Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Daniel P. HoranJune 10, 2015

Since the sentencing of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death at the end of the federal trial against him for his role in the Boston Marathon bombing of 2013, I have been thinking a lot about the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I think it needs to be updated.

After expressing on social media my shock and disappointment at the jury’s decision—a response shared by most residents of Boston, according to a Boston Globe poll in April 2015, which showed that 66 percent of residents favored a life sentence—I was appalled at the negative reaction I received on account of my solidarity with Pope Francis, the U.S. bishops and even many of the victims of the bombing who were against the death penalty.

Amid the predictable nonsensical or tasteless remarks common in social media were some more reasoned but nonetheless troubling comments defending the jury’s decision and the government’s “right” to kill a convicted terrorist. Several in favor of the death penalty pointed to the catechism to justify their opinion. The least nuanced views present the absence of an absolute prohibition of the death penalty as somehow guaranteeing the right to pursue capital punishment. More thoughtful proponents argue that it is perfectly legitimate to support capital punishment, at least in the case of Tsarnaev.

But neither argument takes into consideration the careful way in which the catechism, citing St. John Paul II, outlines the nearly inconceivable case in which the death penalty might be permissible. The catechism, which is primarily a summary instruction manual of church teaching for catechists, states 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” (No. 2267). The text continues, “Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’”

The truth is that in many places around the world, including the United States, there are effective means to protect citizens from “unjust aggressors” like Tsarnaev. Secured in a supermax federal prison, an inmate sentenced to life without parole poses no actual threat; therefore the death penalty is, according to church teaching, completely off the table. Yet those seeking vengeance demand retribution instead of restorative justice and seem indefatigable in their clamoring for state-sanctioned killing, claiming justification from the catechism because it leaves open the smallest possibility for a justifiable circumstance.

My proposal is that church leaders give these people exactly what they want: a black-and-white answer to whether or not the death penalty is acceptable. The catechism should be updated to clearly state, in light of the criteria already established, that capital punishment today is never justifiable. This would not only bring the catechism more in line with the teaching of recent popes, including Pope Francis, who earlier this year said, “the death penalty is an affront to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of the human person; it contradicts God’s plan for humankind and society and God’s merciful justice,” but it would also bring the catechism in line with itself.

The opening of the section discussing the death penalty reads: “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end” (No. 2258). In the spirit of the “seamless garment” approach to Christian ethics popularized by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernadin, we must affirm that either all life is sacred or no life is sacred. For this reason, I propose also that the catechism do away with the qualifier “innocent” when referring to human beings. While individuals may be guilty or innocent of a crime, all human life is sacred without qualification; there is neither innocent nor guilty life.

Those who commit heinous crimes deserve a just punishment, but the death penalty is anything but just. Given our circumstances, the catechism should be updated to reflect the Catholic tradition’s unequivocal defense of human life. Until then, we are still far from being pro-life.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Henry George
8 years 3 months ago
Fr. Horan, Could you please give your view(s) on: When/whether a policeman can "Shoot to Kill" a dangerous person ? Whether "Life in Prison" is a Christian Response to what any criminal had done ? Whether a irrevocably violent prisoner can be confined in Solitary until he is no longer capable of harming anyone ? What are we to make that one of the Criminals on the Crosses says that their punishments are just ( excluding Jesus ) and Jesus does not contradict them nor, as far as I know, did the Fathers of the Church ? What is Justice, if there is such a possibility among humans, when wanton murderers go on living at State expense while their victims remain dead and the on going lives of their family members are destroyed ? Since Death entered the world via Sin, killing others is a form of evil, so I agree with you.
Robert Lewis
8 years 3 months ago
Father Horan, Although I feel that I am almost as much against the death penalty as you are, and find it to be an almost-pagan deification of the State, as well as a much too-influential symbol of the sanguinary character of contemporary American culture, I am slightly more reluctant than you to see it removed from the tool-box of the State. I agree that it should almost never be used, and I agree that permanent incarceration is a more appropriate and "balanced" response to heinous crimes such as murder. However, I should still not wish to see this particular punishment removed as a symbol of the State's perquisite of protecting civil society. That means that I'd take it away from local governments, away from all American states and reserve its use to the central government of the United States and of all other countries. The reason is that there are some criminals--terrorists, mafiosi, etc.--who can, from inside prisons and jails, CONTINUE to threaten public safety. I suppose it's because of them that successive popes have declared that the sanction should almost never be imposed, but should not be ruled out absolutely and statutorily. However, I thoroughly respect your own and other Roman Catholic clerics' revulsion against this punishment, and suspect that your animus against it is largely due to the discriminatory, promiscuous and highly politicized manner in which it is applied and promoted inside the United States, and to the way it has been used to actually forestall criminal investigations that would have embarrassed law enforcement agencies--the most famous example of this being the precipitous execution of Timothy McVeigh, before he could have been compelled to reveal the accomplices of his who remain at large, and, now, the proposed execution of Dzokhar Tsarnaev, before the true extend of his involvement with his brother's nefarious project, as well as his brother's extensive association with the FBI and whatever connection that had to do with the Boston Marathon bombing, could be properly investigated. Too often, the death penalty becomes a sop to throw to the public to prove that law enforcement is actually serious about protecting John Q. Public when they are really only concerned to promote their political careers as well as to protect capitalist investment and enterprise.
Jennifer Jones
8 years 3 months ago
The Catechism is quite clear that the death penalty is practically speaking never justifiable within our contemporary modern context. It stands for life. But it also wisely guards against future unknowns. What if there is a catastrophe which wipes out order as we know it, what if there is colonization of other planets, etc. Perhaps those sound far fetched to some, but the wording is clear, pro-life and wise. To change the wording would be to pretend society will always be were we are today. Our teaching is never that near-sighted.
Richard Booth
8 years 3 months ago
To Mr. George, who asked the monk to answer numerous complex questions: Good heavens! You are asking the man to write far too many dissertations if he were to answer the questions fully!

The latest from america

To reach Catholics in the pews—and to influence public policy on immigration—church leaders should make it clear that they are not advocating for “open borders.”
J. Kevin ApplebySeptember 26, 2023
A Reflection for the Tuesday of the Twenty-fifth Week in Ordinary Time, by Ashley McKinless
Ashley McKinlessSeptember 26, 2023
In a self-described follow-up to his encyclical “Laudato Si,” Pope Francis plans to release a new environmental document to assess what has happened since 2015 and what more needs to be done.
OSV NewsSeptember 26, 2023
Migrants wait to be transferred from Lampedusa Island, Italy, on Sept. 15. Thousands of migrants and refugees have landed on the Italian island of Lampedusa this week after crossing the Mediterranean Sea on small unseaworthy boats from Tunisia, overwhelming local authorities and aid organizations. (AP Photo/Valeria Ferraro)
On his visit to Marseille last week, Pope Francis decried the “fanaticism of indifference” on the plight of migrants who risk their lives—and all too often lose them—in the attempt to reach Europe across the Mediterranean Sea.
Bridget RyderSeptember 25, 2023