Respect Life

Submitted on October 04, 2001

Send to friend When the U.S. Supreme Court refused this week to reconsider the life imprisonment sentence of Terry Nichols, Timothy McVeigh's co-conspirator in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, they may have done a valuable service for the pro-life cause. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals still could decide to grant a retrial based on the FBI's belated release of evidence. But barring some demonstration of new evidence vindicating Nichols, he needs to stay in jail all his life. Society has a right to its self-defense from his evil acts. He has an opportunity to repent of his heinous crime. Government has a responsibility to defend us from him. The Catholic Church's clear teaching against capital punishment, as elaborated in the 1997 modifications to the catechism, acknowledges this right of society to protect itself from criminals. "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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"(Catechism of the Catholic Church #2267, 1997 modifications from "Editio Typica"). As long as Nichols is deemed "guilty," and if he stays locked up, we must not take his life. Here, also, the catechism is clear, "If non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means." These measures - life imprisonment of an apprehended and tried perpetrator - are, according to the catechism, in keeping with "the concrete conditions of the common good" and more aptly respect "the dignity of the human person." The Church's precise rationale for this first became clear in Pope John Paul II's encyclical on "the Gospel of Life," when he concluded that the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are rare, if not practically non-existent"(#56). There is a vital continuity between the fundamental pro-life issues of abortion and euthanasia and other pro-life issues - capital punishment included. This significant connection is most often signaled using terms such as "the seamless garment" or "the consistent ethic of life." But there are differences, equally significant. Abortion and euthanasia are the foundation of our respect for life because they (and some other acts, for example, the destruction of human embryos) are intrinsically evil. They are the direct taking of an innocent human life. They are never morally tolerable. Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. We might say it is "circumstantially evil." When the circumstance of justice prevails that assures society can be protected by a secure and lasting detention, then execution is unnecessary, cruel and seriously evil. In their 1998 statement "Living the Gospel of Life," the U. S. bishops tell us that "adopting a consistent ethic of life, the Catholic Church promotes a broad spectrum of issues." We must work against poverty and injustice, "resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment" (#23). "But," the bishops go on to emphasize, "being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. ... If we understand the human person as the living house of God, then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation." On this Respect Life Sunday, when our attention is understandably focused on legitimate self-defense of the innocent here and abroad, let us never forget to speak out with fervent faith and insistent unity for the thousands who continue to die defenselessly in our midst each day. When the foundation is established on rock, the walls will stand secure as well.