Statement on Capital Punishment
Catholic Bishops of Illinois November 1995

As the Catholic Bishops of Illinois, and with the full support of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, we once again wish to address the faithful of our Church and people of good will throughout our state regarding the question of capital punishment.

The ultimate punishment available to the state in the face of serious crime is the death penalty. Use of the death penalty in Illinois had ceased in 1963, nine years before the U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring it "cruel and unusual punishment," and thus unconstitutional. In a 1978 reversal, the Supreme Court provided the framework for reintroducing capital punishment at the state level. In Illinois, capital punishment resumed in 1990, and the pace of scheduled executions has increased steadily since then.

Our position is ultimately rooted in our belief that human life is sacred and that we have an obligation to protect and enhance it at all stages of development. Made in God's image and likeness, each person is the clearest reflection of the Creator, and possesses a dignity that no one can take away.

A truly humane and responsible society cannot abdicate its moral responsibilities regarding the many issues related to the protection and enhancement of human life. Because life is both sacred and social, society must protect and foster it at all stages and in all circumstances, through institutions such as state government. When any human being becomes a victim of violence, we all suffer diminishment of our own human dignity. When any human life ends at the hands of another person, all human life becomes vulnerable.

Capital punishment seeks to remedy violent crime or murder by taking the perpetrator's life. We are convinced, however, that this is not an appropriate response. We believe that capital punishment undermines rather than witnesses to the sacredness of human life. Moreover, ft fails to combat crime effectively and to build a society that is free from crime. Furthermore, it does not help the victims who survive or relieve the pain and loss of the victims who do not.

Accordingly, the Catholic Conference of Illinois has joined others opposed to capital punishment to appeal for clemency in each of the state's scheduled executions since 1990, and where relevant, for consideration of particular circumstances that would appear to mitigate against use of the death penalty.

Concerns for Our Society, Especially the Victims of Crime

As pastors, we are keenly aware of the experience of our people. With them, we fear the continual increase of violent crime in our society. Innocent victims who survive, as well as victims' families and friends, suffer ongoing trauma because of the violence inflicted upon them and their loved ones. Moreover, frequently little or no attention is given to the plight of victims. There is a need to examine proposals that seek to provide support, compensation and healing for victims and their families.
We have shared their pain and anxiety. Our parishes have buried victims who are members of their communities, have counseled their families, and have undertaken a variety of efforts to prevent violence and promote reconciliation and healing. In contrast, death penalty cases generally allow no opportunities for reconciliation, and healing is delayed, if not made almost impossible.

Violent crime forces society to invest substantial resources- sorely needed elsewhere-to identify, arrest, try. convict, sentence, and incarcerate perpetrators. It is incumbent upon the state to address the root causes of crime, or we all will suffer the consequences of living in a society overwhelmed by the demands of our criminal justice system.

Capital Punishment is Not an Effective Solution to Violent Crime

We cite the recent teaching of the U.S. Bishops on violence:
Increasingly, our society looks to violent measures to deal with some of our most difficult social problems... including increased reliance on the death penalty to deal with crime... Violence is not the solution; it is the most clear sign of our failures...We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. (Confronting a Culture of Violence, U.S. Catholic Bishops, 1994)

As citizens of Illinois, we believe that the state must protect the people and discipline those who commit serious crimes against them.. The question is how best to do this. In recent years, many thoughtful people have concluded that capital punishment is not the answer:

* The use of the death penalty does not effectively deter serious crime in our nation.
* It does not alleviate the fear of violent crime or better safeguard the people.
* The death penalty fails to protect society more effectively than other alternatives, such as life imprisonment without parole.
* The death penalty does not truly restore the social order breached by the offenders.
* It is not imposed with fairness, falling disproportionately on racial and ethnic minorities and the poor.
* Neither is it imposed in such a way as to prevent the execution of possibly innocent death row inmates.

Traditional Catholic Teaching on Life and Death

Traditional Catholic teaching has allowed the taking of human life in particular circumstances by way of exception as, for example, in self-defense and capital punishment, In recent decades, however, the presumptions against taking human life have been strengthened and the exceptions made ever more restrictive.

Modem science and technology have allowed us to probe more deeply than ever into the very mystery of life. Such advances challenge us to a greater sensitivity to the questions of life and death. We have the obligation to use this knowledge for the enhancement of human life. We also have responsibility to foster an attitude in the broader society which affirms this option for life. Moreover, it seems that the greater challenge is to apply this value to diverse issues in a consistent manner. While these various life issues are different and require separate analysis, a consistent ethic of life suggests that capital punishment is not an appropriate response to crime in our land.

While not denying the traditional position that the state has the right to employ capital punishment, many Catholic bishops, together with Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. have spoken against the exercise of that right by the state. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the death penalty is permissible in cases of "extreme gravity" (No. 2266), while also stating. "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means." (No. 2267)

Since the publication of the Catechism. Pope John Paul II has clarified the teaching further for his global audience. In the strongest papal denunciation of the death penalty, he writes in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (1995):

...the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. (56)

We join our voices to his, arguing that more humane and effective methods of defending society exist and should be used.

Called Beyond Vengeance to Forgiveness

To be candid, much of the support for the death penalty stems from a desire for revenge or to balance somehow the terrible damage that has been done. Such feelings may be expected in the face of brutal and senseless violence, especially when it has been inflicted upon innocent people. People legitimately desire justice. However, justice cannot be achieved through vengeance. Vengeance is never a worthy human motive. Our Scriptures direct us to a different ethic. The often quoted proverb, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth" (Lev. 24:20), was not a prescription for revenge or a goad to further bloodshed, but a guideline to keep people from going beyond the original offense and escalating the violence. Jesus further clarified this position when he insisted that rather than retaliate on any level, we should offer the other cheek and extend our hand in blessing and healing (Mt. 5:38-48).

Fighting violence with violence does not achieve a useful purpose in our society. Nor does it allow us to foster an ethic of respect of life that moves beyong vegeance in order to deal with violence in a more effective way.

Conclusion

To take a human life, even that of someone who is not innocent, is awesome and tragic. It seems to us and others our culture today, there are not sufficient reasons to justify the state's continuing exercise its right in this matter. There other, more effective ways of protecting interests of society. As citizens we share a common concern for the quality of life in our state. As pastors we know the moral human dimensions of this difficult question.
Crime is both a manifestation of the great mysteries of evil and human freedom and an aspect of the very complex reality that is contemporary society. We should not expect simple or easy solutions to what is a profound and even less should we rely on| punishment to provide such a solution. ("Statement on Capital Punishment,'' U.S. Catholic Bishops, 1980)

Despite the opposition expressed U.S. Bishops to the death penalty, w aware that public opinion for nearly two decades, including that of many Cat has widely supported it. However, in national and state surveys conducts recent years, support for the death drops to the same low level as in people are also given the option of imprisonment without parole.*

Finally, we wish to build a broad-based consensus for a consistent ethic of life recognizes the sanctity of every human being and seeks solutions to the pro violence that truly serve the common good and do not further erode respect for generally. We encourage everyone reflect seriously and in an informed this important question.

* The Death Penalty Information Center commissioned a bipartisan poll in March 1993. This references the results of that poll. which were cited as being cons! with other similar polls. The center published its findings in a 32-page report.