Saddam Hussein’s Execution
With the media focused on the execution of Saddam Hussein, now is as good a time as any to re-read and reflect on what the Catechism has to say about the death penalty:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and
responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the
Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only
possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s
safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these
are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more
in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for
effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense
incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the
possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the
offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.
In keeping with the treatment of war within the Catechism, the magisterium seems to
view the death penalty as a subspecies of killing in self-defense. That is, the hierarchy’s position appears to be that the death penalty is appropriate only as a means to definitively prevent a criminal from committing future violent acts.
A story could be told in which Hussein’s execution was justifiable. There’s obviously little doubt that he committed the crimes for which he was ultimately executed. (Note that I don’t think admitting as much commits one in any way to the justice of Bush’s war in Iraq. There’s little point denying that Hussein was a thug and a tyrant.) Also justifying his execution would be the possibility that, if he had not been killed, Hussein might one day have escaped from confinement, or been released by some future Iraqi government, regained power and reimposed his murderous regime. This possibility seems to me to be remote, but its improbability is mitigated by the chaos that currently reigns in Iraq and, in light of the atrocities he committed while in power, by the scope of the harm he might have caused had it come to pass.
One thing that I think cannot legitimately be used to jusitfy his execution, at least on my reading of the magisterium’s statements in this area, is the encouragement his continued existence would have had on the Iraqi insurgency. According to the Catechism, “[p]unishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by
the offense.” What this restitutionary, or, perhaps, restorative, orientation seems to rule out is the use of punishment primarily in order to influence the behavior of third parties, a use that would reduce the person punished to a mere means to an end. Accordingly, assuming that Hussein could be safely confined for the remainder of his natural life, the fact that his death might discourage acts of violence by his supporters in the Iraqi insurgency could not have been used to justify his execution. If this desire to take the wind out of the insurgency’s sails (or perhaps a less narrowly tailored desire to demonstrate its power — again with a similar eye towards weakening the insurgency) is what motivated the Iraqi government to execute Saddam Hussein so quickly, then the execution was not justified.
On the role of our own government in all of this, Josh Marshall has this to say:
The Iraq War has been many things, but for its prime promoters and
cheerleaders and now-dwindling body of defenders, the war and all its
ideological and literary trappings have always been an exercise in
moral-historical dress-up for a crew of folks whose times aren’t grand
enough to live up to their own self-regard and whose imaginations are
great enough to make up the difference. This is just more play-acting.
These jokers are being dragged kicking and screaming to the
realization that the whole thing’s a mess and that they’re going to be
remembered for it — defined by it — for decades and
centuries. But before we go, we can hang Saddam. Quite a bit of this
was about the president’s issues with his dad and the hang-ups he had
about finishing Saddam off — so before we go, we can hang the guy as
some big cosmic ‘So There!’
It goes without saying that if Josh’s reading of this is correct — that this execution was directed by Washington and is just the last gasp of the President’s Iraq fiasco, a reading that strikes me as certainly a reasonable one in light of the circumstances — then the execution falls far short of the standards set forth by the Catechism on any number of levels.
One of the legal if not moral ironies of the execution is the many ways that U.S. foreign policy “enabled” Saddam Hussein (these are enumerated in Juan Cole’s post today (December 30): “For Whom the Bell Tolls: Top Ten Ways the US Enabled Saddam Hussein.” Catch up on that history at juancole.com.
The execution seems an example of political expediency by the Shiite government; perhaps more so than the Bush Admiistration. As a thought experiment, what should have been the legal process and his fate, had he not been executied?
Good, thoughtful post, Eduardo. I wrote a small post critically addressing some points made by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers on this very question:
http://evangelical-catholicism.blogspot.com/2006/12/catholic-response-to-sentencing-of.html
Leaving aside Josh Marshall’s remarks, Eduardo’s comments are right on target.
Re Margaret Steinfels’ thought experiment: Saddam Hussein should have been tried by the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. His punishment should have been life inprisonment without parole to be served in the company of the others who have been convicted by this tribunal. The lesson would be that his crimes are no less heinous than theirs and his motivation for them no less repugnant than theirs.
“the execution falls far short of the standards set forth by the Catechism on any number of levels.”
Why is that relevant?
Michael – thanks for linking to your excellent and comprehensive post at Evangelical Catholicism, which makes the point much better than I do.
Stuart — the relevance is to the question whether Catholics should judge this to be a morally legitimate use of the death penalty. This seems to be a question that is particularly relevant to American Catholics, given the complicity of our government in Hussein’s execution.
But that doesn’t answer my question. Why should Catholics pay any attention to the Catechism if they might prefer to believe something else?
For a helpful discussion of the fairness of the trial of Saddam Hussein (but not including the verdict and execution), seethe pieces by Miranda Sissons and Kingsley Moghalu in “Ethics and International Affairs,” Vol. 20, no. 4, 2006, 505-25.
Stuart,
What are you trying to say? You obviously have something in mind, something you’re trying to elicit from Eduardo. Rather than waste time trying to turn the conversation in that direction, why not come out with it?
Turnabout is fair play, I suppose. (You’re doing the same thing to me that I was doing to Eduardo, i.e., feigning ignorance to elicit a response).
So then: I’m wondering whether Eduardo can give a (non-partisan) account for why it’s appropriate to content oneself with “The Catechism says so” as to one complex moral issue, when such an argument-from-authority (or the Catechism itself) is regularly dismissed out of hand as to several other complex moral issues.
Does anybody else see the irony of trying to apply the catechism to the actions of those who not only have no interest in the catechism but would likely outlaw it if they could (and soon enough, it appears that they will be able to)? It’s like a moral non sequitur. Where is the connection? Why is it even relevant? Is it to salve our own conscience that the sectarian war we have mindlessly jumped in the middle of isn’t going to be a total victory for thugs?
Does Eduardo also recommend the Catechism’s section on homosexuality to us? I would be surprized if he does. So why the difference? Could it be the de facto nihilism that leaches through even the Catholic community?
I sense some unfairness in the last posts. I don’t think Eduardo is takimg ” the Catechism says so” as the only frame to view an important moral issue. Like many Catholics I suppose he sees it as one important frame(though not necessarily decisive)
Talking about those who would outlaw the catechism ASAP is a kind of straw man as well.
Only for those who think alll is settled and encapsulated there can one take the tack of considering a double standard here. Most contributors here take the content of the Catechism seriously – but not slavishly.
This will obviously continue to be a fault line among contributors that I hope we won’t keep beating to death .
Thanks, Grant. Stuart’s point seemed sufficiently unfounded that I didn’t feel like playing along. I’d like to see an example of a Commonweal post that dismisses arguments from authority out of hand. I think my own view is that arguments from magesterial authority are entitled to respect and a strong presumption in their favor unless there are very strong reasons to doubt the cogency of the authority’s position. I believe I have such reasons with respect to the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and contraception, but not on other issues. I would expect the same is true of many others, though the constellation of agreement and disagreement would be different. In light of that, a citation to the catechism is, for me, a good place to start on most moral questions. Others may demand more argument in support of the hierarchy’s position on the death penalty. I’m happy to provide supplemental argumentation for those people, if they request it. Since, Stuart, you seem to think that any questioning of the Church’s official teachings is out of bounds, it would follow a fortiori that my citation to the catechism should suffice for you. I guess, then, that I just don’t see the force of your point, presented as it is as a criticism of my post, even accepting your grotesque mischaracterization of the view you are opposing. However polluted and inconsistent — in your view — my own thinking is, the only relevant question for you should be whether I have faithfully reported and applied the principles set forth by the relevant authorities. I believe I have.
I am sorry if the point of my post was lost. How is the execution of Saddam Hussein a moral question for you or for me? Perhaps I am overly cynical, but it seems to me that analyzing the execution mainly through the reference point of the Catechism is another form of viewing Iraq, Saddam, the conflict, and all the rest of it as something that revolves around us rather than the Iraqi people who bear the brunt of this sorry conflict. I am guessing that I would come out exactly where you do on the question, but honestly, I don’t see the point.
Let me put it in personal terms: The Church’s (current) teaching on the death penalty is a struggle for me. I do not have an instinctive revulsion at the death penalty; when properly administered (with all that Due Process properly commands), the death penalty strikes me as a just and proportional response to murderers. What’s more, the Church’s opposition to the death penalty is an extremely recent innovation that is inconsistent both with many past centuries of Church teaching and with the Bible itself (note that Romans 13 goes so far as to describe secular governmental authorities — i.e., Roman Caesars and the like — as “ministers of God” who “bear the sword” to “execute wrath” on evildoers. “Bear the sword” wasn’t a metaphorical term at the time.).
So it’s a struggle. Nonetheless, I would concede that if I’m to be Catholic, I should at least *try* to conform to Church teaching, rather than spending my time constructing sophisticated rationalizations that, in the end, make the Church’s teachings almost entirely superfluous — i.e., to be effectively ignored except insofar as they conform to my pre-existing political prejudices and gut instincts.
I’m not sure how a private citizen conforms to the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. Clearly, you have your doubts about it, though.
In any event, I think we are in agreement that Catholics should “[t]ry to conform to Church teaching.” I would go even farther, and believe I did in my prior comment. I would only add that, unless you have a direct line to God, you have no way to know whether these hypothetical people you are describing are trying or have tried to conform their beliefs or behavior, or how much they are rationalizing.
That said, I would agree that if all someone can offer in opposition to an official teaching is inchoate “political prejudices and gut instincts,” then they probably are not deferring enough. On the other hand, if they can produce thoughtful and informed arguments that they sincerely believe cast doubt on Church teachings, then that’s clearly not the situation you’re describing.
You will have to help us with your interpretation of Romans, Stuart. Sequentially, you would have to say that the emperor was executing God’s wrath when he slashed the heads of Peter and Paul. Exegesis is not guess work nor presumptive.
The fourth century is always crucial when Christians began to make martyrs rather than be such. Similarly, in the famous passage, erroneously interpreted about Jesus saying to take up swords again.
Certainly, an important exegetical point is the example of Jesus spoke louder than any word.
Nowadays, of course, Christians talk about how even wars are good for the economy of the poor. Not convincing for sure but I would think about if they invited the poor to their brandy bashes.
” I would agree that if all someone can offer in opposition to an official teaching is inchoate “political prejudices and gut instincts,” then they probably are not deferring enough. On the other hand, if they can produce thoughtful and informed arguments that they sincerely believe cast doubt on Church teachings, then that’s clearly not the situation you’re describing.”
But any argument must necessarily rest on an unproven premise — and how do we get to those premises? Gut instinct. Experience. Emotion. Holmesian “can’t helps.”
On the flip side, I think that it is vanishingly rare for anyone to be convinced of a theological, moral, or political belief sheerly because of a disinterested choice to follow the light of sweet reason wherever it leads. People decide what beliefs or principles are most appealing to them, and then, in the vast majority of cases, the “thoughtful and informed arguments” that follow are just post hoc rationalizations.
Most arguments over important issues are epiphenomenal.
[[But any argument must necessarily rest on an unproven premise -- and how do we get to those premises? Gut instinct. Experience. Emotion. Holmesian "can't helps."]]
I don’t think that the authority of the Magisterium requires us (especially in the current Catechism) to blindly believe the Church’s teachings simply because the Church requires us to. Rather, the authority requires us to suspend disbelief until we understand the underpinnings of the Law. Understanding the underpinnings is where we then can begin to discuss the Law and its rationality.
While in a post Nietsche world we are left with what appears to be the fact that in the end all basic ontological and epistemological premeses cannot be “proven”, I don’t think it follows that they are arbitrary (in even the Calvinistic sense that God’s rules are arbitrary as far as we are concerned) or that we cannot make progress towards the truth. Even saying that “because the basic premises of Catholicism can’t be “proven” we have to accept them simply as a matter of faith” doesn’t mean that we cannot make progress towards truth using our rationality. Emotions, subjectivity, or whatever may enter into this now for most people, but that does not mean that this is the way that it has to be.
Barbara: “How is the execution of Saddam Hussein a moral question for you or for me?”
I think it’s always useful to have real-world examples to work through questions of morality. By itself, morality is generally abstract and removed from everyday life, but in practice, we need to apply abstract moral principles to concrete situations. Though it’s true that there’s nothing we could have done that would affect Hussein’s execution, I think the exercise of working through the morality of it can only help strengthen our moral faculties. Since execution by the state is still a practice in our own country, it is also an issue that we do sometimes have to consider more directly as well (i.e. as voters)
Barbara:”Perhaps I am overly cynical, but it seems to me that analyzing the execution mainly through the reference point of the Catechism is another form of viewing Iraq, Saddam, the conflict, and all the rest of it as something that revolves around us rather than the Iraqi people who bear the brunt of this sorry conflict.”
I agree that, in some ways, talk about the execution is yet another way of talking about Iraq from the American perspective, but I don’t think that’s necessarily cynical. While we should avoid the trap of judging everything by it’s consequences, we do need to take consequences into account. The fact of Hussein’s execution tells us something about the nature of the government we have placed into power, and hence the nature of our involvement.