Earlier this month, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, at the behest of Pope Francis, revised the paragraph on capital punishment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It now states quoting Pope Francis, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. Despite the apparent absolute nature of that statement, in previous wording, the teaching is contextualized by explanations that, “Today … there is increasing awareness …. A new understanding has emerged …. [and] more effective systems … have been developed.” Concurrently with the release of the next Catechism text, the Congregation sent a letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church explaining the revision. That letter gives a more detailed explanation of the changed understanding, quoting statements of St. John Paul II and situating the teaching in the context of the times.
Some people have criticized the revision as a denial of two millennia of consistent teaching teaching that the death penalty is legitimate. This could be a valid reaction if the new teaching explicitly stated that capital punishment is always, everywhere, and under all circumstances wrong; but it does not go that far. When read carefully, it says that capital punishment is wrong under contemporary circumstances, which implies (while refraining from saying so explicitly) that if circumstances were to change significantly, capital punishment might again become legitimate. If the “loophole” had been stated explicitly, proponents of capital punishment would doubtless have seized on it to justify continued support for the death penalty, just as they have used St. John Paul’s wording that “cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender today are very rare, if not practically non-existent,” to justify regular recourse to executions. It was necessary to remove the “wiggle room.”
My own thinking on capital punishment has developed alongside that of the Church. I grew up accepting the conventional thinking that it was appropriate punishment for serious crimes. A major factor in changing my thinking was the pro-life movement. Tacitly acknowledging capital punishment, the movement decried the taking of innocent human life. But that was based on the sacredness of all human life, “from conception to natural death.” The clear implication for me was that even the convicted criminal’s life was sacred, no matter what his crime. St. John Paul II’s words were also part of my growing understanding that we have no right to kill prisoners. Instances where the innocence of an individual was established after his execution, along with the more general fact of the occurrence of mistaken convictions (including accounts of police railroading their prime suspect while ignoring other possible explanations of a crime) mean that we cannot be certain that the prisoner is in fact guilty, even if we consider the crime to be worthy of death. To execute one who in fact did not commit the crime is a supreme injustice, which we should not risk perpetrating.
I have also become aware that the purpose of incarceration should not be to make the prisoner suffer. (Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s deliberate infliction of suffering on those in custody clearly indicated to me what is wrong with the “make them pay” line of thought.) The terms “correctional institution.” and even “penitentiary” indicate the purpose. Certainly, protecting the public from people who have shown a likelihood to harm them is one purpose of locking criminals up. Beyond that, however, unless all prisoners are to be held for life, the goal must be to turn them from their criminal ways, so that they can be safely returned to society. Capital punishment, however, ignores this purpose in favor of revenge.
Having come to see capital punishment as unnecessary, vindictive, and a denial of the humanity of the criminal, I fully support the revision to the Catholic Church’s teaching. I’m afraid that many in the United States will be unwilling to give up their attachment to this degrading relic of earlier circumstances.