The Archbishop strikes back
Cardinal sees red over last week’s Sunday Punch comment
Last week the Sunday Punch commented on President Sirisena’s intention to implement the death penalty, which had been in abeyance for the last 42 years, when he declared on 10th July in a speech in Kandy that he will sign the death warrant for those convicted by the courts and sentenced to death for drug trafficking if they still continued their drug pushing operations whilst behind bars.
The Sunday Punch, in the same article, also pointed out that the Archbishop of Colombo had also subscribed to the President’s views. The Sunday Punch questioned the propriety of the Archbishop’ s gratuitous embracement of the President’s call for the death penalty for drug pushers when his own Catholic Church and his own Pope Francis were vehemently opposed to it whatever the crime was and no matter how serious it was. Nowhere in the article was it ever suggested that the Cardinal was for the implementation of the death penalty for all sentenced to death by the courts.
The Sunday Punch comment was certainly based on news reports filed by the reporters who attended the news conference held by the Archbishop at the Archbishop’s Palace on July 12th.
The Sinhala daily the Lankadeepa which carried the Archbishop’s story under the headline, ‘Hirageval wela idhan dhamarika wada karana ayata marana dhadhuwam deema sadaranai’ or ‘ It’s just to hang those in prison who commit serious crime’, reported that “that it is just to implement the death penalty on those in death row who still conduct serious crimes”. The Daily Mirror reported the same under the headline “We support the death penalty” says Archbishop.’
The interview took place on the 12th of July and was published online that same night and published in the national newspapers on the 13th morning. But the Cardinal’s clarification to show that his published comments were not at variance with that of his pope’s stated stance on the death penalty, certainly took a long time in coming. In fact, five days lapsed after the news report was published. The news reports went uncorrected or clarified till this Wednesday.
But after reading last Sunday’s Sunday Punch, His Eminence the Cardinal Ranjith seems to have seen red; and realised that he may have unwittingly, perhaps, placed himself, at variance with the present stated position of the Catholic Church as represented by the Servant of the Servant of God, His Holiness Pope Francis.
On Wednesday the Archbishop’s letter landed on the desk of the Sunday Times Editor. It commented on the Sunday Punch column. It strove to clarify his statement and to state unequivocally that he is not for the death penalty.
And pray, what does his belated letter published in full today on Page 12 have to say? Let’s see whether he succeeds in his zeal to reaffirm faith with the Holy See’s stance on the death penalty as he strives to say therein he is not for the death penalty, period. And that he has been misinterpreted. But does he, in his letter, convey his conviction on that score. Let’s see. And, you, dear reader, you be the judge.
The Archbishop Cardinal Ranjith states at the start: “My attention has been drawn to a comment that has been published in the Sunday Times on the 15th of July 2018 under the heading ‘ Execute them, says the Archbishop’. Though in this column, the columnist Don Manu seems to give the impression that I welcome the death penalty in toto, that is a conclusion erroneously arrived at as a result of partial reporting of an interview I gave, by the Daily Mirror newspaper on 13th July 2018. "
DON MANU’S ANSWER: Firstly, nowhere in the article referred to by His Eminence has it ever been suggested that he was for the death penalty to be implemented for all crimes carrying the death sentence. It was confined to his agreement with President Sirisena’s declaration that he will sign the death warrant on those convicted to death by the courts for trafficking in drugs and who still persisted in running a drag operation behind closed Welikada walls and make them swing on the gallows.
Secondly, the Archbishop’s statement ‘Don Manu seems to give the impression that ‘I welcome the death penalty in toto’.
In toto? Even if I was under the impression -- and I was not -that he welcomed the death penalty in toto, doesn’ t the Archbishop’s phrase that he is in favour of the hangman’s noose around a human’s neck to tighten and snuff the life out of a man in certain cases of the Archbishop’s choice and delicacy alone where he deems the punishment merits the crime, violate the cardinal principle of the Vatican Church which Pope Francis recently reaffirmed when he said that "It is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel, because a decision is voluntarily made to suppress a human life, which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of whom, in the last analysis, only God can be the true judge and guarantor."
Is the Archbishop totally against the death penalty or only partially? Does he thus approve of human beings being hanged by their necks till the last breath have expired from their bodies and are pronounced dead in certain cases only -- in instances when he removes his cardinal zucchetto and dons the black cap of secular judges when they pronounce the death penalty -- which he condones and does not condemn?
And isn’t such a hybrid stance at variance with the present Catechism of the Catholic Church on the issue of the death penalty as espoused so eloquently by the Holy Father Pope Francis last October is that "It is, in itself, contrary to the Gospels.” And that “that, no matter how serious the crime committed, the death penalty is inadmissible, because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person,"
THE ARCHBISHOP THEN SAYS: The Holy Father Pope Francis has in fact not accepted the death penalty which is also my own position invariably. I am not for a generalised return of capital punishment. It should be the last option, if at all.
DON MANU’S ANSWER: Again, does his statement that he is not for a ‘generalised return of capital punishment’ implicitly imply that he welcomes it in certain cases? Does it not revolt against the position of his Pope, who stated not even nine months ago that “it is necessary to reiterate that, no matter how serious the crime committed, the death penalty is inadmissible, because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person."
THE ARCHBISHOP THEN SAYS: In fact the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that: “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 way of effectively defending human life against the unjust aggressor” [ Catechism of the Catholic Church, revised edition, 1997 No.2257].
DON MANU’S ANSWER: But has it now been further revised? And especially and more explicitly so in view of Pope Francis’s who, speaking at the 25th anniversary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican in October last year said “the Catechism's discussion of the death penalty, already formally amended by St. John Paul II, needs to be even more explicitly against capital punishment. Capital punishment, heavily wounds human dignity" and is an "inhuman measure. It is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel, because a decision is voluntarily made to suppress a human life, which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of whom, in the last analysis, only God can be the true judge and guarantor.
THE ARCHBISHOP ALSO SAYS: From the above it is clear that neither have I advocated a re-introduction of the death penalty carte blanche as Don Manu seems to have understood.
DON MANU’S ANSWER: But hasn’t he? The issue here is not whether he has advocated the death penalty carte blanche. That was never at issue or, as said earlier, suggested at all in last week’s Sunday Punch. The issue here was whether the Cardinal was advocating the death penalty on a selective basis based upon his own judgment in violation of the doctrine of the Catholic Church which now holds all life to be inviolate and beyond the hangman’s noose, however serious the crime.
The Archbishop’s statement that “People in prison who engage in organising such crimes are doing a grave harm to society. They commit a grave sin. Thus there is nothing wrong in punishing such people. Not all people fall into that special category. They could be identified on the basis of only credible witnesses and solid facts. That is up to the justice system to do. Perpetrators of such gruesome crimes could be considered as having forfeited their own right to life. Because such activities cause death to other people. His Excellency the President has not expressed the idea of executing all those who are condemned to death” clearly shows he is for the death penalty.
It’s no longer a question of replying to Don Manu. It’s now a matter to be answered to his Supreme Pope.
Finally, His Eminence Cardinal Malcom Ranjith says: “May I also refer to what Jesus, the Lord, mentioned with regard to those who cause scandal and mislead our children and youth in order to gain filthy lucre for themselves: “It would be better for you, if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble” [Lk.17:2].
But can this quote, by any means, be interpreted as an exhortation by Jesus Christ for the death penalty? Is Jesus calling for some external man made force to crucify the sinner or is Jesus merely admonishing the sinner to mend his ways or else to tie a stone around his neck and jump into the lake for he is no good to none, mainly to himself and to his soul for the more he continues with committing sin, the more he will place himself beyond the pale of redemption?
Herewith is the full rendering of Luke’s quotation as contained in the King James’s Bible which reveals the forgiving creed of Jesus Christ in full measure which the Catholic Pope now follows without exception: :
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
The interview took place on the 12th of July and was published online that same night and published in the national newspapers on the 13th morning. But the Cardinal’s clarification to show that his published comments were not at variance with that of his pope’s stated stance on the death penalty, certainly took a long time in coming.
Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him. The message is clear: Jesus Christ’s law is love.