleeting afterthought.

I'm supposed to feel sorry for a man or a woman who killed another human being? I don't think so. I feel badly for the victim of the crime, not the person who commited the crime.

Dear Michael,

You raise an important point with respect to victim's rights.

I worked on two pieces of victim protection legislation "up here" which are now law.

It was under Ronal Reagan that the Victims of Crime Act was passed (VOCA).

A key component of this legislation was that all proceeds related to the crime and its victims could be seized by the state to be applied to victim services.

In the first year this was done, more than $125 million was collected!

More has been collected since and now every state in your Grand Republic has excellent victim services (we still have better health care ).

You are way more advanced in the care for victims than any other country and you lead the way.

Alex

Dear Henry,

Yes, the historical problem with the Catholic Church, which was never so with the Orthodox Church, is how Catholicism defined itself as a temporal entity vis a vis the secular state.

Catholicism clearly saw an important temporal role for the Church and this role, over time, turned into a competing secular, political allegiance for its members.

In exercising that secular role, the Church was not always spiritual. It participated in wars and in the material concerns of the this-worldly.

This is why reformers like Jan Hus actually preferred the state take away power from the Church to allow the Church to resume its spiritual role more fully and reduce corruption among the clergy etc.

I believe the CHurch's role is not to tell its members "how to vote."

Its role is to present the message and world-view of Christianity and help its members make decisions in their lives that reflect the Light of Christ.

To quote from one author who wrote about the life of St Thomas More: "For More, when it came to defining religious doctrine, the Pope was first and the King was . . . nowhere."

Alex

Michael, feel bad for them both. Souls are in peril.

For something to be morally just, it must be 1. A morally neutral or good thing of itself 2. Done with a right intention and 3. appropriate to its circumstances. The death penalty as applied in the United States meets only the first criterion--capital punishment of itself is a means by which society may be defended. Vengeance and retribution are not right intentions, so it fails on criterion two. There are ample bloodless means for the defense of the society, so it fails on criteria three.

Don't accuse good people of lacking compassion for others. That's uncharitable and in this case seems to be untrue as well.