Editorial

Capital punishment is beyond ‘inadmissible’

The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption. (Pope Leo XIV)

The Catholic Church teaches that capital punishment is inadmissible today and should be abolished worldwide. This is a development of the Church’s teaching on this issue based on three fundamental principles of Catholic social teaching:

• Human dignity is not lost even in the gravest crime. A murderer remains a human person created in God’s image; personal dignity is not forfeited by sin.
• Society can be protected without execution. Modern systems of secure imprisonment can incarcerate dangerous criminals while preserving their opportunity for repentance, conversion and rehabilitation.
• Execution cannot be used merely for retribution or vengeance. The Church has consistently distinguished punishment aimed at protecting the common good from a purely retaliatory vengeance.

The Church’s earlier teaching did not regard capital punishment as intrinsically evil in every possible circumstance. Civil authorities were historically permitted to impose it when it was judged necessary to protect society from a dangerous offender and no adequate alternative existed.

However, the traditional rationale was protective, not vindictive. The Council of Trent taught in the 16th century that the legitimate purpose of this power was “the preservation and security of human life,” not revenge. Pope Innocent III likewise taught in the 13th century that secular authority could impose a death sentence only with good judgment, mature deliberation and without hatred.

Traditional Church teaching also contains strong expressions of opposition to capital punishment. Numerous early Christian writers—including St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great and St. John Chrysostom—urged mercy toward criminals. Early Church discipline discouraged Christian participation in capital prosecutions and executions, especially because keeping offenders alive preserved the possibility of penitence and restoration.

In “Evangelium Vitae” (1995), St. John Paul II taught that execution could be considered only in cases of “absolute necessity”—that is, when it was otherwise impossible to defend society. He immediately added that, because of improvements in penal systems, such cases were “very rare, if not practically non-existent” (#56).

The 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church therefore said that, while the death penalty was not completely excluded in principle, nonlethal means must be used whenever they were sufficient to protect people. It described cases requiring execution as extremely rare.

In 2018, Pope Francis revised paragraph #2267 in the catechism. The revised text does not merely say that executions are usually unnecessary; it teaches that the death penalty itself is inadmissible because:

• The dignity of the person remains even after a very serious crime;
• The meaning and purposes of state punishment are better understood;
• More effective detention systems can protect citizens without eliminating the offender’s possibility of redemption.

Thus, the Church’s teaching has developed from a historically permitted exception to a presumed moral judgment against capital punishment. The underlying principles—protection of the innocent, opposition to vengeance, respect for human dignity, and the possibility of repentance—remain continuous; their application has become not only preferable but normative in light of modern incarceration and rehabilitation.

Like individuals, society may use self-defense—the proportionate use of force to stop an unjust aggressor—even when the aggressor’s death is an unintended consequence of defending life. But this is fundamentally different from executing someone who is already under control and no longer an immediate threat.

The recent decision by the U.S. Department of Defense to schedule the first public execution in 90 years—and the ultimately rejected proposal to livestream it—is beyond “inadmissible.” It is cruel and barbaric. Christians, and all people of good will, should contact their representatives and insist that this practice be disallowed now and always.

Criminals must be securely restrained when necessary, but their dignity and the possibility of repentance must be respected.

The state of Tennessee’s attempted lethal injection of death-row inmate Christa Pike last month failed after medical staff administered two doses of pentobarbital, leaving her alive but impaired. This clearly qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment, an inadmissible affront to the inviolability and dignity of the human person.

The state has a duty to punish crime and protect society, but the death penalty—and especially public execution—are not morally acceptable means of doing so.

—Daniel Conway