A Death Penalty Question for Michael Perry

Michael Perry's interpretation of John Paul II's teaching on the death penalty posted a few days ago is at odds with Notre Dame philosophy professor John O'Callaghan's interpretation, which was posted last month.

I hope to get to Brugger's book, which Michael suggests, later this summer. For now, I'll weigh in with questions for Michael (and others) and a comment. Can it truly be the teaching of the Church that "[i]t is morally forbidden for anyone to kill any human being intentionally?" Michael says that "[s]uch killing is 'in principle' morally forbidden." If this is the Church's teaching, it has ramifications far beyond the death penalty, requiring a reexamination of questions on war, self-defense, and policing.

Michael, are you suggesting that war, killing in self-defense, killing (by police) to protect the community, and the death penalty are inherently moral evils? Are you further suggesting that Church teaches that we (the state in this instance) is sometimes allowed to carry out an evil act if it serves the greater good? Or, are you sticking to the traditional Catholic teaching that forbids the doing of an evil act no matter what good may come? If the latter, are you suggesting that the Church now teaches personal and governmental pacifism in the face of grave danger? Could you clarify this for us?

Paragraph 2267 of the Catechism (2d ed. 1997) states that "[a]ssuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person." This language suggests to me that the death penalty is not morally forbidden "in principle" or otherwise but remains a legitimate part of a governments aresnal for protecting the community against wrongful aggressors. Given our current circumstances - the ability to protect ourselves without inflicting the death penalty coupled with a culture that lacks respect for the human person (the culture of death), the Church is very strongly suggesting that the common good is better served when the state imposes an alternative sentence. Although the Catechism says that "the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically non-existent,'" it does not, on my reading, come close to suggesting that the "[i]t is morally forbidden for anyone to kill any human being intentionally."

I look forward to hearing replies from Michael and others.

Pax, Michael Scaperlanda