Life Imprisonment is a Hidden Death Penalty

Pope Francis Holds His Weekly General Audienceby Mark Tooley   11/3/14
Pope Francis expands on Church opposition to capital punishment.  •  Recently Pope Francis reiterated papal opposition to the death penalty and, going a step further, also renounced life imprisonment, which is the alternative that many death penalty opponents typically cite.

“All Christians and people of good will are thus called today to struggle not only for abolition of the death penalty, whether it be legal or illegal and in all its forms, but also to improve prison conditions, out of respect for the human dignity of persons deprived of their liberty. And this, I connect with life imprisonment,” he said at an October 23 event with the International Association of Penal Law. “Life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty.”

Evidently Vatican City has abolished life imprisonment, which obviously is mostly symbolic, since the papal enclave is hardly teeming with violent crime. The most serious crime there in recent years was the 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II, after which the assailant was tried in an Italian court.[pullquote]A true balance in society aligns nurturing mommy with stern father, both fulfilling their complementary roles in creation. The absence of one distorts human reality and creates corruption and tragedy.[/pullquote]

Opposing life imprisonment raises questions. Should mass murderers be freed during their active lifetime? And what if they show no sign of remorse or rehabilitation? (My questions come respectfully from a Protestant who appreciates Catholic teaching.)

The Pope’s remarks acknowledged that official Catholic teaching still accepts the state’s rightful power to execute, quoting the Catechism that “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.” News reports say he quoted the Catechism that “cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” It is not clear but presumably he also included the Catechism phrase immediately before those words, which cites the “possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm.”

What power does the state have for “rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm” except for the option of life imprisonment for recalcitrant murderers?

It seems unlikely that many Americans, Catholic or otherwise, will advocate abolishing life imprisonment for heinous crimes. But recently Colorado’s pro-death penalty Republican gubernatorial candidate, a Catholic, recalled that Denver’s former bishop, Charles Chaput, had assured him that church doctrine is not against the death penalty. Chaput is now Philadelphia’s archbishop, and his office declined comment.

But in a 2005 column Chaput explained, “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.” He endorsed ending the death penalty but emphasized capital punishment is not like abortion or euthanasia, which are always wrong, but more like war, which might be legitimate in some circumstances.

The subtleties of Catholic teaching on capital punishment are difficult to translate into media sound bites or political explanations. Pope Francis’s comments against life imprisonment seem to go beyond the letter of the Catechism. Some activist American religionists, Catholic or otherwise, may latch on to them for a new campaign. But such an effort potentially would provoke a backlash and embolden defense of the death penalty.

Much of the American religious political witness today is totally uncomfortable with the state’s divine vocation for punitive action, much less lethal force. The New Testament offers little direct counsel on civil government’s responsibilities except, in St. Paul’s Romans 13, which warns that that “if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoers.” This language is pretty punitive.

But so much of modern American religious political witness prefers a highly non-punitive version of government. Their preferred vision likens the state to an indulgent, nurturing mommy, whose primary role is to feed, clothe, and ensure health care for all her children, while also welcoming all illegal immigrants, protecting the environment, lecturing against politically incorrect “hate speech,” and offering universal love, while simultaneously disarming in a way ironically that likely inhibits physical protection for her children.

Most of this mommy work the Scriptures and Christian tradition actually assign chiefly to the church, which is metaphorically a mother and the Bride of Christ. The Romans 13 focus for the state more resembles a stern father, who dispenses impartial but severe justice for the protection of his children. This sort of paternal state, unlike the sensitive mommy, reserves its interventions for dangerous misconduct. And it lets its charges pick themselves up from their stumbles, that they might grow strong, not remain immature through ceaseless coddling.

A true balance in society aligns nurturing mommy with stern father, both fulfilling their complementary roles in creation. The absence of one distorts human reality and creates corruption and tragedy. Pope Francis doubtless has earnest reasons for speaking against even life imprisonment. But his sentiments will likely only inspire the chronic mommy vision of the state already preferred by so many do-gooding religionists.

Religious leaders need to restore balance by citing Romans 13 and explaining the punitive, morally imperative stern father role of the state that is divinely ordained and essential for human justice.

(This article originally appeared in The American Spectator.)


MarkTooleyThumbMark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley • (1155 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Life Imprisonment is a Hidden Death Penalty

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Kudos to Mr. Tooley for nailing this issue. If this pope were any further Left, he’d fall into the Tyrrhenian Sea.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    “To be kind to the tiger is to be cruel to the lamb.” It’s so easy to advocate leniency for human monsters when you feel confident that you will never be one of their targets.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      If I was a Catholic and took the idea of good and evil seriously, I’d be scratching my head at a fellow who takes this reflexive Marxist/Leftist attitude that everyone is simply a victim. Wouldn’t it be better to ask why some of those lifers are in there? Was it George Bush’s fault, for instance, if somebody robbed a 7-11 and killed a cop in the process?

      This “niceness” as shown by the Pope is the kind of “niceness” that is indeed being kind to the tiger. Luckily I’m not a Catholic, although I do generally admire many Catholic thinkers and writers.

      I’ve read in several places now that canon law declares that a Pope is not a Pope as declared by his own actions. But I doubt he’ll be “impeached” any more than Obama will be. We’ll simply continue with the normalization or dumbing-down of virtue.

  3. Rosalys says:

    What power does the state have for “rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm”…

    Well, they could cut off their hands and feet. It’s pretty hard to commit crime without the use of hands and feet. Or they could gouge out their eyes and cut off their ears – kind of a new take on “see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil.” But this may be considered cruel and unusual and sadly, probably wouldn’t make it past the Supreme Court.

    Their preferred vision likens the state to an indulgent, nurturing mommy, whose primary role is to feed, clothe, and ensure health care for all her children, while also welcoming all illegal immigrants, protecting the environment, lecturing against politically incorrect “hate speech,” and offering universal love, while simultaneously disarming in a way ironically that likely inhibits physical protection for her children.

    What the real, unspoken purpose of the American gubmint today is: 1) to extract every last dime from every sub-elite person and thus 2) render us all paupers and slaves.

    Pope Francis doubtless has earnest reasons for speaking…

    The reasons are that he is a Marxist and an idiot! Oh, forgive me – I repeat myself!

  4. Misanthropette says:

    I confess, this one threw me for a loop. After all, we know this pope supports all manner of nonsense, but this is too much. To me, it is tantamount to the Catholic Church’s own little war on women.

    Does this pope understand how many women are killed each year? How many innocent children? I have extreme difficulty restraining my contempt for a man who remains silent about the grave injustice of abortion, and euthanasia, but believes that societies ought to abolish the death penalty and indeed, any manner of justice at all for murderers, the vast majority of whom are men.

    Forgive me if I’m reacting with some sensitivity to women on this particular issue. Anyone who has read a steady diet of criminal cases, or dealt with the criminal justice system has had to live with the vivid imagery of dismembered children (still have nightmares about that case), dead prostitutes, etc… Thanks, pope for being so honest about your misogyny.

    I think he’s crossed over from Marxist nonsense to insanity. I look forward to his immediate removal and commitment to an appropriate institution…for life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *