Catholic Presidential Candidates and the Death Penalty – By George J. Marlin

The following appeared on Newsmax.com:

During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in June, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a practicing Catholic, was grilled on the death penalty.

Moderator Chuck Todd began by pointing out that the state of Nebraska “decided to stop the death penalty altogether” and that a Kasich predecessor, former Gov. Robert Taft, raised the “question whether the death penalty in Ohio is a dead walking man.”

Todd then asked, “Do you agree with [Taft’s] assessment that the death penalty is done in Ohio?”

Kasich replied: “No I don’t agree. In this debate sometimes we forget the victim. I’ve had these grieving families come to see me Chuck, people who have had their mothers who have been gunned down. It’s about justice, it isn’t about revenge. And I support the death penalty.”

Todd followed up with this question: “And I know you’re a deeply religious man; your Catholic faith. Do you struggle with where you are on this and where the church is?”

Kasich replied: “No I don’t, Chuck, because — look, I just said it as clearly as I can. I think it is about justice. I think it’s consistent with my faith.”

Kasich is correct.

Pope Francis as well as St. Pope John Paul II appealed for compassion and clemency towards condemned murderers, and American Catholic bishops have stated that the death penalty should not be imposed in the United States.

Nevertheless, no Pope has ever used his office to condemn capital punishment per se, and the bishops, whether taken singularly or collectively, have no authority under civil or canon law to urge the imposition of or attempt to block the application of the death penalty.

That authority is vested solely in the civil power, and is consigned to the state by virtue of the natural law.

Representatives of the Catholic Church are free at all times to express their personal opinions that other forms of punishment are sufficient to ensure proper order or to defend the innocent, both of which are crucial to the well being of the community at large.

But the determination that the imposition of the death penalty is necessary belongs exclusively to the state. The church recognizes this power and understands that its source is divine.

What the church does not confer, the church cannot take away. Even the American bishops’ statement opposing the use of the death penalty clearly admits that “the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of a serious crime.”

The late John Cardinal O’Connor of New York, who was personally opposed to the death penalty, stated from the pulpit in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1994, that “formal official church teaching does not deny the right of the state to exercise the death penalty under certain, narrowly defined conditions. It is a matter of judgment.”

Here is what The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “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.”

In reaffirming its traditional teaching on capital punishment, the church in no way requires the state to exercise the death penalty, which is simply a prudential option.

The Catechism urges mercy, but again recognizes that leniency is granted at the discretion of the state.

The church also dismisses the “seamless garment” proposition which argues that if one is opposed to abortion, one must be against the taking of any life for any reason. This argument has been widely used by those who wish to blur the obvious distinction between abortion and capital punishment in order to strengthen opposition to the latter.

Abortion, according to the church, is wrong because it destroys innocent human life.

Capital punishment is permissible because the first duty of the state is to maintain order for the common good. To meet this end, it is permissible for the state to kill those who are found guilty of grievous offenses in times of peace and war.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, then-Cardinal Ratzinger in the instruction “Worthiness to receive Holy Communion — General Principles,” also pulled the rug out from under the proponents of the “seamless garment” argument by making it perfectly clear that not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.

“There may be,” he declared, “a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

When it comes to abortion, death penalty, or the war in Iraq, only abortion is intrinsically wrong because it destroys innocent human life. On the death penalty and the war, Ratzinger confirmed that the church does not have a univocal view.

Catholic presidential candidates who support the death penalty should not get defensive when it is pointed out that the Pope or their local bishop oppose capital punishment.

They should calmly point out that their first duty as public officials is to maintain order for the common good and that the death penalty remains an essential part of the state’s criminal code to preserve the common good and the dignity of its citizenry.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Articles/Essays/Op-Ed, Newsmax

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: