|
Archbishop Thomas A. Donnellan and the Right Reverend Bennett
J. Sims, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta, have issued the following
Pastoral Letter dealing with the restoration of the death penalty by recent
action of the Supreme Court of the United States:
To the Christian People of Georgia in the Roman Catholic
Archdiocese of Atlanta and the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ:
As bishops representing two Christian traditions in the State of
Georgia, we join in a Pastoral Letter to our brothers and sisters in Christ.
The prompting issue is the restoration of the death penalty by recent action of
the Supreme Court of the United States.
First of all, we acknowledge that Christians of earnest conscience
disagree on the issue. The appropriateness of the death penalty as applied to
certain kinds of criminal behavior arouses contrary views among equally
concerned Christians. Our pastoral intent is to honor our freedom in Christ to
exercise moral judgment in response to social realities and come to different
conclusions.
As to the issue itself, we approach it from two angles: the
practical and the theological. In order to support the death penalty for any
crime, we would have to be persuaded of its appropriateness in both categories.
Coming at it practically, we need to rely on the judgment of those
more knowledgeable than we in the sociology of crime and punishment. The
Supreme Court has reversed an earlier decision, now judging the death penalty
constitutional, clearing it of illegality as cruel and unusual. Others favor it
on the argument that the death penalty exercises a strong deterrent influence
upon the criminal, and therefore carries with it a derivative benefit to
society in protecting against violent crime. This seems to us the principal
practical argument advanced in its favor. But there is a wide variety of
opinion among experts, and no clear statistical evidence that the death penalty
does inhibit violence. Some evidence even suggests a contrary result. For
example, we have learned that the state of Delaware abolished the death penalty
in 1958 and restored it in 1961. A reliable study shows that both the number
and percentage of people convicted of murder during the period of no death
penalty was in fact lower than the number of percentage convicted either before
or after restoration.
The marshalling of statistical evidence on this issue leads at
best to ambiguous conclusions. It appears to us that, as the Supreme Court
itself could not render a unanimous opinion on the constitutionality of the
death penalty, so there is not unanimity of view among criminologists and
sociologists as to its effectiveness as a crime inhibitor. Accordingly we judge
and evidence on the practical line of approach to be inconclusive and therefore
unsupportive of a definitive stand one way or the other.
We move now to the theological view. Here we rely on a sharing of
our Christian training and tradition. This tradition itself does not offer
clear and unequivocal grounds for rejecting the death penalty at all times and
in all places. Yet it appears to us that strong and unequivocal opposition to
the death penalty would be a legitimate development in the moral sensitivity of
Christians and the moral teaching of the Church. Four considerations seem
persuasive and move us to oppose the death penalty.
First is the intrinsic value and sacredness of human life
a
value inherent to the Gospel of One who gave His own life as a sacrifice for
the entire human family. We judge this to be the value underlying the ancient
commandment that forbids the deliberate killing of another human being.
Second, we hold that the Christian meaning and purpose of
punishment is reformatory, not vindictive. Vengeance is morally inadmissible on
Christian grounds. Our Scriptures are explicit in declaring vengeance to
Gods prerogative, not humanitys. And because Jesus Christ warned of
Gods judgment in terms of Gods love, we hold the meaning of
vengeance in Gods use of it to be just and redemptive.
Third, the violent taking of one human life to serve notice on
other lives seems decidedly cruel. This represents that misuse of life. It has
led to gross discrimination in actual practice, violating our equal value as
persons, since the victims are invariably from among the poor, the oppressed or
the disadvantaged. Moreover, it cannot be anything but counter-productive as
public education. If, as we commonly hold, the most persuasive instructor is
the power of example, then it surely must be clear that killing teaches only
the permissibility of taking human life, not the value of preserving it.
Finally, in theological terms, we hold that the divine law of love
relates to humanity as a lure and a goal. We have made our way very slowly
toward more just and compassionate treatment of one another in the human family
as we have advanced through history. The social structures of compassion have
emerged gradually, but they have emerged. The abolition of the death penalty,
like recent civil rights gains, seems to us such a forward move. In terms, its
restoration is a backward step. Perhaps its most devastating effect on its
victims is to remove, in this life, the noblest possibility that beckons every
human being: that personal transaction of penitence, restoration and a new
beginning as a claim upon Gods open promise to us all in Jesus Christ.
That there should be punishment of crime, we hold to be
self-evident. That the punishment should fit both the crime and the criminal,
we hold to be the steadfast aim of our courts of law. That there should be no
lawful way to kill another human being, we hold to be one of the noble meanings
of the law of love by which Gods sovereignty is expressed in human
affairs.
In the name and power of Christ, we send greetings to each
others people, commending one anothers Churches to God for His use
as communities of reconciliation and healing in a stricken world.
Most Reverend Thomas A. Donnellan, Archbishop of Atlanta
The Right Reverend Bennett J. Sims, Bishop Episcopal Diocese of
Atlanta |