THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON WAR

THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON THE DEATH PENALTY

Current church teaching b= uilds on the religious traditions of Judaism and Christianity developed over more th= an three millennia.

The Hebrew Bible follows = closely the traditions of the Ancient Near East regarding the death penalty. In most Ancien= t Near East traditions, the death penalty was approved for two reasons. The first was as a form of revenge= or punishment, the second as a way of removing abomination or uncleanness from society. The death penalty wa= s considered especially fitting as a punishment for murder since it was believed that in= the covenant with Noah God had laid down the principle, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Gen 9:6). But t= he Mosaic Law specifies no less than thirty-six capital offenses calling for execution. Execution was the penalty not only for murder but for anything “against nature,” which included dishonoring one’s parents, touching holy objects, pronouncing the name of Israel’s God [Yahweh], violating the Sabbath, adultery, or even having sex with a woman when she was having her period.

In th= e early writings (the Torah), the responsibility of punishing a murderer lay with a kinsman (cf. Num 35:19-21). He had to “redeem” the victim’s blood by putting t= he murderer to death. But this of course led frequently to cyclic retaliation in the form of blood feuds. As the Israelite state became more centralized and the court system developed, legislation appeared that tried= to limit the violence of private vengeance.&n= bsp; The famous “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (= Exod 21:23-25) was a mitigating law mandating that punishment must be proportion= ate to the crime.

Various biblical books pr= esent different views of retribution. Several narratives suggest approval for those who opt for forgiveness and refuse to take legitimate vengeance.&n= bsp; See especially the story of Joseph and his brothers in Gen 45; 50-15= -21, and the stories of David’s refusal to kill Saul in 1 Samuel 24-26. And don’t forget the sixth commandment, “Do not kill.”&nb= sp; Overall, the theme of the Hebrew Bible is that vengeance really belo= ngs only to God. “Vengeance= is mine, says the LORD” (Deut 32:35).&n= bsp; Think of all the psalms and prophetic literature (e.g., Pss 79:10; 94:1-2; Jer 51:34-37; Isa 35:4) where God is described as the one who will bring about a just recompense and restore the balance upset by wickedness (= see especially Isa 61:1-4).

When we get to the New Te= stament, there is a whole different approach. Jesus both taught and practiced the forgiveness of injustice. The teaching of Jesus could not be clearer. Look at the Sermon o= n the Mount (Matt 5:38-39; 43-44): “You have heard that it was said, ‘= ;An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not take reveng= e on someone who does you wrong…. You have heard it said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell= you, love your enemies.”

This teaching of Jesus was accepted and generally practiced by early Christians. Cf. Paul’s advice to the Rom= an community (Rom 12:17-21): “Do not repay anyone evil for evil….<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Beloved, do not look for revenge b= ut leave room for God’s wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mi= ne, I will repay, says the Lord…. Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.” And then there is that beautiful s= tory that centuries later crept into the fourth gospel (John 8:1-11) of Jesus refusing to condemn a woman caught in adultery. Jesus is pictured telling her, “Go, and from now on do not sin any more,” and the accusers, “Let whoever among you who is without sin throw a stone at her.” Nowhere does Jesus offer violence as a solution to set things straight.

The basic Christian insig= ht developed through reflection on the meaning of the death of Jesus was that = God has forgiven all of us our infinite offenses. Therefore, we are in no position to condemn others. We must forgi= ve others from the bottom of our hearts. Think of how we pray in the Our Father, “Forgive us our trespa= sses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” This rejects human revenge in any form. We are called to forgiv= e the murderer as Christ forgives the murderer, as Christ forgives us. We are called to be reconciled with those who have injured us. The Gospel reveals God’s boundless love for every person, regardless of h= uman merit or worthiness. God does= not will the death of a sinner, but rather that the sinner be converted.

Historically, the teachin= g of the Church has allowed the taking of human life, but only in very rare circumstances, i.e., in the case of self-defense. By extension, St. Augustine, who introduced the just-= war theory as an early accommodation to politics, argued that representatives of the state had the authority to put criminals to death. But others, like St. Ambrose, forb= ade members of the clergy to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners. This later beca= me part of Canon Law and an impediment to ordination. But throughout the Middle Ages theologians like Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus argued for the right of civil courts to pronounce the death penalty for very grave offenses such as murder and treason. Later on,= to our shame, the Holy See even authorized the Inquisition to turn over hereti= cs to the secular arm for execution.

Up to the middle of the t= wentieth century Catholic theologians continued to justify capital punishment for extreme cases. But in the cou= rse of this most violent century in recorded history, the presumption on the part = of moralists against taking human life has been strengthened and the exceptions made ever more restrictive. S= ince 1980, the U.S. bishops’ conference has consistently opposed the death penalty, in sp= ite of the contrary opinion of a majority of Catholics in this country. Recently, they wrote, “It is= time to abandon the death penalty—not just because of what it does to those who are executed but because of how it diminishes all of us.”

It is very significant th= at the 1992 edition of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church was corrected= in the matter of the death penalty in the second edition in 1997. In the 1992 version, the Church “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 place of t= his statement, the 1997 edition has, “The Church does not exclude recours= e to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” In other words, punishment is no l= onger considered a valid reason for executing a criminal. The only legitimate reason would b= e if that is the only way to keep the criminal from striking again (which obviou= sly would never be the case in this country).

Our morality is constantly developing. It took nineteen centuries for Christians to realize that one person cannot own another. And Christian morality has penetra= ted least, I think, into the morality of society.&nbs= p; Christians by and large have not yet realized that what people may n= ot do as individuals they may not do as part of a political society. So we have a lot of work to do to = get our values across.

As Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles said = (I paraphrase): Simple answers rarely solve complex problems. What is needed is a moral revoluti= on that results in genuine respect for every human life. In the end, our society will be me= asured by how we treat “the least among us.” Now is the time for a new ethic—justice without vengeance. Let us remember that we cannot rest= ore life by taking life, that vengeance cannot heal, and that all of us must fi= nd new ways to defend human life and dignity in a far too violent society.