Chaput on the Death Penalty

Here is a recent column by Archbishop Charles Chaput, "What Does the Church Teach on the Death Penalty?"  The essay opens with this:

Catholic teaching on the death penalty is best understood by viewing it through two lenses: what it is; and what it is not.  The Church’s critique of capital punishment is not an evasion of justice. Victims and their survivors have a right to redress, and the state has a right to enforce that redress and impose grave punishment for grave crimes.  [RG:  I'm not sure what is meant by the right of "victims" to "redress" and the state's right to "enforce" it.  Properly understood, it seems to me, "retribution" -- a proper aim of punishment -- is not "redress" for "victims".]

It is not an absolute rejection of force by the state. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.

It is not an idolatry of individual rights — in this case, the rights of the murderer. Catholic social teaching rests on two equal pillars: the dignity of the individual person, and the common good. The right to life of the convicted murderer must be balanced against society’s right to justice and security.  [RG:  I'm not sure about this, either.  In light of Catholic Social Teaching, is it the case that we are "balanc[ing]" the "right to life" against "society's right to justice and security"?  And, what does it mean to talk about the "rights" of "society", anyway?].

Finally, it is not a false equation of related but unequal issues. Catholic teaching on euthanasia, the death penalty, war, genocide and abortion are rooted in the same concern for the sanctity of the human person. But these different issues do not all have the same gravity or moral content. They are not equivalent.

Archbishop then goes on to explain and endorse this statement in the Catechism:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church” explains it in these words: If “non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor [i.e., the convicted murderer], authority [should] limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person” (2267).

Rick