Danielle:

Good for you!  And don’t be deterred by monomaniacs who care more for some abstract theory than they do about an actual penitent human being whom they insist on killing in the service of their theory and their obsession with rejecting the common sense teaching of the Magisterium.  Keep up the good work and ignore the data-dumping trolls who live to suck the oxygen out of comboxes.  Your moral instincts are sound.  The response of Jesus to the penitent is mercy.  The response of the death-obsessed ideologue is “KILL!”  I’ll go with Jesus and the Church.

As far as I’m aware no one on this ‘blog was involved with her sentencing or now has the authority to spare her life so aside from praying for her soul, I’m not sure there’s a whole lot any of us can do. I don’t see that as being monomaniacal or overly concerned with theory—just a statement of fact.

Mark Shea with his personal attacks and no contribution. Well done.

OK, Mark, you don’t like the comments of the Pope, Cardinal Dulles or Father De Celles.

What about these?

God: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

The Holy Spirit: God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit - to God - through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

The Word of God: Numbers 35:16-21. Note the words “shall” and “surely”. What do you think they mean?
‘But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. ‘If he struck him down with a stone in the hand, by which he will die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. ‘Or if he struck him with a wooden object in the hand, by which he might die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. ‘The blood avenger himself shall put the murderer to death; he shall put him to death when he meets him. ‘If he pushed him of hatred, or threw something at him lying in wait and as a result he died, or if he struck him down with his hand in enmity, and as a result he died, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death, he is a murderer; the blood avenger shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.

Here is the full context http://nasb.scripturetext.com/numbers/35.htm

———————————————————————

Some lesser New Testament scholars

Saint Paul, in his hearing before Festus, states: “if then I am a wrong doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die.” Acts 25:11.

St. Augustine: “The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, for the representative of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to the Law or the rule of rational justice.” The City of God, Book 1, Chapter 21

St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions “frivolous”, citing Exodus 22:18, “wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live”. Unequivocally, he states,” The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state.” (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. In addition to the required punishment for murder and the deterrence standards, both Saints find that executing murderers is also an act of charity and mercy. Saint Augustine confirms that ” . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on.” (On the Lord’s Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)

Saint Thomas Aquinas finds that ” . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6 ad 2.)

St. Thomas Aquinas: “If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.” Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.

“St. Thomas Aquinas quotes a gloss of St. Jerome on Matthew 27: “As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty.” As Prof. Michael Pakaluk writes: “If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins and crucified among thieves.” ” That Christ be put to death as a guilty person, presupposes that death is a fitting punishment for those who are guilty.” The Death Penalty: An Opposing Viewpoints Series Book, Greenhaven Press, (hereafter TDP:OVS), 1991

Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.

Christians who speak out against capital punishment in deserving cases ” . . . tend to subordinate the justice of God to the love of God. . . . Peter, by cutting off Malchu’s ear,. . . was most likely trying to kill the soldier (John 18:10)”, prompting ” . . . Christ’s statement that those who kill by the sword are subject to die by the sword (Matthew 26:51-52).” This ” implicitly recognizes the government’s right to exercise the death penalty.” Dr. Carl F.H.Henry, “A Matter of Life and Death”, p 52 Christianity Today, 8/4/95.

Fascinating comments!  Starkly indeed is the justice as yesterday we saw the pretty little princess on television escape jail when found carrying cocaine.  There should be a survey done on how many people are serving IN jail for the same crime presently, without having any means to return to society afterward, like she does.  Often the justice in our nation, is the criminal.  Life is not fair?

I agree with Dudley Sharp’s argument and the argument of St THomas Aquinas. I have no guilt about approving the death penalty-nor bad conscience for doing so. What about accountability and punishment?
This is her punishment and should have been for her crime partners. It is good that she regrets what she did and probably getting caught to boot.
She is guilty and now she has time to prepare her soul for eternity.
May the Lord have mercy on her.

JP2’s humanist personal opinions do not equal magisterial teaching even if they’re printed in a Catechism. The Pope has no power to redefine Catholic Moral Doctrine in a way that contradicts the constant teaching of the Church. Read your Vatican I.

Nothing in Evangelium Vitae contradicts the teaching of the Church.

It is good that she regrets what she did and probably getting caught to boot.

KILL!  KILL! KILL!  She’s not really penitent!  She’s just sorry she got caught!

I’ll take John Paul’s mercy over this inhuman stuff any day.  Liberals ain’t the only people in line in the cafeteria.

In all fairness, only a handful of executions take place each year, while a million abortions are performed.

The death penalty has two good occurances, one: that person will never kill again whether outside the prison walls or within them.  The second is the person who gets the lethal injection has time to prepare their soul to meet God, time which that killer did not give her victims.
She knows the date and time of her death, she knows it will be painless and she knows if she is ‘really ’ sorry for her killings that God in his Infinite mercy and goodness will find a place for her in His Kingdom.
I wish we all could be so blessed.
Since the state has the right to empty their prisons of people who drain society of money for the care and maintainence of prisoners, who do harm, then I say let the state do what they need to do to keep order within their state.
Let God do what He does; the rest of us not only don’t have no authority to question the situation but we certainly need to let go and let God.
In the end it really doesn’t matter, we are all going to die some day and getting old frail and non functioning after you lead a good and decent life;I say this as my Dad is terminal, it’s just a matter of days and quite frankly its not such a lovely way to go either).

When Mark Shea says that liberals aren’t the only ones in line at the cafeteria, is he talking about Thomas Aquinas? Even good men sometimes ride a high horse. This is not a magesterial teaching when the life taken is not an innocent life.

Dan:

Appealing to St. Thomas in order to overturn Evangelium Vitae is like appealing to him to overturn the Immaculate Conception.  Take a little time and learn from Blessed John Henry Newman about development of doctrine.  When the Pope teaches in an encyclical, our task is to learn, not to call it his humanist personal opinion.  Catholics who brag about their fidelity to the Magisterium should know this.

Mark Shea writes on Wednesday, Sep 22, 2010 12:41 PM (EST):“Nothing in Evangelium Vitae contradicts the teaching of the Church.”

There are some that may disagree.

2) Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.

“There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.” “Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.” (2)

“Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium.” (2)

“Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity.” ” . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).” (2)

2) “Capital Punishment: New Testament Teaching”, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., 1998
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm

Mark Shea writes on Wednesday, Sep 22, 2010 12:41 PM (EST):

Pat writes: It is good that she regrets what she did and probably getting caught to boot.

Mark replies: KILL!  KILL! KILL!  She’s not really penitent!  She’s just sorry she got caught!

Mark is most uncharitable, as well as cynical, when understanding would have been better.

Mark couldn’t see past his own rage, Had he done so, he would see that Pat thought it was a good thing that the murderer was caught and that she was penitent “and now she has time to prepare her soul for eternity.”

Pat finishes: “May the Lord have mercy on her.”

In other words, the direct opposite of Mark’s sad cynicism.

Mark, I am distressed at your sad analogy. The Immaculate Conception is a defuined dogma. The use of capital punishment is not. But the right of capital punishment has always been affirmed, from the Holy Spirit in Gen.9:6 through Jesus, Paul, popes, theologians, and the current holder of Peter’s chair. You seem to have missed the concept that Pius XII enunciates harkening back to the citation from Genesis: the murderer has forfeited his right to life by denying life to another

She should have been put to death 8 years ago. The idea that her alleged repentance somehow entitles her to continue living is ridiculous.

One more thing: The fact that the death penalty is consonant with Catholic moral doctrine is so obvious that only a sinister ideologue—or a hand-wringing old woman—could claim otherwise. I have no problem with any Pope who wishes, in his capacity as Holy Father, to urge clemency for all. But bishops, priests, and ragamuffin bloggers who claim that the death penalty is intrinsically evil are just idiots. Yes, all of them.

Larry, the fact that the death penalty can be consonant with Catholic moral doctrine is not being disputed here. What is being disputed is whether the death penalty in these particular circumstances is consonant with Catholic moral doctrine.

And I am trying to figure out which you might have meant for me in your post above—a hand-wringing old woman or a ragamuffin blogger ... Either way, ouch.

Nobody (and certainly no bishop) is saying the death penalty is intrinsically immoral.  We just discussed this.  I am, however, saying that the bloodlust behind statements like “She should have been put to death 8 years ago. The idea that her alleged repentance somehow entitles her to continue living is ridiculous” is ugly.  I hope you find more mercy in your penitence than you extend to other penitents, Larry.

If the wretch, Teresa, has truly repented, then she has already obtained mercy and will find it when she encounters the Lord. I am making the claim, without a drop of bloodlust, that a sane society would have sent her to that Throne long, long ago. She persists in this world only because we have sold the administration of justice over to a caste of scoundrels who go by the name of ‘lawyers’. (Ambrose Bierce defined a lawyer as ‘one skilled in the circumvention of the law’.)

Finally, bishops and priests all over the country routinely tell their flocks that the death penalty is either contrary to Catholic teaching or else (in a truly lawyerly maneuver) that “circumstances no longer require its use.” The comparison is often made to abortion, which is a device so low and deliberately misleading as to warrant, perhaps, a stint in the hoosegow.

I am in favor of the death penalty, but for only certain cases.  Ted Bundy and some serial killers come in mind because many times they can’t be reformed and worse they escape, as the recent inmates of Arizona did, one killing two innocent people.  Also child killers—the have no real remorse and if they escape, more children may be molested or murdered.

This lady seems to me not one of these killers, but sorry or not I think she should get life.  Perhaps during this time she could learn some craft or something that could help other people.

The two that only got a lesser sentence should have been given a much worse sentence.  That said, good thoughtful column.

I have seen theological arguments from the authority of the Church on this blog.  I have seen arguments from the CCC (not quite as strong) on this blog.  What I have not seen is a philosophical / theological explanation one way or the other about why it is permissible or not.  It seems that it would be difficult to say that killing is always wrong, for a number of reasons.  Now, whether or not the state has the authority to inflict death as a punishment is a different question.  That seems to have been answer authoritatively by the Church in the affirmative.  Now, the question at hand is whether or not in today’s legal system the death penalty is needed.  It seems that those that say it is not have accepted the argument that the only legitimate purpose for the death penalty is to prevent the person from committing the offences in the future.  I am not sure that this is the case.  The death penalty can have two other effects, the conversion of sinner and a deterrent to others who would commit the same crime.  In the end, this question is about justice.  Does the state have the duty to bring about the just ordering of society and, if so, is the death penalty part of that duty.  Is the good on one higher than the good for the whole?  Is life without grace more precious than a man who repents?  If these are the reasons that the Church has upheld the death penalty, does limiting it to the protection of society at large make sense.  Also, does today’s penal system allow for a person to be kept away until their lives are reformed or for life if they are not.  Another question; is the current court system free enough from corruption and are the judges sufficiently wise enough to make such judgments?  Also, were does mercy come into play.  I would also seem, that if the only reason permissible for the state to kill someone was that they could not keep them in prison, the state would therefore have always had the obligation to do whatever it could (i.e. staging a thousand guards) to keep one away from the rest of society.  It does seems that times long before ours had this capacity and that it is not new to modernity.  However, that does to seems to what the Church has taught in the past.  So, has the doctrine developed, or is limiting the death penalty to situation in which it would never be licit a distortion of the doctrine.  Since it is contained in the CCC, does that mean that it has be defined?  I have not made a decision as to the truth of the matter.  However, these seem to be the pertinent questions.

Good for you Danielle!

I’m really pretty amazed at the lack of charity in the comments on this page, especially directed against Danielle. Before you make a snide remark calling someone a “hand-wringing old woman” or a “ragamuffin blogger” ask yourself if you’d say that to Christ. Because that’s who you’re saying it to.

Regardless of if you think this particular woman should be executed or not, there’s no excuse for insulting the author of this article, especially when she has been nothing but charitable with all of you.

The “ragamuffin blogger” I had in mind was Shea. The “hand-wringing old woman” was….ALSO Shea. I have no idea who Danielle is, I followed a link here from New Advent. And yes: In the (highly unlikely) event that I were to discover The Lord acting like a ragamuffin or an old woman, I would tell Him so. My love for Him is not that of a slave; it is that of a wayward younger brother or son.

Sarah, not every unfavorable comment should be looked at as if it were being applied to Christ. Were that so, every disparaging word would have to be expurgated from the vocabulary of any true Christian. Paul refers to a Jewish leader as a “whitewashed wall.” Is that un-Christian? When we say nothing contrary to those in error, we participate in their error. I do not mean these comments to apply to this particlar discussion where, indeed, there may have been some failing in charity, but as principles that must be recognized.

Right on. At least I didn’t call Shea “a nest of viper(s).”

Larry:

Thanks for reminding us all that the Catholic faith is about nothing if it is not about gloating over the death of a penitent.  Indeed, if you’d had your way, she would have been killed long ago, before her repentance, thereby insuring her damnation.  And isn’t that what our Catholic faith teaches us to hope for?

Sheesh.

When we say nothing contrary to those in error, we participate in their error.

Spoken in defense of those who spit on Magisterial teaching as “personal humanist opinion”.  I’ll retire to Bedlam.

Magister Shea, I am not gloating, and I would not have rushed the murderess to the gallows. She would have had ample time to repent, to confess, and to receive absolution. Then she would have died under suitably ignominious conditions. You evidently misinterpret what I say to score a cheap point or two.

You may incur much guilt if you assist the trimmers. In more balanced ages, men did not so easily arrogate to themselves the right to spare murderers, et. al. They knew, both as Christians and as members of true cultures, that such reprobates were to be offered the assistance and gifts of the Church, and then to be sent out of this world forthwith, to seek mercy from God. It is, I often think, an insidious side effect of the creeping disease of Modernism (which is far from defeated) that some of us Catholics fear death so much that we dare not trust even the likes of this Teresa scoundrel to it.

I’d say a country of this size should have, easily, 5000 - 10000 executions per year, all of them public…Perhaps at halftime during football games. The condemned would include not just the worst murderers, rapists, etc., but also egregious white-collar offenders, like Bernie Madoff, and war criminals, such as some who sit or have sat in the highest offices of the land.

Nope.  No bloodlust with you, Larry.

Another reader tried to argue that since the Good Thief saw his punishment as just, this therefore meant that the desire to minimize application of the death penalty was contrary to the faith.  Of course, he didn’t ever get around to figuring out that this also meant that crucifixion as a legitimate form of capital punishment was also (by his logic) an article of the faith. 

I’m curious: would you like to see crucifixion adopted as a form of capital punishment?  Or is your desire for slaughter during half time less Bronze Age?  Also, do you favor re-instituting capital punishment for all Old Testament crimes such as adultery, sassing your parents or homosexual acts?  Would you like to have Rush Limbaugh stoned to death for his four marriages?  Newt Gingrich? Or just Ellen Degeneres? Your righteous thirst for blood must have some rationale, right?  Or is it merely poor people and sundry disposable ideological foes you want to kill?  If it’s not based on the Old Testament, then what?  Your personal hatred of certain sins?

Cricket is not not me, cricket.

And that’s just not cricket!

Mark, I am tempted to answer your questions, since you ask.

1. The form of execution is less important than the context. It should be done soon after judgment is passed, and in a way which provides the populace with a “spectacle,” in the moral sense (vide Tertullian).

2. Bronze Age? Your chronology seems a bit awry. But, if you want to push the issue, I would point out that the moral sensibilities of an average Bronze Age human were far superior to ours, despite the (now weakened) influence of the Gospel.

3. Acts calling for capital punishment: Adultery, yes. (I love the way all the Patriotards scream about Shari’a law. Heck, it would be a huge step up from what we have!) Sassing your parents, yes (third offense). Homosexual acts, only if done publicly.

4. People: Rush Limbaugh, yes, he has earned death many times over, primarily for his unwavering support for America’s savage and criminal wars. I would deal with him as Dr Streicher was, at Nuremberg. Newt, no, but 10 years in San Quentin would do him a world of good. Ellen Degeneres, I know nothing about her, other than that she is a proud sodomite. (By the way, in mentioning Rush you TOTALLY give yourself away, but that’s cool.)

5. Poor people? Huh? Did you see Bernie Madoff’s name? I think every time a poor person is executed some billionaire should be chosen at random to go too. Ideological foes? Huh? I suppose you are referring to yourself. I am talking about capital punishment for CAPITAL crimes. Why must you cast yourself as a potential victim?

Magister Shea, you are pushing an agenda (the abolition of the use of capital punishment) which is as contrary to Catholic moral doctrine as any nutty idea out there. You do so to ingratiate yourself with the Hierarchy and to maintain your status as a “cool dude.” I suggest that you do some more reading and get off this bandwagon ASAP.

Whew!

Soooooo, Dudley!  Want to hug Larry to your breast?  He’s got *ever* so many people he wants to see publicly butchered.  Not even particular about whether we reinstitute crucifixion!

How about it, Dan?  All the KILL KILL KILL crowd seem to have stepped aside to let their Larry be their David against all those terrible pantywaist Goliaths who are DP minimalists.  Wanna join Larry’s club and advocate for public crucifixions at half time?  Who want to be the one to drive the nails into Limbaugh’s hands (No, Larry, not you.  We are already know that you aren’t filled with bloodlust or anything).

Speak, gang!  Who’s with Larry, the Perfectly Sane Paladin of Sober Justice?

Oh yes!  And don’t forget the celebration of Sharia over the objections of Patriotards.  Dudley, I’m sure you have some remarks you’d like to offer about Larry’s strong defense of the death penalty against wussy American civil tradition?

Anyone?  Bueller?

Too bad, Danielle, that this couldn’t appear over at Faith & Family Live. It would seem completely appropriate to try and expand the brains of your readers over there to include something of import, rather than dryer sheets. Why not give those ladies a chance?

Time out, Mark. I am not at all part of the “kill, kill crowd,” rather I try to be a reasonable and faithful servant. I have espoused that those guilty of willful murder have forfeited their right to life by depriving innocent (by which I mean not deserving of death) people of that right. I did not come to that position on my own but am informed by both scripture and papal teaching, as noted above.
Having said this, let me add that there are two principles at work here - mercy and justice. Those who hunger and thirst after justice are blessed; so are the merciful. Because I hope for mercy for myself, I incline more toward mercy for those who deserve punishment, but I must vigorously defend those who contend that no injustice is being done if mercy is withheld.

Gee Dan.  Sorry.  It’s just that when you get all quiet while I am used as a punching bag by a lunatic and only chime in to agree with the lunatic, I’m not super interested in your fine-tuned arguments against something nobody is saying.

I’m done here.  Larry has done more than I could ever have hoped to do to demonstrate the bloodlust behind death penalty maximalism.  If things go as I guess they will, the other death penalty maximalists will either pass over his bloodthirsty and demented ravings in uncomfortable silence or they will try to put lipstick on the pig by trying to mine from his insane rantings the same little tired round of talking points designed to say we should ignore the teachings of the Church in favor of their Theories.  I think the more sensible approach is to simply pay attention to the Church, rather than to the rantings of a lunatic who has no particular objection to crucifixion, who wants to put Rush Limbaugh to death, who wants to turn halftime into the Roman arena, who thinks the adoption of sharia preferable to the American civil order, who would kill mouthy teenagers, and who thinks billionaires should be executed at random.

Given that silence implies consent and that the death penalty maximalists have been stunningly silent since their champion Larry strode out upon the field to do battle for the glorious gospel of death, I have to assume that death penalty maximalists have no serious disagreement with Larry.  He’s a bit rude, perhaps, but basically has a good heart?  Is that it?

I’m done here (and a bit sick to my stomach).  Thank *God* such lunacy is confined to a combox and does not represent the Church.

Mark, you are the worst kind of impostor: You pretend to be all concerned for feelings while relegating all who disagree to the loony bin. You also have the sense of humor of a rodeo bull(y). You speak of charity and brotherly love, but you KNOW you have all the answers and can fire off salvos of derision whenever you like.

I advocate crucifixion? I want to kill, kill, kill? I’m a “DP maximalist?” You intentionally mislead your fans by marginalizing anyone who (in this case) is arguing for what has been for millennia a complete no-brainer of Catholic teaching: The civil authority can inflict the death penalty without sinning against justice. Are you really so intent on “singing the song of him who feeds” you that you will sell your intellect out to the highest bidder?

You accuse me of fighting for “the gospel of death.” No, my son, it is you who have thrown in your lot (in this case) with the death crowd. It is you who would remove the salutary effects of capital punishment, which is one of the many factors which has led to a cheapening of human life. You, like your hero (I assume) John Lennon, pine for a world in which there is “nothing to kill or die for,” one emptied of value. Lennon advocated this openly, by denying the revealed basis of morality. You do so sneakily, by taking a case-by-case approach in which you free the murderers one at a time, without having the courage to defy divine (and natural) law in toto. Pathetic.

Love,—The Lord High Executioner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP2PFF2T608

She already committed 2 murders by hiring someone else to do it. It’s unclear to me how, for someone who hires hitmen, “nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor,” unless she’s not allowed contact with the outside world at all. Being incarcerated isn’t going to keep her from killing, and being incarcerated wouldn’t have kept her from killing in the first place. Executing her doesn’t go against Church teaching on the death penalty.

Hm.  I uncheck the little box, but I’m still getting junk mail in my box.

I advocate crucifixion?

No.  But when I ask if you oppose it, you merely have no particular objection to it, saying you don’t care what form of capital punishment is inflicted.  I’ll take that as a “yes”.

I want to kill, kill, kill? I’m a “DP maximalist?”

Precisely.  Normal people don’t want half time to be a renewed Roman arena.  You do.  Normal people recognize that as bloodthirsty.

You intentionally mislead your fans by marginalizing anyone who (in this case) is arguing for what has been for millennia a complete no-brainer of Catholic teaching: The civil authority can inflict the death penalty without sinning against justice.

No sir.  YOU intentionally mislead by claiming that my opposition to the death penalty is predicated on the claim that it is a sin against justice.  You are either lazy or intentionally dishonest when you claim this since I linked above the piece where I specifically repudiate that notion.

Are you really so intent on “singing the song of him who feeds” you that you will sell your intellect out to the highest bidder?

I’ll go with dishonest in describing your tactics.

You accuse me of fighting for “the gospel of death.” No, my son, it is you who have thrown in your lot (in this case) with the death crowd. It is you who would remove the salutary effects of capital punishment, which is one of the many factors which has led to a cheapening of human life.

Mass execution at half time (on prime time TV, for sponsors titillating a crowd of brutes seeking to “push the envelope” with salacious delectation over mass media graphic bloodshed) does not seem to me to be a sure fire formula for raising the value of human life.  If you seriously believe that making the public killing of human being an event for the beer and popcorn crowd that loves “Jackass” and some reality TV show about horny teenagers sharing a room, then you are madder than I thought.

You, like your hero (I assume) John Lennon, pine for a world in which there is “nothing to kill or die for,” one emptied of value. Lennon advocated this openly, by denying the revealed basis of morality. You do so sneakily, by taking a case-by-case approach in which you free the murderers one at a time, without having the courage to defy divine (and natural) law in toto. Pathetic.

Unbelievable.  First, mind-reading about Lennon(?!) as some hero, then the outright lie that I think capital offenders should be freed.

And still, it’s so *quiet* from the rest of the DP maximalist zealotry crowd as Larry speaks for them.  Not a word of reproof for this Catholic Taliban.  Just a brief word of concern that poor Larry not be misunderstood as un-Christian when he insults somebody who doesn’t buy his insane lust for blood.

Hopefully, this time, when I check the box, I won’t get any more of this crap in my mailbox.

The name calling is not compatible with charity. When civility ceases to reign, discourse must come to an end.

When a bully is confronted, he usually retreats—once he figures out which box to check/uncheck.

The bully’s rancor towards me (and towards what he called “the zealotry crowd”) comes from his discomfort at being, as they say, called out.

In the name of orthodoxy, and wrapped in its flag, he is 100% engaged in the business of misrepresenting the status of capital punishment in Catholic moral teaching. He imagines that he is always right, always “reasonable,” while his opponents are “mad,” etc. He alone has the key; he alone reads the documents in their true light; he alone knows the Church’s mind. He will brook no dissent. He knows that Madame Lewis should be spared—never mind the victims, forget the Church’s clear tradition, and to Hades with the common sentiment of humanity that calls out for justice.

Pathetic stuff.

Mark Shea
    What you are not saying and what you must know is that the last two Popes have verbally called the death penalty “cruel and unnecessary”...John Paul once in 1999 and according to Catholic News Agency in the Kentucky case, Benedict has used the exact phrase once at Christmas and once in the Kentucky case of several weeks ago but this time in a letter and thus in print.  To call something “cruel” that God repeatedly called for at all….is the fallible part of the papacy and an indication that not development but regression is at hand with these two men…..and the Church is capable of regressions coming from Popes.  You know of “hard” regressions as when Leo X affirmed burning heretics at the stake in 1520 over against Luther’s position in Exsurge Domine.  Sixtus V in the 1580’s bringing castrati into the papal churches was a regression that lasted for the next 28 Popes.  Development is not the only type of change in Catholicism; Regression is another type of change that happens in non infallible documents from Popes.  The “cruel” comment is more operative than ccc 2267 because the Church is now never present pointing to a case where cp might be needed.  And neither Pope seems aware of the horrendous murder rates in Catholic countries most of which have no death penalty….and thus are not being protected by modren penology as John Paul claimed they were.

Dear Anonymous, I am confused. How do you know what I am blogging about over at F&FL;? I thought you gave up reading there—something about it being bad for your soul?

As for your question, we do take up heavier topics from time to time at F&F, but we also aim to encourage moms in their parenting and homemaking. I won’t apologize for the fact that there is a female market for that. I wonder ... do you read Woman’s Day and get angry with them for publishing recipes and makeup tips? I am sorry it makes you uncomfortable, but a lot of women like that kind of thing, and having a Catholic community in which to share it is a great encouragement for many of us.

F&F has a different target readership from NCR and I am okay with that, even if you are not.

There is a tiny handful of voices in this debate that I’d like to join: how do we know that she will be truly incapable of harming others? One voice pointed out her likely ability to orchestrate other killings from within jail. For any murderer serving a life sentence, what care have we for their fellow inmates? Does a man serving time for a lesser crime have no rights, then? Finally, what faith this puts in our justice system and our penal system. There is great room for error and uncertainty in the future. At the rate our society is collapsing, how do we know what some future judge will do? How do we know that her prison will remain intact?
For that matter, as with the question regarding the waging of war, I don’t believe that the Catechism gives any of us the requisite authority to judge this particular case. I am not a lawyer, nor a judge. I’m not qualified, even if I did have the evidence and testimony in front of me, to make a judgement about this case. I suspect that many of those who have commented definitively in either direction are in the same boat.

I am surprised that Mark Shea could not detect irony in Larry’s posts.  I thought Shea was a smart man.

Yes, Montserrat, it is odd. I have a theory, but this is probably not the place to speculate.

Anyone wishing to see the position of the Church throughout the ages on this subject would do well to read Romano Amerio’s IOTA UNUM, chapter XXVI wherein he looks at the traditional teaching and why the shift has occured. I recommend it especially for Danielle and Mark

Wow…Hey Dan, I am a total newbie here at the blogs, but I can just imagine the reaction of the (self-appointed) “pontiff” hereabouts at the mere mention of Amerio’s book…I hope he has taken his hypertension meds before he sees this post!

3) “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007 ,

http://www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html

That link doesn’t seem to work for me, Dudley. I think that this might di it: 
http://domid.blogspot.com/search?q=capital+punishment

both links work for me. But, thanks.

and review:

“Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

Twice (at the beginning and at the end) the article expresses frustration with fellow Catholics for not speaking up in protest, and twice the article says that the news stories or events contradict Catholic teaching “in the Catechism”.  Such things make many faithful Catholics uneasy, because the suggestion is that they are not acting in line with Catholic doctrine—that they have not accepted the fullness of revealed truth.  But a careful reading of the Catechism in light of Catholic tradition (not as an isolated text out of all context) does not support the assertion that this particular use of the death penalty “so clearly contradicts the teachings of the Catechism”. 
+
First of all, what is meant by the Catechism, e.g. “people’s safety”?  Shall we take this in a narrow way, or in a broad way?  The tradition from the Church Fathers and Doctors is to take this in a broad way, where the common good is the principle good that capital punishment seeks to restore.  Doctrine does not develop in a way that contradicts its former teaching, but enriches upon it, and this development occurs throughout the Church, not just in the Pope’s study.  A catechism merely summarizes the doctrines in their developed state, it does not invent doctrines or make new dogmatic formulations.  Whatever JPII’s personal understanding of the issue was, we must understand his authoritative teachings in line with the constant teaching of the Church, not as a novelty that popped into his head at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—that’s not how doctrine works.  That he himself understood doctrine in this way is clear when one reads Evangel. Vitae’s condemnation of abortion: the Pope carefully lays out the constant teaching of the Church, and make pains to show that his own pronouncement is a reaffirmation and confirmation of this constant teaching.  Certainly the Pope has the ability to add a character of infallibility to that development, if he so chooses, but he cannot invent something novel.  In other words, the Pope does not dispense with the teachings of the past, as if they were of no more use, only to replace them with “the latest and greatest.”  For the only authentic teachings are those which are handed down to us from the Apostles, either explicitly, or developed from what is implicit in their teachings.
+
Second, the application of the Church’s teaching in this area is a matter of PRUDENCE.  We are not talking about an intrinsic evil, but an act which is only evil if done in a matter inconsistent with the common good.  The Church has always taught the morality of capital punishment, and many Pope’s have used it themselves, even Blessed Pius IX employed it as head of the Papal States when he executed criminals who attempted his own assassination.  One can debate whether he made a bad judgement in doing so, but then one would be pitting their prudence against his.  A faithful Catholic, such as Mrs. Bean, is certainly free to argue that the governor of Virginia would do well to commute the sentence in this particular case, and to cite the details of the case to make the point, since this is a prudential matter.  And such an argument might contribute much to the debate. 
+
But let these folks also take comfort in knowing that many who are unconvinced by this argument, or who even arrive at a contradictory conclusion, are also faithful Catholics.  Perhaps it is unkind to question their faithfulness simply because they do not jumping on this particular issue.  In fact, perhaps this is itself an issue that some of those reading this post need be concerned about.  There is no need to be scandalized by this difference in judgement; in fact, to be so is itself an evil to be avoided.

Fact is, the Catholic Church is not categorically opposed to capital punishment.  Nevertheless, the prudential judgment of the Church leadership is that it is practically unnecessary.  I could accept this as a basic operating principle but for one question:
  Can we truly have a just society if there is no act so heinous that one should forfeit life for committing it?

Tom,
  Life sentences…modern penology…. did not protect Jeffrey Dahmer nor Fr. Geoghan both of whom were killed by lifers.
The catechism is indulging in a polyanna vision of John Paul II…..the same pollyanna vision whereby priest abusers also went unpunished but went to therapy instead.  Cardinal Law went unpunished and now decides on bishop selection inter alia.  Catechisms might report already infallible matter here and there but they themselves have no such authority intrinsic to them.  Trent’s stated delayed ensoulement in line with Aquinas.  Do you see anyone in the magisterium supporting that?

“But let these folks also take comfort in knowing that many who are unconvinced by this argument, or who even arrive at a contradictory conclusion, are also faithful Catholics.  Perhaps it is unkind to question their faithfulness simply because they do not jumping on this particular issue.  In fact, perhaps this is itself an issue that some of those reading this post need be concerned about.  There is no need to be scandalized by this difference in judgement; in fact, to be so is itself an evil to be avoided. “

Thank you, Peter

Consider:

God: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4 (NOTE: Look at the full context and the many OT references that it comes from)

What does “most certainly” mean?

CCC 2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

What does “shall” mean?

CCC 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.”

Both secular and religious governments are responsible for defending the lives of their citizens. “The common good” “requires” that an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”.

The definitions of “require” and “unable” are clear in meaning and in context.

It is a rational truism that only dead murderers are “unable to inflict harm”. Unable to inflict harm is the same as impossible to inflict harm, only possible by the absolute incapacitation of the aggressor - by definition, the death penalty.

CCC 2266: “The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good.”

The “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm.” 2265

St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions “frivolous”, citing Exodus 22:18, “wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live”. Unequivocally, he states,” The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state.” (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146

What does “shall not suffer to live” mean?

St. Thomas Aquinas: “If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgement. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted.” Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6.

What does “shall” mean?

Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

What does “paramount obedience” mean?

Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.

What does “when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” mean?

———————————

long term incarceration of prisoners was reported on in Genesis, as well as in history back to 2000 BC in Egypt.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bwv…0egypt&f=false

———————————-

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.

“There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.” “Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.” (2)

“Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium.” (2)

“Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity.” ” . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).” (2)

2) “Capital Punishment: New Testament Teaching”, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., 1998
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm

To be completely honest, I have a hard time with child molesters that get caught over and over again and continue to be released on good behavior, only to go on and abuse and murder a poor innocent child.  I am a mother and maybe it’s wrong of me, I have no doubt I need to grow in mercy, but my base emotion wants to see these evil doers punished by death on first offense.  I have no natural mercy for these offenders.  I think it is a grave injustice that mercy is given to these men only for them to go out and commit such a horrible offense against a child.  It seems to me that our society is not as advanced as many of us think in protecting us from these types of criminals.  What is the solution?

Michelle:

Consider that mercy and justice need not conflict.

Mercy & the Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp

1) Saint Augustine: ” . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on.” (On the Lord’s Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)

2) Saint Thomas Aquinas: . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6, 2

3)  “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Quaker, biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey (1) (p. 116).

4)  Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.

“The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods.”

“This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. His thought is . . . Summa, ‘Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.’  “

“The moral importance of wanting to make expiation also explains the indefatigable efforts of the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist Beheaded, the members of which used to accompany men to their deaths, all the while suggesting, begging and providing help to get them to repent and accept their deaths, so ensuring that they would die in the grace of God, as the saying went.” (2)

Some opposing capital punishment “. . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (2)

Some death penalty opponents “deny the expiatory value of death; death which has the highest expiatory value possible among natural things, precisely because life is the highest good among the relative goods of this world; and it is by consenting to sacrifice that life, that the fullest expiation can be made. And again, the expiation that the innocent Christ made for the sins of mankind was itself effected through his being condemned to death.” (2)

5)  The Catechism of The Roman Catholic Church (2005) states: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” “When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.” 2266

This is a specific reference to justice, just retribution, just deserts and the like, all of which redress the disorder.

We must first recognize the guilt/sin/crime/disorder of the aggressor and hold them accountable for it by way of penalty, meaning the penalty should be just and appropriate for the guilt/sin/crime/disorder and should represent justice/just retribution/just deserts and their like which “redress the disorder caused by the offence” or to correct an imbalance, as defined within the example of 2260

“For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

6)  Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

Mercy, salvation and redemption will not be measured by the method of our earthly death , but by our state of grace in the context of the eternal.

7)  C. S. Lewis:  “According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. “

“I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal.”

“The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.”

“My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.”

“Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .”.

” . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. “

“The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment.”

“But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.”

“This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. “

” . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. ”  The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment C.S. Lewis

8)  C. S. Lewis:  “Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself.  They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of retribution. ”  “The Complete C.S. Lewis”, Signature Classics, The Problem of Pain, P407, Harper Collins, 2002

9)  Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

They want the child to understand the level of transgression, which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution),  that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior,  that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption).

Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.

10)  “Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices…A murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole can still laugh, learn and love, listen to music and read, form friendships, and do the thousand-and-one things (mundane and sublime) forever foreclosed to his victims.”  Don Feder, Boston Herald Columnist. “McVeigh Makes the Case for Capital Punishment”. 21 May 2001

11)  Never Forget Mercy for the Innocent

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

————————————————-

1) synopsis of “A Bible Study”, from Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992. Dr. Carey was a Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College.

2) “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007 ,
www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html

Dudley Sharp, I don’t know if you folks at JFA have read this piece in the “Ave Maria Law Review” or not, but it is worth it I think. The author is a devote Catholic priest and Jesuit scholar, and a solid Thomist. He has served as an advisor to Cardinal Ratzinger’s Sacred Congr. of the Faith (the Holy Inquisition ;-) and is Professor of Moral Theology at the Gregorian University in Rome.  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6994/is_2_5/ai_n29476413/?tag=content;col1

Peter:

Based upon your description, I may have had a dialogue with him some time ago.

Thank you. I will take a look.

Danielle:

The prosecutor in this case tried to get some reality into the media. The Washington Post didn’t have a place for it. Surprise.

I have permisson to distribute as I see fit.

To the Editor:

I write to respond to your published OpEd piece “John Grisham: Teresa Lewis didn’t pull the trigger. Why is she on death row?” published in your
Sunday, September 12, 2010 edition. 

I have taken his writing verbatim without any deletion and noted my responses so your readers may consider both at once. 

GRISHAM:  The Commonwealth of Virginia already has a serious relationship with its death penalty. In the past three decades, only Texas has executed more inmates. But on Sept. 23, the Old Dominion will enter new territory when it executes a female inmate for the first time in nearly a century.
Her name is Teresa Lewis, she is the only woman on death row at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women, and her appeals have all but expired. If she is executed, she will become another glaring example of the unfairness of our death penalty system.
Lewis is not innocent. She confessed to the police, pled guilty to the judge and for almost eight years has expressed profound remorse for her role in two murders.
As with most violent crimes, a recitation of the facts of this case would fill pages; still, a brief summary drawn from news reports, letters and affidavits is useful.
GRIMES:  It might be helpful when writing a non-fiction opinion piece to seek information from sources other than the “Save Teresa Lewis” web site and her current legal team.  Among the undisputed facts:  approximately three months before the murders, C. J. Lewis, an Army Reservist, was called to active duty.  Shortly thereafter, Teresa Lewis somehow convinced him to name his father “primary beneficiary” and Teresa “secondary beneficiary” on his $250,000 life insurance policy (automatically issued for active duty personnel).  She well knew Julian had received the proceeds from a similar policy after his other son, Jason, died in a motor vehicle crash.  That money was in Julian’s name alone, but she had convinced him to spend much of it on her.
GRISHAM: In 2002, Lewis, then 33, lived with her second husband in a mobile home in a rural area near Danville. She was having an affair with a man named Matthew Shallenberger, who, though nothing more than a common thug, had ambitions. He was looking for seed money to establish a distribution ring for illicit drugs, but his real dream was to become an accomplished hitman, Mafia-style. He reasoned that if he could build his résumé, his reputation would spread all the way to New York, and he could somehow join the big leagues of contract killing.
GRIMES:  It is interesting that these statements attributed to Shallenberger are accepted without question.  He was in fact a 22 year old kitchen helper at a local restaurant.  No reliable information ever surfaced to connect him with other criminal activity or to suggest his talk of drug dealing and gangs was anything other than fantasy or lies of a small man eager to impress an older woman.

GRISHAM: Shallenberger had a partner named Rodney Fuller, and it is not clear if he was also afflicted with these grand ideas. What is clear is that the three—Shallenberger, Fuller and Lewis—participated in a scheme to kill Lewis’s husband for his money. At some point, the plans broadened to include the murder of her 25-year-old stepson, a National Guard member with a life insurance policy.
On the night of Oct. 30, 2002, Lewis left a door unlocked, got into bed with her husband and waited. Shallenberger and Fuller entered through the unlocked door, as planned. Shallenberger blasted the husband with a shotgun while, at the other end of the trailer, Fuller shot the stepson. Needless to say, the crime scenes were gruesome.
Lewis initially claimed that the killings were the work of an intruder, but the authorities suspected otherwise. After being confronted, she broke down, confessed and fingered Shallenberger and Fuller. All three were arrested and charged with capital murder.
GRIMES:  She lied to police and everyone who would listen for several days after the murders while she attempted to obtain by forged draft the first $50,000 of her murdered husband’s money.  She confessed after failing a polygraph and told an investigator she really did not intend to share the money with the two men she had recruited.

GRISHAM: Fuller’s lawyers were quick off the mark. They realized the futility of a defense and advised their client to cut a deal—to plead guilty and promise to testify against his two co-conspirators in exchange for life without parole.
GRIMES:  In truth, Fuller was a 19-year-old with no significant criminal background who worked with, and shared a rented trailer with, Matthew Shallenberger.  I determined Fuller’s truthful testimony would be essential to convicting Shallenberger and proving the details of Teresa Lewis’ participation.  Shallenberger had admitted nothing and Fuller had fully confessed, immediately and emotionally.  I believe Fuller held a firearm for the first time in his life one week before the murders.  On that occasion, Teresa Lewis personally withdrew $1,200 from her bank account and delivered it to Shallenberger so he could purchase guns.  Shallenberger, Fuller and a straw purchaser went to a gun store and bought two new pump shotguns.  Shallenberger took Fuller to a place in the country and showed him the basics of loading, aiming and shooting the weapon. 

The same day, Teresa Lewis instructed both on the route her husband always drove home.  Together they planned that Shallenberger and Fuller would drive behind Julian, pass his car, shoot out a tire, then cut his throat and make it look like a robbery.  Teresa Lewis planned an alibi for herself.  She had already brought into the conspiracy her daughter, Christi (who had just celebrated her 16th birthday and lived in North Carolina with her father).  Teresa had arranged for Christi to meet and have sexual relations in a car with Fuller to keep him interested in the scheme (while Teresa and Shallenberger engaged in similar behavior parked beside them in another car).  Teresa placed a land-line long distance call to Christi to be sure she would have proof she was at home that evening.

Julian, a cautious and patient driver, unknowingly foiled that attempt:  when he caught up with a slower vehicle, he decided not to pass.  Teresa’s hirelings were unable to kill him on the road.  She later admitted when Julian walked into their home, she was startled but had the presence of mind to ask him to go back out to buy her headache medicine, hoping her partners might get another chance.  Later in the week when she learned her step-son, C. J. would come home on a three day pass, Teresa Lewis set the new plan in motion:  Shallenberger and Fuller could murder the men together rather than separately. 

GRISHAM: Lewis’s lawyers likewise wanted no part of a jury trial. The evidence of their client’s guilt was overwhelming, and they felt strongly that, after hearing all the facts and seeing the color photos from the crime scene, any jury would be in a hanging mood. They advised Lewis to plead guilty and to take her chances with the trial judge who would determine her sentence. They believed this judge would give her life in prison because he had just sentenced Fuller to the same. Furthermore, Lewis had no criminal record and no history of violence. She had cooperated with the authorities. And no woman had received the death penalty in Virginia since 1912.
GRIMES:  In truth, Teresa Lewis had a felony criminal record for forging a prescription.  In truth, her cooperation came only after eight interviews by some skilled and persistent investigators and a failed polygraph examination.  She decided to plead guilty.  She apparently calculated the judge might spare her life and a jury almost certainly would not.

GRISHAM: But Lewis was sentenced to die.
GRIMES:  More details apparently not considered by Mr. Grisham:  Teresa Lewis admitted she went to great lengths to allay any suspicion or anxiety on the night of the murders.  She coaxed her husband to drink; she spoke at length with her step-son.  She had her daughter, Christi, phone Julian to keep him off guard.  She told investigators she convinced her husband to kneel by their bed and pray for improvement in their marriage as they retired for the night.  She either got up to let her partners in or left the back door open for them.  She withdrew from the bed she shared with Julian in time for Shallenberger to fire his shotgun five times from the foot of the bed directly at Julian. Still, Shallenberger was so inept he missed with one shot and scattered the remaining five away from Julian’s core, horribly maiming him, but leaving him far from death.  Fuller walked in on C. J., who was listening to music with headphones.  He apparently only had time to stand before Fuller shot him three times at close range in the middle of his body.  He died very quickly.  Apparently knowing little about the killing power of various shotgun loads, the hired killers used small birdshot chosen by Shallenberger to execute their victims.

Teresa Lewis returned to the marital bedroom where Julian lay conscious in agony to retrieve his pants and wallet.  In the kitchen, she gave the $300 from the wallet to Fuller and Shallenberger.  Fuller expressed uncertainty that C. J. was dead and was sent to shoot him again.

Julian remained alive and awake despite horrific wounds to his limbs and lower body.  Teresa Lewis admitted she waited at least 35 minutes after the last gunshot, long after her partners had left, to call 911.  In fact, she first called a girlfriend and her former mother-in-law.  She called 911 from the bathroom most distant from the bedroom where Julian lay, calculating I believe to keep Julian’s screaming from being heard by the dispatcher.  She said an intruder had killed both Julian and C. J., but when deputies arrived 23 minutes after her call, Julian was alive, conscious and in agony.  He was able to state his name and “my wife knows who done this to me” before dying at the scene. 

GRISHAM: Up last was Shallenberger, who in the middle of his trial changed his plea to guilty. The trial judge (the same who had sentenced Fuller and Lewis) sentenced him to life in prison. Prosecutors had already promised life to Fuller, and it wouldn’t be fair, the judge reasoned, to give one of the triggermen death when the other got life.
GRIMES:  Shallenberger pleaded guilty before a jury was selected, but after he and his lawyers had seen the jury pool.  I urged the Judge to sentence him to death as well, arguing my view that the hierarchy of evil placed him close behind Teresa Lewis. 

GRISHAM: The judge’s rationale in giving Lewis a death sentence was that she was more culpable than the men, who shot their victims as they slept. The killings were her idea, the judge reasoned; she was the mastermind; she recruited Shallenberger and Fuller to do the dirty work; she wanted the money; and so on.
Although much of this went unchallenged at Lewis’s sentencing hearing, it has since been challenged on appeal. Lawyers for Lewis have presented evidence that:

(1) She has an IQ of just above 70—borderline retarded—and as such lacks the basic skills necessary to organize and lead a conspiracy to commit murder for hire;
GRIMES:  More troublesome information not included in Mr. Grisham’s “research”:  From the Virginia Supreme Court opinion denying Lewis’ petition for habeas corpus (Lewis v. Warden, 274 Va. 93, 106-107 (2007)):

  “The Commonwealth presented the testimony of Leigh D. Hagan, Psy.D., a forensic and clinical psychologist, who evaluated Lewis based on a personal interview and on his review of Lewis’ records. According to Dr. Hagan, Lewis does not meet the criteria for mental retardation established in Code § 19.2-264.3:1.1.
  As part of his evaluation, Dr. Hagan administered the same intelligence test that Lewis had been given during the earlier assessment of her competency to stand trial. Dr. Hagan reported that Lewis obtained a full scale I.Q. test score of 70, a performance I.Q. test score of 74, and a verbal I.Q. test score of 72. After considering Lewis’ various achievements during her life, Dr. Hagen concluded that these I.Q. test scores represented an “underestimate” of Lewis’ intellect, and that she had not put forth her best effort during the I.Q. test.
  Dr. Hagan provided examples of Lewis’ ‘adaptive functioning,’ which he stated supported his conclusion that Lewis was not mentally retarded. Dr. Hagen noted that Lewis had never failed a grade level at school, and had not been terminated from any job due to an inability to understand her employment duties. Lewis also had demonstrated the conceptual ability to respond and attend to her parents’ needs, and she had successfully completed a certified nursing assistant program at a local community college.
  In addition, Dr. Hagan reported that Lewis was a ‘prolific’ writer during her incarceration, frequently sending letters to various ‘pen pals’ and trial counsel. According to Dr. Hagan, Lewis also planned and appeared for cosmetic appointments while incarcerated in preparation for her court appearances. Based on these observations, Dr. Hagan opined that Lewis had the capacity to act intentionally to plan and help execute the crimes and to attempt to profit from the murders.”

GRISHAM: (2) She has dependent personality disorder and therefore complied with the demands of those upon whom she relied, especially men;
GRIMES:  I suggest the evidence proved she fully manipulated and deceived Julian Lewis until the moment she had him murdered.  He was a decorated veteran and skilled factory mechanic, not easily fooled by anyone.

GRISHAM:  (3) Because of a long list of physical ailments she had developed an addiction to pain medications, and this adversely affected her judgment; and
GRIMES:  She had failed in her efforts to prove “disability” but was convicted of forging a prescription to feed her prescription drug habit.  Her judgment was sufficient to find a man who had recently lost his wife to a prolonged illness, move into his home within three months, quit her job after four months, and marry him within six months.
GRISHAM:  (4) She had not a single episode of violent behavior in the past.
Her lawyers have also argued that Shallenberger, who committed suicide behind bars in 2006, masterminded the murders. They have pointed to evidence that he had an IQ of 113 and was known to be intelligent and manipulative.
They have cited the sworn affidavit of a private investigator who interviewed Shallenberger in prison in 2004. This investigator said Shallenberger described Lewis as not very bright and as someone who could be easily duped into a scheme to kill her husband and stepson for money. According to the investigator, Shallenberger said: “From the moment I met her I knew she was someone who could be easily manipulated. From the moment I met her I had a plan for how I could use her to get some money.”
GRIMES:  Did Mr. Grisham also learn the defense team’s investigator claimed he had reduced Shallenberger’s statement to writing, but that Shallenberger tore it up and ate part of it rather than sign it?

GRISHAM: Lewis’s lawyers have also cited a letter Shallenberger sent to a girlfriend shortly after he was sentenced, in which he wrote, “I figured why go to New York for $20,000 a hit when I could do just one and make $350,000 off of it.” In the same letter he said of Lewis: “She was exactly what I was looking for.”
GRIMES:  With all their resources, the post-conviction team found not one person, friend or family member, to substantiate any of Shallenberger’s tall tales and fantasies.  Our novelist turned OpEd crusader might consider whether a killer doing life might be capable of conning an old girlfriend on the outside. 

GRISHAM: In addition, they have cited a 2004 affidavit by Shallenberger’s fellow assassin, Fuller, who said this: “As between Mrs. Lewis and Shallenberger, Shallenberger was definitely the one in charge of things, not Mrs. Lewis.”
Under Virginia law, Lewis, Fuller and Shallenberger are all guilty of murder.
GRIMES:  Actually, Teresa Lewis pleaded guilty to two counts of capital murder:  she hired men to kill two innocent people, Julian Lewis and C. J. Lewis.  She received two death sentences.  Each of the men was exposed to a single death sentence as a triggerman in a robbery murder.  Each man also was guilty as a principal in the second degree to the murder committed by the other.

GRISHAM: Why, then, did the triggermen get life without parole while Lewis received a sentence of death? Ostensibly, it is because she was the ringleader and thus more culpable. But what could make a killer more culpable than repeatedly shooting a sleeping victim?
GRIMES:  I accept full responsibility for Rodney Fuller getting life without parole instead of death.  I also vigorously and passionately advocated the death penalty for Shallenberger while recognizing his level of evil as slightly below Mrs. Lewis.  Our justice system is founded on the proposition that the courts consider unique individuals and cases on their own merits.  While I disagree with Shallenberger’s life sentence for capital murder, I certainly respect that decision.

GRISHAM: Lewis has appealed her case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but her chances do not look good. Her lawyers have also filed a petition for executive clemency with Gov. Bob McDonnell’s office; they are, as of this writing, awaiting a decision.

In this case, as in so many capital cases, the imposition of a death sentence had little do with fairness. Like other death sentences, it depended more upon the assignment of judge and prosecutor, the location of the crime, the quality of the defense counsel, the speed with which a co-defendant struck a deal, the quality of each side’s experts and other such factors.

In Virginia, the law is hardly consistent. There have been other cases with similar facts—a wife and her lover scheme to kill her husband for his money or for life insurance proceeds. But there is no precedent for the wife being sentenced to death.
GRIMES:  Mr. Grisham may wish to search further.  I know of no other case in Virginia or elsewhere with two horrific murders for hire being committed simultaneously while the instigator who hired the killers remained at the scene, waiting as one victim, her husband, continued stubbornly, and in agony, to live. 

GRISHAM: Such inconsistencies mock the idea that ours is a system grounded in equality before the law.

John Grisham’s latest novel is “The Confession,” forthcoming in October. He lives near Charlottesville.

GRIMES:  Nice piece of timing, Mr. Grisham.  You get full coverage just as you sell yet another book.  I certainly will not challenge anything contained in its pages:  it is, after all, labeled as FICTION.

David N. Grimes, Commonwealth’s Attorney for Pittsylvania County, Virginia (1992—-).