In the Name of Mercy and Justice 

A Pastoral Letter Regarding the Morality of Capital Punishment

In recent years, many people in our country have debated the morality of
capital punishment. On one hand, proponents see it as an acceptable form of
punishment administered by the state in very specific circumstances. On the
other hand, those who oppose the death penalty view it as a cruel and
unnecessary act of violence. While Catholic moral teaching has traditionally
affirmed the right of the state to impose capital sentences upon criminals in
certain strict circumstances, a growing  number of believers question whether
conditions in the modern world can now justify the exercise of this right.
They see the growing use of capital punishment as another manifestation of
our society's "culture of death" which deprecates all human life, whether
that life be unborn, innocent, defenseless, sick, impoverished, old or even 
guilty of serious crime.1

In light of this debate, I offer this pastoral letter on the subject of
capital punishment to the faithful of Brooklyn and Queens and to all men and
women of good will in the hope that it may guide our minds and hearts to
follow the dictates of the Gospel and the teachings of the Church.
 
I. The Sacredness of All Human Life:

To understand the Church's teaching regarding capital punishment, we must
begin by acknowledging that every human life, whether innocent or guilty of
sin, is sacred and priceless. This is true for three reasons. First, Genesis
teaches us that men and women are made in the image and likeness of God (Gn.
1: 27). "Man has been given a sublime dignity, based in the intimate bond
which unites him to his Creator: in man there shines forth a reflection of
God himself"2. We reflect the divine image in our ability to reason and
understand the world around us, to choose freely those values that promote
human life and by exercising dominion and stewardship over all creation. "As
manifestations of God in the world, a sign of His presence, a trace of his
glory"3, God has created us and found us to be very good (Gn. 1: 31).   

Second, the sacredness of human life is reaffirmed in the Incarnation of the
Eternal Son of the Father. God, in his infinite mercy, freely chose to take
on our humanity, weakened by sin, so that all who share human life might be
healed. The destructive power of sin did not destroy the basic goodness of 
human life because of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, St. John teaches us that
Jesus is life itself (Jn. 11: 25-26) who from all eternity has received life
from the Father (Jn. 5: 26) and shares that life with all humanity. This new
life, offered to us through Christ's death and resurrection, gives us
membership in His Kingdom and the promise that we will also share the
glorified life of the risen Lord. For this reason, our Holy Father rightly
calls the Gospel of Christ none other than the "Gospel of Life." 4

Finally, the promise of eternal life reminds us that our life's goal is not
confined solely to this earthly existence. Rather, human life is sacred
because it is meant to be eternal. In his encyclical entitled Evangelium
Vitae, our Holy Father reminds us of this basic truth: ". . . the dignity of
this life is linked not only to its beginning, to the fact that it comes from
God but also to its final end, to its destiny of fellowship with God in
knowledge and love of him."5 In other words, our earthly human life is made
to possess God's eternal life in heaven–a life in which the Lord will share
the fullness of His love with each of us forever. Thus, since the goal of
every human life is eternal happiness, every human life is truly sacred and
priceless.   

In light of these three reasons, Catholics join all men and women of good
will6 to proclaim that all human life is sacred and a priceless gift from
God. Life also has an inviolable value that cannot be measured and gives to
each human being basic inalienable rights. These are granted not by any
political or civil authority but by God Himself. Chief among these rights is
to exist free from all deliberate attacks upon it. Furthermore, our human
dignity is not the result of our possessions or even our innocence and guilt
but comes from our nature, created in God's image, redeemed by Christ and
destined for eternal life. Thus, all human life demands respect and
protection. As our Holy Father reminds us, ". . .  the deepest element of
God's commandment to protect human life is the requirement to show reverence
and love for every person7 and the life of every person."
In a world that has sanctioned attacks upon innocent human life in the form
of abortion and euthanasia, our defense of human life must be clear and
unwavering. "God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end:
no one can, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy
directly an innocent human being." 8 

However, many ask if this same defense of human life applies to those who
are guilty of heinous crimes against their neighbor or society? Can society,
in order to defend itself, impose the death penalty upon those criminals who
pose an enduring threat to it? Are there valid circumstances in our
contemporary society that justify capital punishment?

Ever mindful of our unwavering defense of human life, we will now explore
the issue of capital punishment.

II. Catholic Teaching and Capital Punishment:

A. Society's Right to Self Defense:

Catholic moral teaching traditionally affirmed the legitimacy of capital
punishment in certain circumstances. This was true for a number of reasons.
First, the Scriptures do not clearly prohibit the practice.  Second, many
Church Fathers justified its practice, believing it to be a deterrent to
crime, as a way to prevent grave evil and as a means by which society could
protect itself from further serious harm.

Many theologians compared capital punishment to a medical procedure that
detaches a cancerous limb from the body so that a person may live. In the
case of capital punishment, a person who is guilty of serious crime and
remains an imminent threat to society is removed so that those who are
innocent may live free from harm and fear. When exercised, capital punishment
could be imposed only under three conditions- if it was imposed by legitimate
public authority, if the gravity of the crime was weighed against the
severity of the penalty and if there was moral certainty of the criminal's
guilt of the crime.

The principal reason traditionally used to justify capital punishment is
society's right to defend itself as a last resort against criminals who pose
an enduring threat.

The gravity of the crime committed never in itself justified the death
penalty. Rather, the inability of society to defend itself against additional
heinous crimes on the part of a criminal justified an appeal to capital
punishment. In other words, in order to be morally justifiable, the death
penalty must be the only way left to society to protect itself against the
persistent attacks of a criminal unwilling to repent.

The right to such self-defense involves two competing values. In this sense,
society's self-defense is similar to our individual right to self-defense.
This right comes directly from the intrinsic value of human life. The Lord
Himself teaches us that we must love our neighbor as ourselves. Proper
self-love and respect allows us to insist that our own right to life be
respected, especially when attacked without provocation.

"No one can renounce the right to self-defense out of lack of love for life
or for self."9 Thus, if someone is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow
in an act of self-defense, he or she is not guilty of murder.10 

Second, in conjunction with our own right to life is the duty not to harm
anyone else's life. This is especially true when innocent human life is
threatened or harmed. Thus, while the right to self-defense is legitimate, it
can never be used as an excuse to justify aggressive behavior that can and
should be avoided.

The right to self-defense also extends to society. "Legitimate defense can
be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's
life, the common good of the family or of the state."11 In the face of
unprovoked aggression, society can and must protect itself and its members in
a reasonable fashion against further attack. The Catechism of the Catholic
Church teaches:

"Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor
unable to inflict harm. For this reason, the traditional teaching of the
Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of  legitimate
public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate
with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity,
the death penalty."12

Thus, on a theoretical level, society continues to have the right to impose
the death penalty only as a last resort in order to effectively defend
itself. In these cases, the fatal outcome of the death penalty is
attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about and not the
authority who imposed it.

B. The Right of Self Defense and the Contemporary World:

It is not enough, however, to speak about society's theoretical rights while
ignoring the concrete situation in which we live. All societal rights are
exercised in concrete situations that can curtail or even prohibit their use.
In terms of capital punishment, society may continue to possess the
theoretical right to impose the sentence of capital punishment as a means to
defend itself as a last resort. However, other questions remain. Given the
resources available to modern society to defend itself, can our nation or any
other nation legitimately impose capital punishment as a means of
self-defense? Have conditions so changed in contemporary society that a
society's right to defend itself no longer needs to resort to the use of
capital punishment? Have all the circumstances which existed in the past to
justify the use of capital punishment been effectively eliminated?  If so,
while the theoretical right may still exist, the exercise of capital
punishment can no longer be morally justified in practice. In recent years,
the Holy Father has made this point increasingly clear in his teachings. He
acknowledges that the conditions in modern society no longer justify the use
of capital punishment.

Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread at many levels of
public opinion of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument
for the resolution of conflicts between peoples . . . In the same perspective
there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even
when such a penalty is seen as a kind of "legitimate defense" on the part of
society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing
crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the
chance of reform.13

Part of the change experienced in modern society is the steady improvements
made in the security and organization of the penal system. The Pope states
that since society no longer needs to execute its criminals in order to
effectively defend itself, then the exercise of capital punishment as a last
resort is no longer justifiable. He concludes, " . . . such cases are very
rare, if not practically non-existent."14  "On this matter, there is a
growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it
be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished."15

In his recent trip to St. Louis, the Holy Father further elaborated his
opposition to capital punishment. He did so within the context of calling all
Christians to participate in a new evangelization of the modern world. This
evangelization, needed to reinvigorate all believers as we prepare to
celebrate the Great Jubilee of the year 2000, must be "unconditionally
pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the
Gospel of life in every situation.

"To be pro-life means to recognize and  proclaim God's love for man, the dignity
of the human person and the value of all human life."  

The Pope continues: "A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the
dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone
who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself,
without definitively denying criminals the chance of reform. I renew the appeal
I made recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is
both cruel and unnecessary."16

In summary, it seems clear that the exercise of capital punishment can no
longer be morally justified in practice. While some may suggest that some
countries do not yet have at their disposal the means by which they can
effectively defend themselves without the use of capital punishment, this is
certainly not true for our own country. We do possess adequate means to
defend ourselves from heinous criminal acts without resorting to the violence
associated with the death penalty.  As  a result, we face the moral
imperative to cease its use immediately and without exception.

C. Other reasons cited to justify capital punishment:
 
In addition to self-defense, there are other reasons traditionally cited to
justify the use of capital punishment. They are all inadequate.

1. Capital Punishment as Retribution:

Some argue that capital punishment restores the balance of justice by
inflicting punishment upon a criminal in exchange for the harm that he or she
has done. Such harm cannot be undone. Misguided proponents of capital
punishment mistake vengeance for justice. They believe that justice demands a
strict, proportionate punishment so that the crime committed can be
redressed. Such punishment can also extend to the administration of the death
penalty when heinous crimes are committed. Thus, these proponents of capital
punishment argue that the ultimate cause for the death penalty lies with
criminals and not society.

The attempt to justify capital punishment in terms of justice is flawed
however because it forgets the true purpose of administering punishment to
criminals. Society must punish criminals in order "to redress the disorder
caused by the offender."17 The punishment must be adequate to allow the
defense of public order as well as offer an incentive to help change the
offender's behavior. The nature and extent of such punishment must be
carefully evaluated and decided upon "and ought not to go to the extreme of
executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words,
when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society".18 In the words of
the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor
and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority
should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the
concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the
dignity of the human person.19

If our goal is to establish a penal system more in line with human dignity
and true rehabilitation, capital punishment cannot be justified in the name
of punishment or justice.

Against the civil concern for retribution is the Christian desire and design
for redemption. This affords the murderer opportunities to acknowledge evil,
repent and search for forgiveness.

2.  Capital Punishment as a Deterrent to Crime: 
 
There are others who justify capital punishment because they believe it to
be a deterrent to serious crime. If the penalty of death is administered
quickly and impartially for certain crimes, the contention is that criminals
will avoid such crimes for fear of being put to death.

However, the deterrent quality of the death penalty has been called into
question by recent impartial studies. They show that there is no convincing
evidence that the death penalty deters crime. It has been reported that
States which have the death penalty have higher civilian murder rates than
those that do not. The average murder rate per 100,000 people in States which
have capital punishment is about eight percent, while it is only 4.4 percent
in States that have abolished it.

3. Other Weaknesses in Capital Punishment

The fact that innocent people have unjustly faced the death penalty is
indisputable. Since 1972, seventy-three men and two women were released from
death row after being found innocent of the crimes for which they were
convicted. This means that one out of every seven executions involves an
innocent person being freed.20

Finally, there is evidence that the death penalty is imposed
disproportionately on racial and ethnic minorities, the poor and
disadvantaged persons who cannot afford the best legal assistance.

III. The Mystery of Divine Justice and Mercy:

If our society wishes to seek true justice, then it must rediscover the
power of God's divine mercy. For it is only with mercy that true justice can
be administered.

A powerful example of divine mercy is found in the story of Cain's murder of
his brother Abel (cf., Gn. 4: 1-16). This first murder violated the
"spiritual kinship" which unites the human family- a kinship that recognizes
our fundamental good and equality in personal dignity.21  In the face of this
crime, God cannot leave Cain unpunished. The blood of Abel demands justice
because blood, as the source of life, belongs only to God. As a result, God
curses Cain because "whoever attacks human life, in some way attacks God
himself."22

However, along with punishment, God also shows His mercy. The Scriptures
remind us that the Lord put a mark on Cain lest any who come upon him would
seek to kill him. Pope John Paul concludes:

He [the Lord] thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the
hatred of others but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill
him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel's death. Not even a murderer loses
his personal dignity and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is
precisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is
shown forth.23

It is not solely Abel's blood that cries out for justice. Christ shed His
blood for all mankind for the forgiveness of sins. "It is precisely by His
death that Jesus reveals all the splendour and value of life, inasmuch as his
self-oblation on the Cross becomes the source of new life for all people (Jn.
12: 32)."24  The blood of Christ "speaks more graciously" than the blood of
Abel (Heb. 7: 25) because . . . indeed it expresses and requires a more
radical "justice", and above all it implores mercy, it makes intercession
for the brethren before the Father and it is the source of perfect redemption
and the gift of new life.25

Christ in His mercy allows the sinner to face the truth of his sin, seek
true repentance and conversion of mind and heart. The blood of Christ, shed
at the hands of executioners, shows how precious every human life is and how
great is the Father's merciful love, who stands ready to forgive all who
truly seek it. Only when we stand before the love of God can we admit our
sinfulness, recognize its full seriousness and seek true change. God alone in
His mercy allows us this opportunity to experience true conversion. Thus,
mercy leads to repentance which ultimately opens the door to eternal life.

Since the death penalty robs a criminal of the opportunity in the future to
recognize his or her own sinfulness and seek true repentance, then in the
name of divine mercy it must be abandoned.     

IV. Conclusion:

As I end this pastoral letter, I commend all believers to be unwavering in
the defense of all human life, even those guilty of serious crimes. In an age
that has known great violence and despair, our eyes must now turn to the new
beginning offered to us in the coming of the Great Jubilee. May the dawn of
the new millennium be the occasion for a rediscovered respect and protection
for all human life–a respect without which no society can hope to prosper.
 May Mary our Mother, who bore Life itself into the world, bless and guide
our work on behalf of all human life, now and forever.

Sincerely in Christ,

                  Most Reverend Thomas V. Daily
                  Bishop of Brooklyn

Return to Top | Close Window