Statement on the Death Penalty

By Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde Bishop of Arlington

May 10, 2001 The execution of Timothy McVeigh has generated much-needed debate on the death penalty in our country, and around the world. His was a heinous action, and many people lost their lives and loved ones because of him. In light of this grave evil, we must reflect upon what our response as Christians should be when a member of society wounds the community. Pope John Paul II was clear in his teaching when he visited St. Louis in 1999, saying: "The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. 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 to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary" (Homily 1/27/99).

As a civilized society, we must analyze our philosophical understanding and approach to crime and punishment. Do we want "an eye for an eye" as our guiding principle of justice? Should our focus be simply on retribution? Or, should we, as followers of Jesus, work to rehabilitate those who have committed crimes? Some will say that certain members of society will never reform and will never be remorseful for their crimes. This may be so, but is that a reason to take his or her life? Or, do we have a certain obligation to them as our brother or sister to ceaselessly work for their healing and reform? The Church has consistently recognized the duty of the State to defend public order and ensure people ;s safety. In the past, the  Church has recognized the right of States to impose the death penalty to ensure the right ordering of society.

In 1995, Pope John Paul II advanced the Church�€™s teaching on  the role of the State in ensuring public safety and order. In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) he reflected on the death penalty and concluded that: "It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved [defending public order and ensuring people�€™s safety], the nature and extent of  the 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 to otherwise 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" (no. 56).

Is it not possible in our technologically-advanced country to defend public order and ensure people;s safety without recourse to the death  penalty? Yes, it is. We have the capabilities to remove these people permanently from society thereby protecting the community from harm. Yet, I believe that we have a greater obligation. We must work to rehabilitate these people. We must do all we can to bring them to conversion, not simply throw them out.

As Christians, we must implement the teachings of Christ, who taught us about the prodigal son, ate with sinners and forgave the very ones who were crucifying Him ; totally innocent and defenseless.

We are called to be pro-life in every stage of life. Yes, there is a monumental difference between killing an unborn child and putting a criminal to death for a crime he or she committed. Yet, our pro-life philosophy must hold at every stage. We will not advance the culture of life by taking certain human lives, no matter what offense they have committed. We must work for their conversion and rehabilitation. Society is served when a criminal repents for his evil actions, not when he or she is put to death.

There has been a very disturbing development in the McVeigh execution. Some in our society want to witness the execution; others want to put it on television as pay-per-view. Have we not crossed the line between justice and vengeance on this point? It is understandable that we want those who have committed heinous crimes to pay for those crimes, but as members of a civilized society, and even more as disciples of Christ, we must analyze our motives in this type of behavior. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord" (Psalm 94:1).

Rather then seeking revenge, should we not be praying and doing penance in order that Mr. McVeigh might turn towards the Lord, seek forgiveness and be reconciled with Him prior to his death? In so doing, we are imitating Saint Therese of the Child Jesus, who prayed so fervently for the conversion of a hardened criminal, who had refused all offers to return to God. At the last moment, just before his execution, he reached for an outstretched crucifix, a gesture of his sorrow and repentance.

There was a time when the death penalty could possibly have been justified in this country, but that time has surely passed. We posses the means and the technology to remove these people permanently from society without recourse to the death penalty. We must work for the rehabilitation of those who for various reasons have gone astray and committed terrible crimes.

Justice dictates that punishment be inflicted to redress the disorder caused by the offense. Often criminals have become so because of crimes committed against them. The answer is not to take human life to preserve society; rather, the answer is to work to rehabilitate those who have sinned and thereby advance the kingdom of God on earth.

The principle set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must 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" (no. 2267).