Can I Be Pro-Life and Pro-Capital Punishment?

I am a Catholic, I’m pro-life,  pro-capital punishment and I don’t have a problem with war as long as it is justified.

I read a comment by a pro-abort that stated “Catholic’s make up their own rules. What suits them at the moment is perfectly acceptable. They can always go and “repent” later.”

This was in response to a comment made by another person posting that you can indeed be pro-life, okay with war, and pro-capital punishment.

Here is the Catholic Church’s stance on the issue of capital punishment:

The Church throughout  her  history  has  firmly held to the natural law principle that the state has the right to execute criminals who are a threat both to the innocent and to the harmony of society. One of the principal duties  of  the state is  to  protect   the  rights  of  its  citizens  from the unjust  taking  of  those  rights. The state itself  is supposed to be subordinate to this same principle so  that  its  citizens  can  feel secure that their individual, God given, rights are protected in every circumstance.  When the rights of the innocent person are violated by those who transgress the law the state has the right to use whatever means are necessary  and appropriate to secure the rights of its individual citizens and its society as a whole.  Without the protection of the state, exercised  according  to  the natural law,  the innocent suffer and  unjust aggressors prosper, order and harmony break down  and freedom for law-abiding citizens is lost. In the Old Testament God speaks of this necessary order continuously. Capital punishment  was even required by God to maintain the natural order and harmony of Israelite society. Jesus never once refuted this natural law precept which, as the Second Person of the Trinity,  He created in the first place.

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” (Genesis 9:6)


Catholicism’s stance on war is built on the Just War Theory, which says that all things being equal, the state has a right to wage war — just like it has a right to use capital punishment. However, just like with capital punishment, the right to wage war isn’t an absolute right.

The basis of the Just War Theory is the natural moral law, and it incorporates a moral evaluation before going to war (the reasons for it) and during it (the means used). Everything leading up to war and every act during it must fulfill certain criteria, otherwise, the conflict is judged to be an immoral war.

The Just War Theory can be broken down into two components:

  • Ius ad bellum (Latin for right to war or moral reasons that justify a country’s going to war)
  • Ius in bello (Latin for right in war or moral conduct during war).

The two components above are further elaborated in this way:

Before war:

  • Just cause (ius ad bellum): The reasons for going to war must be morally correct, for example to repel invading enemy forces.
  • Competent authority (ius ad bellum): Only legitimate, authentic, and authorized leaders can declare and involve the nation in war. Private citizens, corporations, special interest groups, associations, political parties, and so on, have no moral authority to declare war.
  • *Comparative justice (ius ad bellum): The values at stake must be worth the loss of life, the wounding of others, the risk of innocent victims and damage to property.
  • *Right intention (ius ad bellum): Acceptable reasons for going to war are a just cause, such as the stopping of an unjust aggressor, or having the goal of restoring peace rather than seeking revenge, retaliation, or total destruction of the enemy (without any possibility of surrender).
  • *Last resort (ius ad bellum): All viable alternatives must be exhausted before resorting to war. Going to war shouldn’t be the first step but the last one.
  • *Probability of success (ius ad bellum): A just war demands that the hope of winning the war is reasonable. Fighting just to make or prove a point or merely defending honor is foolish.
  • Proportionality (ius ad bellum): The evils and suffering that result from the war must be proportionately less or smaller than the evils or suffering, which would have ensued had there been no conflict.

During war:

  • Proportionality (ius in bello): A just war uses moral means during the execution of the war. Biological weapons are considered immoral, because they disproportionately harm more people and in more severity than is necessary for victory. Tactical nuclear weapons are only permissible if employed as a last resort, and there is significant accuracy and control to target only valid sites.
  • Discrimination of noncombatants (ius in bello): Military and strategic targets are the only morally permissible sites for attack. Civilian population centers and any place where noncombatants reside shouldn’t be targeted.

No, we don’t “make up our own rules to suit us at the moment.” So there is no need to “repent” later. Capital punishment and just war are part of our belief system, and have been from the beginning.

By the way, the number of deaths in 2011 from the death penalty? 43. Abortion? 333,964. That’s just Planned Parenthood’s number.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s