 |
|
A case in point: The November 10, 2006 edition of the Gulf Pine Catholic, the newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, contained a CNS article by Cindy Wooden entitled "Vatican official says death penalty for Saddam would be wrong." The entire article quotes Catholic Cardinal Renato Martino as having made the statement, "For me, to punish a crime with another crime, such as killing out of vengeance, means that we are still at the state of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Ms. Wooden also claimed that the cardinal said something to the effect that "Evangelium Vitae" ("The Gospel of Life") and the Catechism of the Catholic Church teach that modern societies have the means to protect citizens from the threat of a murderer without resorting to execution, and quoted him as saying, "God has given us life, and only can God take it away... the death sentence is not a natural death... Life is a gift that the Lord has given us, and we must protect it from conception until natural death... Unfortunately, Iraq is among the few countries that has not yet made the choice of civility by abolishing the death penalty."
Ms. Wooden also quoted Jesuit Father Michele Simone, assistant director of "a Vatican reviewed magazine," as saying, among other remarkable things, "In a situation like that of Iraq, where hundreds are, in fact, condemned to death each day...adding one more does not help anything." She went on to assert that Fr. Simone claimed that "to save a life -- which does not mean accepting what Saddam Hussein did -- is always positive."
I think that the average person reading this article, or its title, would conclude that the article shows that the Catholic Church necessarily disagrees with hanging Saddam.
Wrong!
First of all, Cardinal Martino is not quoted as saying " the death penalty for Saddam would be wrong." He may have said that, but the article doesn't say he said it. I can't find such a statement anywhere. I tried but failed to find the interview referenced on the Internet. It may not matter, since it's probably written in Italian, which I don't read.
I'm going out on a limb here and assume, for the sake of argument, that Ms. Wooden got her quotes right, in which case it is clear that the good cardinal was expressing his own personal opinion ("for me") and not that of the Church. He was also careful to refer to a hypothetical situation, namely, "killing out of vengeance," and "punishing a crime with another crime." You shoot my kid, I shoot yours. That kind of thing. Nobody I know of in the Catholic Church claims that execution of the death penalty by civil authority constitutes a crime, although the official position of the Church has changed to regard it as a moral wrong. Some Catholics claim that it's vengeance, which it often is (and in the case of Saddam's executioners' personal feelings probably was), but it doesn't have to be. Indeed (at the time), the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2266, specifically stated:
"Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty."The "gravity" of Saddam's crimes certainly appears to me, and to the Iraqi people, to be "extreme."
The Catechism went on to say, in paragraph 2267, "If (emphasis mine) bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means..."
I personally saw an interview with an Iraqi gentleman who claimed that "Saddam has wiggled out of such situations before." I think it reasonable to assume that the Ba'ath party insurgents would continue to fight on until all hope of Saddam regaining power and rewarding them copiously for their steadfast faith in him was gone. This could only reasonably be expected to happen if he's definitely known to be morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, absolutely, positively, undeniably and reliably dead!
Meaning no disrespect to the good cardinal, the statement "God has given us life, and only can God take it away" is misleading. Maybe he was misquoted, or maybe what he meant is that only God should take it away, but taking life away does not involve divine intervention. It's entirely natural to die when your spine is broken apart at the neck, which is what hanging does.
Incidentally, "Evangelium Vitae" does not teach that "modern societies have the means to protect citizens from the threat of a murderer without resorting to execution." What it says in paragraph 27 is:
"Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime (my emphasis) by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform."It goes on to say in paragraph 56:
"It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society..."It doesn't appear to me that sentencing Saddam to be hanged was a case of "rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform." Saddam had all the chance he needed to reform and, after appeal was denied, a deadline for doing it. In fact, he apparently did just that. I watched the video of his execution, and it seemed to me that he was surprised when the trap door sprang open and he plunged to his death. However, I find it inspiring that his last mortal act was to reaffirm his faith in God. Requiescat in pace!
"The nature and extent of the punishment" in this case seems to have been "carefully evaluated and decided upon" by a court constituted and appointed by his countrymen to do precisely that. If this is not a case of "executing the offender [in a case] of absolute necessity," I don't know what is. How would it be "possible otherwise to defend society" against a brutal dictator who continued to inspire wanton murder and mayhem on a catastrophic scale by his very existence? One could argue that the Iraqis will never know whether hanging Saddam was the best of all possible choices, but they in fact could not avoid the sure and certain tragic consequences of doing nothing because of fear of making the wrong one. Is Iraq better off with Saddam dead? Somebody has the moral obligation to decide! Who better than those most at risk from his continued existence.
That Saddam's execution was carried out by political enemies who appeared to be motivated by hatred and revenge detracts not at all from the legitimate function of the state whose agents they were, however temporarily. Hatred of anyone is never morally defensible, but if a person wants to kill another, finding a way to do it legally is not necessarily immoral. And, according to news reports, tens of thousands of Iraqis passionately pleaded to have a part in hanging Saddam.
Father Michele Simone's remarks are notably irrelevant. Even if he is associated with "a Vatican reviewed magazine," it is not a logical conclusion that the Vatican agrees with him. "The Vatican" might be as annoyed with his culpably naive remarks as I am. How can anyone suggest that Saddam's death by hanging as the execution of a court-imposed sentence would be simply "adding one more?" I think if he's going to suggest that saving Saddam's life was a positive thing, given the truly horrible likely consequences of doing so, he needs some pretty convincing justification!
In their non-binding, non-infallible statements about capital punishment, Catholic clergy appear simply to ignore the sacred duty the state has to protect its citizens from vicious predators by the most effective moral means. They seem to equate this sovereign responsibility with retribution or revenge or vengeance, and disregard the fact that the choice is rarely between the life or death of one criminal. The fact is, it is almost always between shortening the life of one treacherous murderer or endangering the lives of several, or tens, or hundreds or thousands (or tens or hundreds of thousands, or millions or tens of millions) of innocent potential victims. In the United States, for example, 42,598 victims are murdered, or raped, or assaulted, or robbed for every convicted felon who is put to death. What the bishops are saying is that this ratio should be higher, preferably infinite! But regardless of the bishops' focus, they cannot legitimately deny that it is the teaching of the Church that the state has a moral responsibility in this regard, just as preachers of the Gospel have a moral responsibility not to confuse their own conflicting opinions with the Word of God.
I and other Catholics are certainly free to disagree with the editorially independent opinions of other people, including Mrs. Martino's son Renato, Mrs. Simone's son, Michael and, for that matter, Ms. Wooden's daughter, Cindy. Since they publicly have been represented, at least by implication, as expressing the teaching of the Catholic Church which, in this instance, they do not, we are obligated to do so. It is a cross which I would prefer not to bear, but doing nothing is all that is required for evil to triumph. I am against evil; it isn't nice!
My views on punishment in general, which I believe conform to Catholic (if not popular) doctrine, are on record.
One wonders why Cardinal Martino and Fr. Simone made their remarks at all. They couldn't possibly believe that the Iraqi government was going to be swayed by them. Claiming that the Iraqis are doing, or are planning to do, or did, something "wrong" only exacerbates the conflict between Christianity and Islam that is pushing the entire world to the brink of madness. My personal opinion is that if they don't have anything positive to say, they should just shut up! I note that Cardinal Martino, who was in favor of Saddam's trial (if not its sentence) has been described as a "loose cannon" in the curia, whose statements to the press have created "serious difficulties for the Vatican authorities, as a result of which he was previously silenced by Vatican authorities."
Another report claimed that "When Saddam Hussein was captured, the Italian prelate accused coalition forces of treating him 'like a beast,' and said that he felt 'compassion' for the deposed ruler, and that Hussein should not face the death penalty." Did Cardinal Martino really believe that the court would sentence Saddam to a stern talking-to and then let him go? His comments at that time were reportedly so strong that a senior Vatican official took the unusual step of telling reporters that the cardinal was not speaking for Pope John Paul II."
He's not speaking for the Catholic Church, either, and the GPC shouldn't lead people to believe that he is. Ms. Wooden is perhaps a victim of the bias against death and destruction peculiar to her gender, but purveyors of Catholic news have an obligation not only to report what is true, but in a way that readers aren't misled into believing otherwise!
Having said all that, I hasten to admit that since Saddam's execution, the rules have changed. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2267 now says:
"2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.A reasonable person would probably assume, from the changes in the wording and meaning of the text, that putting Saddam Hussein to death as punishment for his past crimes is now forbidden by Church doctrine, and I agree, whether or not the People and Republic of Iraq do or did likewise. There is, however, another consideration. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2265 now says:"Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
"Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person", [Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization 11 October 2017] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."
"2265. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm..."
I believe that Saddam Hussein represented a clear and present danger to the stability and welfare of Iraq by his very existence. The people of that country, through the instrumentality of their judicial system, decided that the best course of action for their "legitimate defense," the "absolute necessity" to assure the common good of their society and to render Saddam absolutely "unable to cause harm," was to put an end to the life of this evil, evil man. No doubt with great reluctance, the official teaching of the Catholic Church supports their right to make that decision, and to carry it out.
So do I!