Michael Pakaluk, (@michael_pakaluk) a philosophy professor at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC demonstrates why I will never subscribe to Crisis Magazine and why I reject Catholic Traditionalism, but not Catholic tradition.
In a piece for Crisis, Till Death Do Us Part: Does the Death Penalty Satisfy Christian Standards of Justice and Compassion? originally published in 1989, which he reiterates on Twitter this week, Pakaluk gives his philosophical reasons for upholding Catholic traditional teaching on capital punishment.
Citing Aquinas, he explains how the state has the right, in the name of the common good, to enact capital punishment against a convicted criminal. He follows the letter of the law perfectly. If we are truly to live our faith, we must live higher than the letter of the law.
According to Pakaluk, there must be three conditions to which the state may put someone to death:
The person must be worthy of the death penalty.
The state must have the authority to use it
It must serve the common good.
Vengeance vs demands of justice
Pope St John Paul II brought this third condition into the contemporary view in Evangelium Vitae. He explained there no longer exists a condition in which a person cannot be imprisoned for life to satisfy the demands of justice.
[T]he nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not 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. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. Evangelium Vitae #56
Pakaluk also embraces a kind of eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth response.
Punishing a criminal restores him to equality with his victims, since he now suffers, against his will, an evil proportionate to that suffered by his victims.
This is precisely the doctrine Jesus himself condemns in the Sermon on the Mount
Pakaluk's says, when one dies for committing a grave evil, then this upholds the standards of justice in the community for the benefit of the community.
However, if someone does not die even though he killed another, this person may still benefit the common good while alive.
Articles continues below subscribe box
Alessandro Serenelli and The Manson Family
One of the most powerful moments of grace is the case of Alessandro Serenelli who brutally murdered twelve-year-old Maria Goretti, now a saint. During his forty years of imprisonment, he had a conversion experience through an apparition of his victim. He died a Franciscan monk and was able to share what led him to kill the girl. Years later, he taught that the dangers of pornography opened the door to the desires that led to her murder. The then 18-year-old wanted to rape the young girl. She resisted his attempts and he stabbed her multiple times.
Maybe some of the most important persons not to receive the death penalty were Charles Manson and his “family”. Manson eventually died in prison. He embodied evil every day. Those who did gruesome murderous deeds at his behest also lived the rest of their lives in prison. They remained in our collective consciousness until their deaths. Their continued existence led us to remember their crimes and the warnings they represent. Each one embodied the dangers of not dropping the boundaries of integrity. Their lives continued to serve the common good as a warning of the ways some good young adults walked down a deadly path led by a manipulative man.
In a famous interview with Diane Sawyer for ABCNews, she asked Manson why he did what he did. He responded: “Because I am a criminal, woman, that is what I do!” These are powerful words I used to teach youth of the dangers of not heeding the warning signs and following the path to sin. Manson was a charismatic person who manipulated his followers to drop the boundaries to sex and drugs they learned in their families and faith formation as children.
Pakaluk is right when he says some people deserve the death penalty, that is the point. Recognizing they deserve death and choosing not to give it to them we treat them as God treats us. We give them more time to repent.
Jesus may require us to spend time in purgatory for our sins but He does not condemn us because we deserve it. It is the devil who does this. Those who ultimately choose against the merciful kingdom of God by default choose the merciless kingdom of their accuser.
Strangely, Pakaluk cites David calling for death upon himself when his prophet Nathan accuses him in the third person of committing a capital crime, but the king does not suffer the death he deserves. He suffers losing the child born from his sin.
Aquinas with no spirituality
What you find in Pakaluk is him laying down the rules set forth by Aquinas and justice but we see no spirituality in his writing. We see nothing about prayer and acting on the fruits of prayer. We see only the command to live the letter of the law.
I believe Aquinas would be appalled at those who use his words to defend the death penalty. The Thirteenth Century is not the Twenty-First and the technology of today allows us to follow through with a principle set forth by Augustine. To stop evil, you respond with just enough force to arrest it and nothing more. That is at the foundation of Augustine’s Just War Doctrine and the basis of Pope St. John Paul II’s principle against the death penalty.
If you look at those who support the death penalty as does Pakaluk, they over and over cite justice, law and principles. You never hear them citing those scriptures that call for mercy and for vengeance to be left to God himself, such as Romans 12.
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God;for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ (Romans 12:19 RSV)
Further, you do not see them bring up the law of love and the call to prayer all of which are essential to living the Catholic faith.
St Therese Lisieux did not protest against the death penalty in France but she prayed for the conversion of a condemned criminal. He kissed the cross just before his death. She clearly showed that even the condemned criminal has a soul that Christ wants saved. He died for that person too.
Grace opened her heart and she wanted to save the souls of poor sinners with Jesus on the Cross. She felt a thirst for souls grow within her. She felt that her vocation was to “love Jesus and make others love Him.” She heard of an unrepentant murderer name Pranzini, and she prayed and sacrificed for him, desirous of his complete conversion to Jesus. He was judged and condemned to death at the guillotine. A few moments before death, he asked for the crucifix and kissed it three times. Therese cried of joy when she read this in the newspaper, as her prayer had been answered. She called him her first child, and dedicated herself even more to praying for souls. https://www.piercedhearts.org/theology_heart/life_saints/therese_little_flower.htm
I preach to my parishioners all the time that if you live the laws of the Catholic Church perfectly you will live perfectly the minimum standard of Catholicism. The death penalty was permissible in the past. If we truly want to live our faith, we must go far beyond the letter of the law and live the spirit which is the higher and more challenging standard. That is Pope Francis’ position. I do not believe Aquinas would disagree.
photo: Eggi821 at BigStockPhoto.com
Fr. Robert J Carr is the pastor of St. Anthony Parish in Allston, MA; the parish podcast The Voice of St. Anthony is at CatholicAudioMedia.com