The Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Evansville, Indiana Bishop Gerald A. Gettelfinger has an op-ed in today’s South Bend Tribune in which he pleads for the life of admitted killer Eric Wrinkles.
Wrinkles guilt is not an issue. This is no case of mistaken identity or any such thing. Bishop Gettelfinger instead makes the case that execution, while perhaps once justified in frontier times, is no longer necessary or proper.
Capital punishment demands the life of the criminal to protect the members of society. On the frontier of our own land many years ago, execution provided quick and final justice. That may have been necessary to protect its citizens then, as there were no means to separate the criminal from society for a lifetime. Protective custody was impossible.
Frontier justice became the standard for states to protect their residents from murderers by killing them. Frontier justice employs various means for killing criminals; they include hanging, firing squad, gas chamber or lethal injection. Quick justice utilized lynching outside the law. Death was the inevitable result. Society was protected.
It seems that we in the state of Indiana are still invoking frontier justice. Indiana is no longer the frontier. The state of Indiana is able to protect its residents from murderous criminals by separating them from society by sentencing them to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Indiana residents can be protected without executing criminals.
This is an important distinction for those who try to compare the death penalty to abortion. Abortion, of course, is an intrinsic evil and can never be justified. The death penalty might sometimes be justified for the protection of society, but the standard is rarely met in today’s modern society.
Bishop Gettelfinger correctly comments that the death penalty should not be used to satisfy a desire for revenge. As followers of Christ we are called to “not only to forgive our enemies but we are also to love them without approving the wrongs they have committed.”
As example, Bishop Gettelfinger cites Mary Winnecke of Evansville, the wife and mother of Wrinkles victims.
Winnecke continues to grieve the loss of her family. Nonetheless, Winnecke has not only forgiven Wrinkles, she urges that the state of Indiana not kill him. It solves nothing nor will it bring peace to her or others suffering from his heinous acts. She prays for Wrinkles.
Amen. As a conservative, I think it is high time that politicians of all stripes stop using the death penalty as their law & order credentials. The standard should be protecting society and justice, nothing less and certainly nothing more.
Update: Matthew here. I know this is highly irregular but I thought it was worth it to toss out an opinion here even though Patrick wrote the above post.
Let me make it clear, I am absolutely against the death penalty. It seems it used to be employed because detaining prisoners was very difficult, as the bishop said.
But I think many Catholics still are ok with the death penalty because keeping prisoners in prison seems to still be very difficult today but for very different reasons. Too many judges and parole boards consistently give hardened criminals short sentences or parole them out early.
I think many people see the death penalty as the only way to protect society from liberal judges and idiotic parole boards (or even clemency happy Governors).
December 10, 2009 at 2:32 pm
There is another consideration that people who are against the death penalty seem consistently and persistently to overlook: the imperative for secular governments to dispense justice.
There are some crimes so hideous that only the death penalty adequately satisfies the demands of justice. People–including Catholics, and perhaps especially including Catholics–used to remember this.
It is also worth remembering that no less authority than Joseph Ratzinger said that people were free to disagree with John Paul II's opposition to the death penalty, though they were not free to disagree with the Church's opposition to abortion.
Revenge is not the issue.
The issue is justice.
December 10, 2009 at 3:07 pm
"The standard should be protecting society and justice, nothing less and certainly nothing more."
You're making an interesting claim there concerning the nature of punishment, especially as applied in the criminal realm.
Would you be willing to expand on your ideas of punishment at greater length?
December 10, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Thank you, Anon, for injecting some common sense here. Let's consider this issue from the standpoint of the development of doctrine. On this moral matter, the Church's position cannot "evolve" to be the complete opposite of the position it has held for centuries, right?
And let us not besmirch retribution! Human beings are owed retribution, in a way that mirrors the retribution that God is owed (but, I suppose most people don't think of God in that "antiquated" way anymore). Theirs is a God of endless forbearance and who meets out no consequences, and we should imitate him in our justice by incarcerating people endlessly with gyms, cable TV, internet libraries, craft workshops and other complete nonsense, until they bide their time and commit their crimes afresh on a new group of victims.
Thomas Aquinas held that sin calls for the deprivation of some good, such as, in serious cases, the good of temporal or even eternal life. By consenting to the punishment of death, the wrongdoer is placed in a position to expiate his evil deeds and escape punishment in the next life. After noting this, St. Thomas adds that even if the malefactor is not repentant, he is benefited by being prevented from committing more sins.
No matter what the vogue ideas are about capital punishment, the Church maintains that it is licit, thankfully. My children and I do not owe the criminals that seek to rape and murder us a lifetime of maintenance through force of the state.
December 10, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Murder somebody and a bishop will plead for your life. Be a victim of priestly abuse and a bishop will ignore you, downplay your suffering and hope you go away.
December 10, 2009 at 5:39 pm
The movement to abolish the death penalty needs the religious community because the heart of religion is about compassion, human rights, and the indivisible dignity of each human person made in the image of Godfeast of tabernacles
December 10, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Dymphna, that is a pretty baseless and ignorant statement. There are many bishops who acted responsibly to the abuse crisis, and you know it.
Back to sanity, I am against the death penalty insomuch as I am Catholic. Meaning, I personally come from a culture which values revenge and honor over church teaching (culture vs religion). And I can also say my family was victim to homicidal violence when I was a child, so I can speak about this first hand.
My personal view is that Bishop Gerald does have a point, and I supported that for decades. But the reality is that in the US the prison system is at a breaking point; "overcrowded" is an understatement. The only "good" prisons, where prisoners and society can both remain safe are Federal, such as AdMax (where the likes of terrorist Ramzey Yusuf and the Unibomber are kept). The ratio of guards to prisoners is more than adequate and contact with the outside world is minimal, if not absent completely.
But the sad fact is the Federal system is unsustainable, and the vast majority of state prisons are effectively run by the prisoners themselves. In many cases, prisoners order "hits" on victims in and out of the prison, run drug operations (again, in and out) as well as play the system to get possible early release, regardless of the extent of their crimes. So, unfortunately, at this point in society we are still not at a point where we can do without the death penalty, IMHO (and no disrespect to the good Bishop) since we can't protect the public at large from prisoners inside the system. When ALL prisons are run like AdMax, we will be able to make that jump as Europe has done. But we're really a long way off.
December 10, 2009 at 6:49 pm
While I have no opinion either way about the current application of the death penalty, I am certain that Catholic tradition upholds the right of the State to put criminals to death.
Of course the opposition of John Paul II and many bishops to the death penalty does not contradict the tradition. They have claimed and are claiming that while it is theoretically justified, in these particular circumstances it is not.
I do have a problem, however, with the common interpretation of the idea in the catechism that the death penalty should only be used when necessary to protect society.
This is usually interpreted as an adoption of a purely utilitarian idea about physical incapacitation. If that were the case it would wipe away the long history of Catholic belief in the retributive purpose of justice. Thus even if it is not necessary to physically defend society from a criminal it nonetheless might be necessary to morally defend society, by enacting retribution and justice and restoring the disorder that the criminal created through his evil act.
I wish the bishops would explain to us why, in even the most grievous cases, life imprisonment protects society morally and in a retributive sense in such a way that the death penalty is not necessary.
December 10, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Anonymous, there is no way anyone on this earth can match or even comprehend the plan God has for us. History is full of former criminals, saints among them, who went from murder to redemption. St Paul and St Moses the Black are two examples which spring to mind. Not even a bishop can know the path of someone who commits evil, so the issue of retribution is superfluous in a secular society with secular laws and secular punishments. God's will be done, now and always.
December 10, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Given the trends in our society, my real fear is that we are set on a course that will seem to necessitate a much more generous application of the death penalty.
We have the highest percentage of our population in the prision system of any country in the world. Tax receipts are falling dramatically. Prison populations are becoming increasingly hardened. There is less and less room for the petty criminal, and therefore less and less protection for society.
Since we as a society are in effective agreement that all the many elements that contribute to the breakdown of the family and the criminalization of our populace (pornography, no fault divorce, godless schools etc, etc etc) are necessary to a free society (what irony!), we are rapidly coming to the point when we will either have to massively expand the prison system through something resembling concentration camps or apply the death penalty much more liberally. My guess is that we will opt for the latter.
As for the position of the pope and the Church in the face of this conundrum, before Sixtus V was elected pope, Rome and environs were the playground of many bands of criminals. Shortly after he was elected, Rome awoke one morning to the Ponte Sant'Angelo decorated with the heads of many of these miscreants on pikes. Problem solved.
Different times call for different remedies, apparently.
December 10, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Early Riser,
As far as God's plan for people, it is true that many murderers may repent and we want to give them an opportunity. But, first of all capital punishment MAY expedite their conversion through fear of impending death. Secondly, just because they repent does not mean that they don't deserve to die. They still have a debt to pay to society for justice's sake.
I am sympathetic to your second point about retribution being superfluous in a secular society. I find it hard to think that our government which only nominally recognizes God in theory and constantly rejects his existence in fact, should have the power to distribute divine justice on earth. But Scripture and Tradition tells us that such a sympathy borders on heresy. In Romans St Paul tells us that even pagan Rome had a right and duty to punish even to the point of death.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a death penalty proponent (I'm undecided on its application). I just want to make sure that we are not scrapping our tradition on this important issue.
-Anthony (formerly anonymous)
December 10, 2009 at 8:32 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
December 10, 2009 at 8:34 pm
"I think many people see the death penalty as the only way to protect society from liberal judges and idiotic parole boards (or even clemency happy Governors)."
Amen to that. You state perfectly my own reasons for support of the death penalty. Take those problems away and I'll be standing in protest outside Huntsville the next time they get ready to give someone the needle.
As for the issue of revenge? Since deathbed conversions are always possible (St. Dismas comes immediately to mind.) I'd say revenge is better satisfied by the murderer rotting for a very long time in some penitentiary before going to his reward.
Thats why I've always said if they catch the guy who murdered my brother I'd want him to get life without parole. I'd visit him at least once a year just to update him on my life, how my kids are doing, the price of the prime rib I'd just eaten and it's tenderness, etc.
Then I'd ask how life without parole was working out.
December 10, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Subvet – we are so likeminded there one everything you said it's scarey.
Anthony – I'm not dismissing the concept of retribution. But the concept itself is fluid. What was the retribution prescribed in the Old Testament? Death for pretty much everything from murder to adultry. What did Our Lord show and tell us specifically? Forgiveness. This does not take the place of retribution, but it does potentially alter the form. In medieval times, if a family member was murdered, the murderer would often be ordered to make retribution by working for the family menially for a set period. If you were a subsistance farmer, you needed all the manpower you could get, so this was real retribution. Once again, these are all hypotheticals since we both agree the state is the decider here in our society, not the church. And neither I, nor anyone else I see here is arguing the state does not have this authority to do so.
December 11, 2009 at 2:24 am
I find it disturbing that not only are many European countries opposed to the death penalty, they don't even want life imprisonment as an option anymore: http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Viewpoints/071112_en.asp That, to me, is not protecting society from the criminal; it's elevating his rights over those of the victim. For that reason, I as a Catholic support the death penalty without reservation.
December 11, 2009 at 3:25 am
Early Riser, I highly suspect that it is our poorly run government that creates a horrible prison system much more than an natural overcrowding. Meaning, politicians would rather make themselves rich than deal with these problems.
What's harder, to run a hotel with ammentities, room service, and housekeeping, or a prison system were everyone just more or less sits around?
I think as a society it's more our "It's so icky, sweep it under the rug" mentality than shipping in cheap food, structure, and labor at this point.
After all, the reason we have so many homeless now is because we shut down mental hospitals in the 50's because "it's just so icky."
Plus the whole, "Save every soul with millions of dollars in therapy and hugs!" thing. I dunno. I find it all suspicious. I do think it just boils down to the "Kill them and do God's venegance for Him." A tempting thought, but one we shouldn't indulge.
December 11, 2009 at 5:41 am
William – I can't say I haven't wished the same thing you wrote in that last line during my own moments of dispair. And yes, the prison system is in fact big business; each state has hundreds of millions of dollars invested in contracts; food, building, heat, clothing even cable TV. It is not efficient because contractors are turning a profit of course. Just like in our military, our brave fighting men and women on the front lines receive only a pittance in salary compared to private contractors for doing similar work (with far better weapons and protection I might add). The same is with the guards in the prison system, who earn a very negligeable salary compared to private contractors associated with it.
Yes, the system is very broken all around. And like we have been saying before, it really is unsustainable which is why more and more prisoners are seeing early parole.
December 11, 2009 at 7:21 am
Orthodox Catholics can legitimately support capital punishment in such cases.
So Bishop Gettelfinger shouldn't pontificate as if this wasn't an option.
Or, at the least, he should have pointed out that this is his personal opinion, not Church teaching.
Felix
December 11, 2009 at 11:28 am
"Early Riser said…
Dymphna, that is a pretty baseless and ignorant statement. There are many bishops who acted responsibly to the abuse crisis, and you know it."
I know of one in the '50s. Do you know of more than that? The Jay study demonstrated that over 60% of Bishops were willing to continue sacrificing other people's children as long as they could. JPII set this example for them with his continual protection of Cardinal Groer. Do you know some actual FACTS that demonstrate otherwise? Please provide and cite sources.
December 11, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Anon, while Early Riser may take the classic "Give me every fact in the woooorld" debate, I hope ER doesn't. I'll tell you that my parish takes child abuse very, very seriously and we all submit to background checks and SAFE procedures for the sake of our children. But you're obviously coming from a hurt place, so I'll say a prayer for you. And I'll admit that the Catholic Church made some very, very grave mistakes in the 80's and 90's. Not anything more than the general population and the government I'm sure you love so much, but what? Shut up? Fine.
Anyway, very good points, Early Riser. Terrifying, but very good. And trust me, I'm right there with you. I'm not the namby-bamby "Jesus hugs!" kind of guy, the vengeance of God is very important to me. It's just really hard to know when you're truly enacting it. Often times at work when I swear I'm right, knowledgeable and true, I turn out to be crazy wrong. And that's just the petty stuff. So the big? Tough stuff.
And while acts of charity might not "work" at least the only thing lost is a little time and money.
December 11, 2009 at 8:32 pm
It seems appropriate to share something I wrote back at my place about Maurice Clemmons and Mike Huckabee: I hope you won't mind my plagiarizing myself…
"Very briefly (since this isn't my post), it is no sin for a Catholic judge and jury to condemn a murderer to death, if justice requires it. In a healthy society, punishing the crime and forgiving the criminal are not exclusive or contradictory; nor does it preclude the possibility that the criminal will repent and accept the penalty for his crime as reparation. (Luke 23:40-43)
Pope John Paul II wrote that capital punishment is unnecessary, if a lesser punishment will both fully satisfy justice and fully safeguard society from a criminal. Unfortunately we see that this is not always the case, especially when magistrates ignore their God-given duties through misplaced priorities. So we see that the opposite of a healthy society, where punishment and forgiveness each find their proper function, is an unhealthy and dangerous society, where the two are mixed to the ruin of both: the crime goes unpunished, and the guilty, not being held to account, too easily returns to crime, seeing no need to change.
Where we can't tell the difference between civic punishment of one's deeds and Christian forgiveness and repentance of the responsible party, we are not thinking clearly. The price is in the needless suffering of the innocent; indeed, even the unjust suffering of the guilty. Maurice Clemmons, instead of being able to consider and repent of his prior sins, was turned loose to commit more, and then shot down like a cornered wild animal. It's a small consideration when you think of the four police officers he murdered, but it is still a valid consideration: one Huckabee didn't make in pardoning him."
I think now that I oversimplified John Paul the Great's writings (and he could dance rings around me philosophically and theologically in any case), but my point hopefully still holds.