Montgomery, Ala., Jun 7, 2019 / 07:00 pm (CNA).- A Catholic ethicist raised concerns over a bill that would mandate “chemical castration” as a condition of parole for incarcerated pedophiles. The issue is at the crux of an Alabama bill that has passed the state’s legislature and now is awaiting the governor’s signature.
The bill, HB379, would mandate so-called “chemical castration” as a condition for granting parole to convicted sex offenders who offended against children 13 years of age or younger. The treatment would be provided and supervised by the Department of Public Health, and would be paid for by the parolees, unless they could demonstrate the inability to pay, the bill states.
The bill defines the chemical castration treatment as: “The receiving of medication, including, but not limited to, medroxyprogesterone acetate treatment or its chemical equivalent, that, among other things, reduces, inhibits, or blocks the production of testosterone, hormones, or other chemicals in a person’s body.” Medical experts have raised multiple concerns about the bill including the fact that a judge, rather than a doctor, would inform parolees about the possible and serious side-effects of the treatment, according to the Washington Post.
In comments to CNA, Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, an ethicist with The National Catholic Bioethics Center, said that blanket mandates of medical interventions “can raise more problems” than they solve.”
Pacholczyk said a case-by-case approach would be more appropriate.
“If testosterone-reducing agents are to be employed in a sensible fashion, it should be on a case-by-case, medically-indicated (and rehabilitation-oriented) basis, rather than as a universal requirement for every situation of establishing parole for convicted pedophiles,” Pacholczyk said in email comments.
A proponent of the bill responded to questions about whether the bill is inhumane, stating that he believes the “punishment should fit the crime.”
Rep. Steve Hurst, who introduced the bill, told local media that convicted pedophiles “have marked this child for life and the punishment should fit the crime.”
“I had people call me in the past when I introduced it and said, ‘Don’t you think this is inhumane?'” Hurst told CBS affiliate WIAT-TV.
“I asked them what’s more inhumane than when you take a little infant child, and you sexually molest that infant child when the child cannot defend themselves or get away, and they have to go through all the things they have to go through. If you want to talk about inhumane, that’s inhumane.”
According to Catholic ethical principles, punitive measures should always be ordered toward “rehabilitation and repentance, not towards the inflicting of unreasonable or disproportionate harm upon an individual who has committed an offense,” Pacholczyk added. For example, he said, the Catholic Church would not condone chopping off the hands of a repeatedly-offending thief.
Likewise, “chemically castrating” a person so as to “actively strip away any vestige of an offender’s personal sexuality and render him sterile, androgynous, and/or inert, this could raise legitimate ethical concerns about violating that person’s bodily and personal integrity,” he said.
“This would be a moral concern particularly if other means of treating these individuals were not exhaustively pursued, such as incarceration, directed treatments and therapies, counseling, spiritual support, etc.,” he added.
In some cases, the priest noted, it could be morally and ethically licit for a sex offender to take drugs that would lower their testosterone levels and overall libido “to more manageable levels” if it were found to be medically appropriate for that specific person, and if it were part of a broader therapetic regimen involving “extensive psychological and other supportive counseling aimed at helping them order their sexual impulses so as not to re-offend,” he said.
In those particular cases, the term “chemical castration” may be an improper term, Pacholczyk noted, if the goal is the overall healing and restoration of normal, baseline hormone levels in a person.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
With due respect to Fr. Pacholczyk, he is wrong to state that according to Catholic ethical principles that “rehabilitation” is the primary purpose of punishment (especially considering that the possibility of rehabilitating pedophiles is so low it is questionable whether it is even worth trying). Retribution and protection of society are more important than the rehabilitation of the offender.
“Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party” (CCC 2266).
..”Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the
legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence”(Roman Catechism, P388, discussion of the 5th Commandment).
Was any thought given to the victims and their families? Turning a still potent criminal to the streets so he can rape again seems to be a disgrace to God. Much like the priest hearing a arch murderer and serial rapist’s confession and suppress his duty as a human being and a protector of the faithful.
I assume from that last sentence that Morgan is all gung-ho for the breaking of the seal of confession (as indeed he is for most Catholic dogma, disciplines, and practices, based on his comments).
Next, he will blame God, because when someone is confessing his sins to a priest the priest is hearing them in persona Christi and therefore Our Lord is failing in “[H]is duty as a human being and a protector of the faithful” if he doesn’t make known the sin.
And, of course, why stop at the confession of “arch murderers” (whatever that means) and “serial rapists?” Next, the state should require that priests should be required to report to authorities cases of adultery (under the UCMJ that’s a crime); or, if someone confesses having stolen something, the priest should immediately dash off to the police and report it; and as we proceed along, any thought crimes that the person may have revealed in the confessional need to be reported as well.
As to “Turning a still potent criminal to the streets so he can rape again seems to be a disgrace to God,” Fr. Pacholczyk, the ethicist quoted in the article, pointed out that incarceration was a channel that was preferable to maiming the person chemically.