mtpolitics.net

Execution Draws Nigh, Reporter Discovers Catholic Doctrine (Sort Of)

Montana is set to execute convicted murderer David Dawson tonight (well, tomorrow morning, technically). He was convicted in 1987 for the murder of David and Monica Rodstein and their son A.J. Their daughter Amy survived, and you can read her testimony here (PDF). She was 15 at the time. It’s a tough read.

My views on the death penalty have softened somewhat as I’ve aged. I can’t say that I’m against it, but then again, I wouldn’t make the argument of ditching the electric chair in favor of the electric couch anymore. Have a look at these pictures and tell me you don’t get the chills.

Why have I softened? Hard to say. On the one hand there are people who, quite simply, just need killin’. On the other, maybe there’s hope for repentance and change. In the long run, I guess it’s best to err on the side of caution.

Dawson, however, wants to die. He asked to be executed, dismissed his counsel, and “respectfully declined” to meet with Governor Schweitzer. So, is the state executing him, or helping him commit suicide?

Bishop Thomas of the Helena Diocese makes that argument in this op-ed. He says that Dawson’s execution is state-assisted suicide, since he (Dawson) wants to die. The argument, in my mind, falls a bit short when he says:

Catholic social teaching asserts that “if non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means …” The fact of the matter is, modern technology has provided the means to assure the safety of the community for the natural lifetime of a convicted felon. The Montana penal system has this technology well in place.

I’m not sure what technology he is referring to, other than throwing away the key once the offender is locked up. Recidivism rates seem to indicate that keeping them locked up is the only solution that works.

Here’s an interesting exchange from this Billings Gazette article (also linked above):

Schweitzer was asked about his personal feelings about the death penalty.

“I support it,” he said, “In particular, for someone who tortures and kills kids. There isn’t any question about his guilt in this case, nor the facts. … If there’s a case for somebody to pay the ultimate price, this is it.”

Schweitzer was asked if his position isn’t a contradiction of his Catholic faith, which opposes the death penalty.

“I have an obligation to carry out the laws of Montana, and I’m doing it,” the governor said. “I swore my oath. I was kind of hoping that this wouldn’t come up, but you take the good with the bad.”

Why is this an interesting exchange? Well, here’s the thing. The Catholic Church has a long history of contemplating capital punishment. The understanding has been that sometimes, that’s just the only thing the state can do to protect its citizens. The document that is driving the Catholic anti-death penalty movement is Evangelium Vitae, and, most specifically, this section. In short (and I’m taking some liberties here), it says, “Yeah, the death penalty sucks, but, if there’s nothing else that works, that’s just the way it is.” In contrast, the next section starts with this paragraph:

Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an “unspeakable crime.”

Big difference.

Now some people think that if you are Catholic, whatever the Pope says is automatically doctrine, and all Catholics have to fall in line. Not so. There is room to disagree, as this article by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin points out:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

The quote, incidentally, is from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. (You can find a good discussion about Catholicism and the death penalty going on at this post on Jimmy Akin’s blog.)

I bring all of this up to mention that the unnamed reporter in the exchange quote earlier seemed to be very concerned about Schweitzer’s stand on the death penalty, and whether it contradicted his Catholic faith. Funny thing, though. I was only able to find one article that semi-directly tied church teachings on abortion to Schweitzer’s beliefs, and those were offered by the man himself. This article mentions that the governor (back when he was a candidate) affirms Roe v. Wade, but says nothing about that being in contradiction to church doctrine.

This isn’t to say that there’s a huge conspiracy or anything like that; merely that it’s an interesting point. Further, it’s telling that the reporter assumes that being anti-death penalty is church doctrine, when in fact, it’s not.