Roman/Episcopal Pastoral Deplores Death Decision
Episcopal News Service. October 28, 1976 [76324]
ATLANTA, Gallup, George. -- The Episcopal Bishop and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Atlanta have issued a joint pastoral letter opposing the recent U. S. Supreme Court restoration of the death penalty.
In the letter, the church leaders assert: "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 God's sovereignty is expressed in human affairs."
The two prelates -- whose concern was sparked by a recent high court decision holding that the imposition of the death penalty is constitutional in certain cases -- examined the questions from both practical and theological perspectives and said "In order to support the death penalty for any crime, we would have to be persuaded of its appropriateness in both categories. " Their conclusion was that there was, at best, ambiguous data about the effectiveness of capital punishment and further, that there were strong theological arguments against its use.
Bishop Bennett J. Sims and Archbishop Thomas A. Donnellan urged that a shortened version of the letter be read in all their parishes Oct. 24 and that the full text of their comments be made available to those congregations.
In an accompanying letter to the clergy, Bishop Sims notes: "Archbishop Donnellan and I are cheered by our belief that what we do together has far more meaning than anything we might say separately."
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 and percentage convicted either before or after restoration.
The marshaling 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 no unanimity of view among criminologists and sociologists as to its effectiveness as a crime inhibitor. Accordingly we judge the 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. 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 COE 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 be God's prerogative, not humanity's. And because Jesus Christ warned of God's judgment in terms of God's love, we hold the meaning of vengeance in God's 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 the 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 counterproductive 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 these 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 God's 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 God's sovereignty is expressed in human affairs.
In the name and power of Christ we send greetings to each other's people, commending one another's Churches to God for his use as communities of reconciliation and healing in a stricken world.
Thomas A. Donnellan, Archbishop
Bennet J. Sims, Bishop