Inscription on the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome: Indulgentia plenaria perpetua quotidiana toties quoties pro vivis et defunctis (English trans: "Perpetual everyday plenary indulgence on every occasion for the living and the dead")

In Catholic theology, an indulgence is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment^[1] due for sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the Catholic Church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution.^[2] An indulgence is thus not forgiveness of sin nor release from the eternal punishment associated with hell in Christian beliefs.^[3] The belief is that indulgences draw on the Treasury of Merit accumulated by Christ's superabundantly meritorious sacrifice on the cross and the virtues and penances of the saints.^[4] They are granted for specific good works and prayers.^[4]

Indulgences replaced the severe penances of the early Church.^[4] More exactly, they replaced the shortening of those penances that was allowed at the intercession of those imprisoned and those awaiting martyrdom for the faith.^[5]

Alleged abuses in selling and granting indulgences^[4] were a major point of contention when Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation (1517).

Catholic teaching[link]

Part of a series on
Roman Catholicism
Organisation
Pope – Benedict XVI College of Cardinals – Holy See Ecumenical Councils Episcopal polity Latin Church Eastern Catholic Churches
Background
History Christianity Catholicism Apostolic Succession Four Marks of the Church Ten Commandments Crucifixion & Resurrection of Jesus Ascension Assumption of Mary
Theology
Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) Theology Apologetics Divine Grace Sacraments Purgatory Salvation Original sin Saints Dogma Virgin Mary Mariology Immaculate Conception of Mary
Liturgy and worship
Roman Catholic Liturgy Prayer Eucharist Liturgy of the Hours Liturgical Year Biblical Canon
Rites
Roman Armenian Alexandrian Byzantine Antiochian West Syrian East Syrian
Controversies
Science Evolution Criticism Sex & gender Homosexuality
Catholicism topics
Monasticism Women Ecumenism Prayer Music Art Political catholicism
Catholicism portal
v t e

According to the teachings outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church,^[6] two distinct consequences follow when a person sins. A mortal sin (one that is grave and is committed knowingly and freely) is equivalent to refusing friendship of God and communion with the only source of eternal life. The loss of eternal life with God and the eternal death of Hell that this rejection entails is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. In addition, every sin, even those that, not being mortal, are called venial sins, cause a turning from God through what the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called purgatory. The resulting need to break this attachment to creatures is another punishment for sin, referred to as "temporal punishment", because, not being a total rejection of God, it is not eternal and can be overcome in time. Even when the sin is forgiven, the associated attachment to creatures may remain. The sinner must "strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the 'old man' and to put on the 'new man'."^[7]

The Catholic doctrine of the Communion of Saints teaches that this work of cleansing or sanctification does not have to be done entirely by the person directly concerned since all Christians (indeed, all persons, each created by God), living and dead, are united as a single body that has Christ as head. The holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus through the communion of saints, recourse not only to the merits of the saints in heaven but above all to those of Christ himself lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.^[8]

In view of the Church's interpretation of the power of binding or loosing granted by Christ, the Church considers that it may administer to those under its jurisdiction the benefits of these merits in consideration of prayer or other pious works undertaken by the faithful.^[5] This the Church does for individual Christians, not simply to aid them, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.^[9]

There is a common misconception that, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, indulgences forgive sins: the Catholic Church teaches instead that indulgences only relieve the temporal punishment due because of the sins, and that a person is still required to have his grave sins absolved, ordinarily through the sacrament of Confession, to receive salvation.

Since those who have died in the state of grace (with all mortal sins forgiven) are members of the communion of saints, it is the belief of the Catholic Church that the living can help those whose purification from their sins is not yet completed not only by prayer but also by obtaining indulgences for them.^[10] Since the Church on earth has no jurisdiction over the dead, indulgences can be gained for them only per modum suffragii, i.e. by an act of intercession.^[5]

An indulgence may be plenary or partial, according as it remits all or only part of the temporal punishment that at that moment is due for sin.^[11] To gain a plenary indulgence, a person must exclude all attachment to sin of any kind, even venial sin, must perform the work or say the prayer for which the indulgence is granted, and must also fulfil the three conditions of sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and praying for the intentions of the Pope.^[12] The minimum condition for gaining a partial indulgence is to be contrite in heart: on this condition, a Catholic who performs the work or recites the prayer in question is granted, through the Church, remission of temporal punishment of the same worth as is obtained by the person's own action, similar to matching funds.^[13]

Present discipline[link]

Philippines Archbishop Socrates B. Villegas bestows the 2012 Easter Sunday Mass Plenary Indulgence (St. John the Evangelist Metropolitan Cathedral, Dagupan City, Pangasinan)

By the bull Indulgentiarum doctrina of 1 January 1967, Pope Paul VI, responding to suggestions made at the Second Vatican Council, substantially revised the practical application of the traditional doctrine.^[14]

He made it clear that the Church's aim was not merely to help the faithful make due satisfaction for their sins, but chiefly to bring them to greater fervour of charity. For this purpose he decreed that partial indulgences, previously granted as the equivalent of a certain number of days, months, "quarantines"^[15] (Lent-like forty-day periods) or years of canonical penance, simply supplement, and to the same degree, the remission that those performing the indulgenced action already gain by the charity and contrition with which they do it.^[5]

The abolition of the classification by years and days made it clearer than before that repentance and faith are required not only for remission of eternal punishment for mortal sin but also for remission of temporal punishment for sin. In Indulgentiarum doctrina Pope Paul VI wrote: "Indulgences cannot be gained without a sincere conversion of outlook and unity with God".^[16]

In the same bull, Pope Paul ordered that the official list of indulgenced prayers and good works, which had been called the Raccolta, be revised "with a view to attaching indulgences only to the most important prayers and works of piety, charity and penance".^[17] This removed from the list of indulgenced prayers and good works, now called the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum,^[18] many prayers for which various religious institutes, confraternities and similar groups had succeeded in the course of centuries in obtaining grants of indulgences, but which could not be classified as among "the most important". Religious institutes and the like, to which grants of plenary indulgences, for instance for visiting a particular church or shrine, had been previously made, were given a year from the date of promulgation of Indulgentiarum doctrina to have them confirmed, and any that were not confirmed (mostly in a more limited way than before)^[19] within two years became null and void.^[20]

The Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, which is in Latin, differs from the Italian-language Raccolta that it replaced in listing "only the most important prayers and works of piety, charity and penance". On the other hand, it includes new general grants of partial indulgences that apply to a wide range of prayerful actions, and it indicates that the prayers that it does list as deserving veneration on account of divine inspiration or antiquity or as being in widespread use are only examples^[21] of those to which the first these general grants applies: "Raising the mind to God with humble trust while performing one's duties and bearing life's difficulties, and adding, at least mentally, some pious invocation".^[22] In this way, the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, in spite of its smaller size, classifies as indulgenced an immensely greater number of prayers than were treated as such in the Raccolta.

Actions for which indulgences are granted[link]

There are four general grants of indulgence, which are meant to encourage the faithful to infuse a Christian spirit into the actions of their daily lives and to strive for perfection of charity. These indulgences are partial, and their worth therefore depends on the fervour with which the person performs the recommended actions:

1. Raising the mind to God with humble trust while performing one's duties and bearing life's difficulties, and adding, at least mentally, some pious invocation.
2. Devoting oneself or one's goods compassionately in a spirit of faith to the service of one's brothers and sisters in need.
3. Freely abstaining in a spirit of penance from something licit and pleasant.
4. Freely giving open witness to one's faith before others in particular circumstances of everyday life.^[23]

Among the particular grants, which, on closer inspection, will be seen to be included in one or more of the four general grants, especially the first, the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum draws special attention^[24] to four activities for which a plenary indulgence can be gained on any day, though only once a day:

1. Piously reading or listening to Sacred Scripture for at least half an hour.^[25]
2. Adoration of Jesus in the Eucharist for at least half an hour.^[26]
3. The pious exercise of the Stations of the Cross .^[27]
4. Recitation of the Rosary or the Akathist in a church or oratory, or in a family, a religious community, an association of the faithful and, in general, when several people come together for an honourable purpose.^[28]

A plenary indulgence may also be gained on some occasions, which are not everyday occurrences. They include:

• Receiving, even by radio or television, the blessing given by the Pope Urbi et Orbi (to the city of Rome and to the world) or that which a bishop is authorized to give three times a year to the faithful of his diocese.^[29]
• Taking part devoutly in the celebration of a day devoted on a world level to a particular religious purpose.^[30] Under this heading come the annual celebrations such as the World Day of Prayer for Vocations, and occasional celebrations such as World Youth Day.^[31][32]
• Taking part for at least three full days in a spiritual retreat.^[33]
• Taking part in some functions during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity including its conclusion.^[34]

The prayers specifically mentioned in the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum are not of the Latin Rite tradition alone, but also from the traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Akathistos, Paraklesis, Evening Prayer, and Prayer for the Faithful Departed (Byzantine), Prayer of Thanksgiving (Armenian), Prayer of the Shrine and the Lakhu Mara (Chaldean), Prayer of Incense and Prayer to Glorify Mary the Mother of God (Coptic), Prayer for the Remission of Sins and Prayer to Follow Christ (Ethiopian), Prayer for the Church, and Prayer of Leave-taking from the Altar (Maronite), and Intercessions for the Faithful Departed (Syrian).

Apart from the recurrences listed in the Enchiridion, special indulgences are granted on occasions of special spiritual significance such as a Jubilee Year^[35] or the centenary or similar anniversary of an event such as the apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes^[36] or the celebration of a World Youth Day.

Of particular significance is the plenary indulgence attached to the Apostolic Blessing that a priest is to impart when giving the sacraments to a person in danger of death, and which, if no priest is available, the Church grants to any rightly disposed Christian at the moment of death, on condition that that person was accustomed to say some prayers during life. In this case the Church itself makes up for the three conditions normally required for a plenary indulgence: sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and prayer for the Pope's intentions.^[37]

History of indulgences[link]

Early and medieval beliefs[link]

In the early church, especially from the third century on, ecclesiastic authorities allowed a confessor or a Christian awaiting martyrdom to intercede for another Christian in order to shorten the other's canonical penance.^[5]

The Council of Epaon in 517 witnesses to the rise of the practice of replacing severe canonical penances with something new and milder. It became customary to commute penances to less demanding works, such as prayers, alms, fasts and even the payment of fixed sums of money depending on the various kinds of offences (tariff penances). By the tenth century some penances were not replaced but merely reduced in connection with pious donations, pilgrimages and similar meritorious works. Then, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the recognition of the value of these works began to become associated not so much with canonical penance but with remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.^[38]

The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance.^[38][39]

Theologians looked to God's mercy, the value of the Church's prayers, and the merits of the saints as the basis on which indulgences could be granted. Around 1230 the Dominican Hugh of St-Cher proposed the idea of a "treasury" at the Church's disposal, consisting of the infinite merits of Christ and the immeasurable abundance of the saints' merits, a thesis that was demonstrated by great scholastics such as Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas and remains the basis for the theological explanation of indulgences.^[38]

The sale of indulgences shown in A Question to a Mintmaker, woodcut by Jörg Breu the Elder of Augsburg, circa 1530.

Abuses[link]

Indulgences became increasingly popular in the Middle Ages as a reward for displaying piety and doing good deeds, though, doctrinally speaking, the Church stated that the indulgence was only valid for temporal punishment for sins already forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession. The faithful asked that indulgences be given for saying their favourite prayers, doing acts of devotion, attending places of worship, and going on pilgrimage; confraternities wanted indulgences for putting on performances and processions; associations demanded that their meetings be rewarded with indulgences. Money raised by indulgences was used for many righteous causes, both religious and civil; building projects funded by indulgences include churches, hospitals, leper colonies, schools, roads, and bridges.^[38]

However, the later Middle Ages saw the growth of considerable abuses. Greedy commissaries sought to extract the maximum amount of money for each indulgence.^[40] Professional "pardoners"^[5] (quaestores in Latin) - who were sent to collect alms for a specific project - practiced the unrestricted sale of indulgences. Many of these quaestores exceeded Church teachings, whether in avarice or ignorant zeal, and promised impossible rewards like salvation from eternal damnation in return for money.^[38] With the permission of the Church, indulgences also became a way for Catholic rulers to fund expensive projects, such as Crusades and cathedrals, by keeping a significant portion of the money raised from indulgences in their lands.^[38] There was a tendency to forge documents declaring that indulgences had been granted.^[38] Indulgences grew to extraordinary magnitude, in terms of longevity and breadth of forgiveness.

Engraving of the Mass of Saint Gregory by Israhel van Meckenem, 1490s, with an unauthorized indulgence at the bottom^[41]

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) suppressed some abuses connected with indulgences, spelling out, for example, that only a one-year indulgence would be granted for the consecration of churches and no more than a 40-days indulgence for other occasions. The Council also stated that "Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land."^[42]

But very soon these limits were widely exceeded. False documents were circulated with indulgences surpassing all bounds: indulgences of hundreds or even thousands of years.^[38] In 1392, more than a century before Martin Luther published the 95 Theses, Pope Boniface IX wrote to the Bishop of Ferrara condemning the practice of certain members of religious orders who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next.^[43]

An engraving by Israhel van Meckenem of the Mass of Saint Gregory contained a "bootlegged" indulgence of 20,000 years; one of the copies of this plate (not the one illustrated, but also from the 1490s) was altered in a later state to increase it to 45,000 years. The indulgences applied each time a specified collection of prayers - in this case seven each of the Creed, Our Father, and Hail Mary - were recited in front of the image.^[44] The image of the Mass of Saint Gregory had been especially associated with large indulgences since the Jubilee Year of 1350 in Rome, when it was at least widely believed that an indulgence of 14,000 years had been granted for praying in the presence of the Imago Pietatis ("Man of Sorrows"), a popular pilgrimage destination in the basilica of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome.^[45]

Protestant Reformation[link]

The Pope as the Antichrist, signing and selling indulgences, from Luther's 1521 Passional Christi und Antichristi, by Lucas Cranach the Elder^[46]

Indulgence of Jeronimus Munghofer

The false doctrine and scandalous conduct of the "pardoners" were an immediate occasion of the Protestant Reformation.^[5] In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The aggressive marketing practices of Johann Tetzel in promoting this cause provoked Martin Luther to write his Ninety-Five Theses, condemning what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation. In Thesis 28 Luther objected to a saying attributed to Tetzel: "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs".^[47] The Ninety-Five Theses not only denounced such transactions as worldly but denied the Pope's right to grant pardons on God's behalf in the first place: the only thing indulgences guaranteed, Luther said, was an increase in profit and greed, because the pardon of the Church was in God's power alone.^[48]

This oft-quoted saying was by no means representative of the official Catholic teaching on indulgences, but rather, more a reflection of Tetzel’s capacity to exaggerate. Yet if Tetzel overstated the matter in regard to indulgences for the dead, his teaching on indulgences for the living was pure. German Catholic historian of the Papacy, Ludwig von Pastor explains:^[49]

Above all, a most clear distinction must be made between indulgences for the living and those for the dead.
As regards indulgences for the living, Tetzel always taught pure doctrine. The assertion that he put forward indulgences as being not only a remission of the temporal punishment of sin, but as a remission of its guilt, is as unfounded as is that other accusation against him, that he sold the forgiveness of sin for money, without even any mention of contrition and confession, or that, for payment, he absolved from sins which might be committed in the future. His teaching was, in fact, very definite, and quite in harmony with the theology of the Church, as it was then and as it is now, i.e., that indulgences "apply only to the temporal punishment due to sins which have been already repented of and confessed".... The case was very different with indulgences for the dead. As regards these there is no doubt that Tetzel did, according to what he considered his authoritative instructions, proclaim as Christian doctrine that nothing but an offering of money was required to gain the indulgence for the dead, without there being any question of contrition or confession. He also taught, in accordance with the opinion then held, that an indulgence could be applied to any given soul with unfailing effect. Starting from this assumption, there is no doubt that his doctrine was virtually that of the drastic proverb:

“As soon as money in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory's fire springs."

The Papal Bull of indulgence gave no sanction whatever to this proposition. It was a vague scholastic opinion, rejected by the Sorbonne in 1482, and again in 1518, and certainly not a doctrine of the Church, which was thus improperly put forward as dogmatic truth. The first among the theologians of the Roman court, Cardinal Cajetan, was the enemy of all such extravagances, and declared emphatically that, even if theologians and preachers taught such opinions, no faith need be given them. "Preachers," said he, "speak in the name of the Church only so long as they proclaim the doctrine of Christ and His Church; but if, for purposes of their own, they teach that about which they know nothing, and which is only their own imagination, they must not be accepted as mouthpieces of the Church. No one must be surprised if such as these fall into error."

While Luther did not deny the Pope’s right to grant pardons for penance imposed by the Church, he made it clear that preachers who claimed indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation were in error.^[50]

Council of Trent[link]

On 16 July 1562, the Council of Trent suppressed the office of quaestores and reserved the collection of alms to two canon members of the chapter, who were to receive no remuneration for their work; it also reserved the publication of indulgences to the bishop of the diocese.^[51] Then on 4 December 1563, in its final session, the Council addressed the question of indulgences directly, declaring them "most salutary for the Christian people", decreeing that "all evil gains for the obtaining of them be wholly abolished", and instructing bishops to be on the watch for any abuses concerning them.^[52]

A few years later, in 1567, Pope Pius V cancelled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.^[53][54]

After the Council of Trent, Clement VIII established a commission of Cardinals to deal with indulgences according to the mind of the Council. It continued its work during the pontificate of Paul V and published various bulls and decrees on the matter. But only Clement IX established a true Congregation of Indulgences (and Relics) with a Brief of 6 July 1669. In a motu proprio on 28 January 1904, Pius X joined the Congregation of Indulgences with that of Rites, but with the restructuring of the Roman Curia in 1908 all matters regarding indulgences was assigned to the Holy Office. In a motu proprio on 25 March 1915, Benedict XV transferred the Holy Office's Section for Indulgences to the Apostolic Penitentiary, but maintained the Holy Office's responsibility for matters regarding the doctrine of indulgences.

Eastern Orthodox Church[link]

An 18th-century absolution certificate granted by the Patriarch of Jerusalem and sold by Greek monks in Wallachia (History Museum, Bucharest)

The Eastern Orthodox Churches believe one can be absolved from sins by the Sacred Mystery of Confession, which in the East is preceded by a period of fasting.^{[citation needed]} Because of differences in the theology of salvation, indulgences for the remission of temporal punishment of sin do not exist in Eastern Orthodoxy, but until the twentieth century there existed in some places a practice of absolution certificates (συγχωροχάρτια – synchorochartia).

While some of these certificates were connected with any patriarch's decrees lifting for the living or the dead some serious ecclesiastical penalty, including excommunication, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, with the approval of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, had the sole privilege, because of the expense of maintaining the Holy Places and paying the many taxes levied on them, of distributing such documents in large numbers to pilgrims or sending them elsewhere, sometimes with a blank space for the name of the beneficiary, living or dead, an individual or a whole family, for whom the prayers would be read.

Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos Notaras (1641–1707) wrote: "It is an established custom and ancient tradition, known to all, that the Most Holy Patriarchs give the absolution certificate (συγχωροχάρτιον – synchorochartion) to the faithful people … they have granted them from the beginning and still do."^[55]

A Russian Orthodox source says that these certificates were in use among Greek Orthodox until the middle of the twentieth century, and were "certificates which absolved from sins, which anyone could obtain, often for a specified sum of money. The absolution granted by these papers, according to Christos Yannaras, had no connection with any participation of the faithful in the Mystery of Penance, nor in the Mystery of the Eucharist". The same source interprets the Western indulgence also as absolution from sin, not as remission of temporal punishment.^[56]

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Parshall, Peter, in David Landau & Peter Parshall, The Renaissance Print, Yale, 1996, ISBN 0-300-06883-2
• Shestack, Alan; Fifteenth century Engravings of Northern Europe; 1967, National Gallery of Art, Washington (Catalogue), LOC 67-29080

External links[link]

Look up indulgence in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Indulgences

• Pope Paul VI: Apostolic Constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina whereby the Revision of Sacred Indulgences is Promulgated, 1 January 1967
• Code of Canon Law (1983) concerning Indulgences
• Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, 4th edition, 1999 (Latin) (English translation: "Manual of Indulgences", published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, ISBN 1-57455-474-3)
• English translation of Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, 3rd edition (1986)
• Pope John Paul II: General Audience talk on indulgences, 29 September 1999
• Catechism of the Catholic Church: Indulgences
• Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm. 
• Enrico dal Covolo: The Historical Origin of Indulgences
• Paul S. Czarnota: Indulgences
• A Primer on Indulgences
• Myths about Indulgences

Mark David Chapman (born May 10, 1955) is an American prison inmate who was convicted of murdering former Beatles member John Lennon on December 8, 1980. He killed Lennon outside The Dakota apartment building in New York City. Chapman fired at Lennon five times, hitting him four times in the back. He then remained at the scene reading the book The Catcher in the Rye until police arrived. He repeatedly claimed that the novel was his statement.

Chapman's legal team put forward an insanity defense based on expert testimony that he was in a delusional and possibly psychotic state at the time, but nearing the trial Chapman instructed his lawyer to plead guilty based on what he had decided was the will of God. Judge Edwards allowed the plea change without further psychiatric assessment, and sentenced Chapman to a prison term of 20 years to life with a stipulation that mental health treatment be provided. Chapman remains imprisoned at the Wende Correctional Facility in Alden, New York, having been denied parole six times.^[1][2]

Early life and education[link]

Mark David Chapman was born in Fort Worth, Texas. His father, David Curtis Chapman, was a staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, and his mother, Kathryn Elizabeth Pease, was a nurse. His younger sister, Susan, was born seven years later. Chapman stated that as a boy, he lived in fear of his father, who he said was physically abusive towards his mother and unloving towards him. He began to fantasize about having king-like power over a group of imaginary "little people" who lived in the walls. Chapman attended Columbia High School in Decatur, Georgia. By the time he was fourteen years of age, Chapman was using drugs, skipping classes, and he once ran away from home to live on the streets for two weeks. He has said he was bullied at school because he was not a good athlete.^[3]

In 1971, Chapman became a born again Christian, and distributed Biblical tracts. He met his first girlfriend, another Christian named Jessica Blankenship. He began work as a YMCA summer camp counselor; he was very popular with the children, who nicknamed him "Nemo". He won an award for Outstanding Counselor and was made assistant director.^[3] Those who knew him in the caretaking professions unanimously called him an outstanding worker.^[4] A friend recommended The Catcher in the Rye to Chapman, and the story eventually took on great personal significance for him, to the extent that he reportedly wished to model his life after its protagonist, Holden Caulfield.^[3] After graduating from Columbia High School, Chapman moved for a time to Chicago and played guitar in churches and Christian nightspots while his friend did impersonations. He worked successfully for World Vision with Vietnamese refugees at a resettlement camp at Fort Chaffee in Arkansas, after a brief visit to Lebanon for the same work. He was named an area coordinator and a key aide to the program director, David Moore, who later said Chapman cared deeply for the children and worked hard. Chapman accompanied Moore to meetings with government officials, and President Gerald Ford shook his hand.^[4][5]

Chapman joined his girlfriend, Jessica Blankenship, as a student at Covenant College (an evangelical Presbyterian college that emphasizes the liberal arts) in Lookout Mountain, Georgia. However, Chapman fell behind in his studies and became obsessed with guilt over having an affair.^[6][7] He started having suicidal thoughts and began to feel like a failure. He dropped out of Covenant College, and his girlfriend broke off their relationship soon after. He returned to work at the resettlement camp, but left after an argument. Chapman then took a job as a security guard, eventually taking a week-long course that qualified him to be an armed guard. He made another attempt to go to college but dropped out again. He decided to go to Hawaii and then kill himself.^[6] In 1977, Chapman attempted suicide via carbon monoxide asphyxiation. He connected a vacuum cleaner hose to his car exhaust pipe and led it inside the car, thus exposing himself to the car's exhaust, but the hose melted in the exhaust pipe and the attempt failed. He was discovered and brought to a local mental health clinic. A psychiatrist admitted him to Castle Memorial Hospital for clinical depression. Upon his release, the hospital hired him part-time. He played guitar for the patients and counseled them. He found a place to live with a Presbyterian minister.^[8] His parents began divorce proceedings, and his mother joined Chapman in Hawaii.^[7]

In 1978, Chapman went on a six-week trip around the world, inspired partly by the film Around the World in Eighty Days, visiting such places as Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok, Delhi, Beirut, Geneva, London, Paris, and Dublin. He began a relationship with his travel agent, a Japanese-American woman named Gloria Abe. They married on June 2, 1979. Looking for more money, Chapman got a job at Castle Memorial Hospital as a printer, working alone rather than with staff and patients. He was fired by the Castle Memorial Hospital, rehired, then got into a shouting match with a nurse and quit. He took a job as a night security guard and began drinking heavily.^[8] Chapman developed a series of obsessions, including artwork, The Catcher in the Rye, music, and John Lennon, and started talking with the imaginary 'little people' again. In September 1980, he wrote a letter to a friend, Lynda Irish, in which he stated, "I'm going nuts", and signed it "The Catcher in the Rye".^[9]

The plan to murder John Lennon[link]

Chapman has said he started planning to kill Lennon while in Hawaii three months prior to the murder, after seeing him on the cover of The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album. He has also said that he had a list of people in mind, including Johnny Carson, Elizabeth Taylor, George C. Scott, and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, but that John Lennon seemed to be the easiest to find, although he has separately said that he was particularly caught up in Lennon. Chapman's planning, as discussed in later parole hearings, has been described as 'muddled'.^[10]

Chapman went to New York in October 1980 intending to kill Lennon, taking his unloaded gun with him.^[9] He left for a short while in order to obtain ammunition from his unwitting friend Dana Reeves in Atlanta, and returned to New York in November.

After going to the cinema and being inspired by the film Ordinary People, Chapman returned to Hawaii, telling his wife he had been obsessed with killing Lennon but had snapped out of it. He showed her the gun and cartridges, but she did not inform the police or mental health services. He made an appointment to see a clinical psychologist but instead of waiting, on December 6 he flew back to New York. He offered cocaine to a taxi driver.^[7] He reports having re-enacted scenes from The Catcher in the Rye.

On the day before the killing, December 7, Chapman accosted singer-songwriter James Taylor at the 72nd Street subway station. According to Taylor, "The guy had sort of pinned me to the wall and was glistening with maniacal sweat and talking some freak speak about what he was going to do and his stuff with how John was interested, and he was going to get in touch with John Lennon."^[11]

The murder of John Lennon[link]

The entrance to the Dakota building where Lennon was shot

On Monday December 8, 1980, Chapman bought a copy of The Catcher in the Rye from a New York book store, in which he wrote "This is my statement" and signed it "Holden Caulfield", the name of the protagonist of the novel. He then spent most of the day near the entrance to The Dakota apartment building where Lennon and Yoko Ono lived, talking to other fans and the doorman. Early in the morning, a distracted Chapman missed seeing Lennon step out of a cab and enter the Dakota building. Late in the morning, Chapman met Lennon's housekeeper, who had just taken their five-year-old son Sean for a walk. Chapman reached in front of the housekeeper to shake Sean's hand and said that he was a beautiful boy, quoting Lennon's song "Beautiful Boy".

Around 5:00 pm, Lennon and Ono left The Dakota for a recording session at Record Plant Studios. As they walked toward their limousine on the curb, Chapman shook hands with Lennon and held out a copy of Lennon's new album, Double Fantasy, for him to sign.^[12] Photographer Paul Goresh was present when Lennon signed Chapman's album and took a photo of the event.^[13] Chapman reported that, "At that point my big part won and I wanted to go back to my hotel, but I couldn't. I waited until he came back. He knew where the ducks went in winter, and I needed to know this" (a reference to The Catcher in the Rye because it is what Holden wonders throughout the story).

Around 10:49 pm, the Lennons' limousine returned to the Dakota. At the curb, Lennon and Ono got out, passed by Chapman and walked toward the archway entrance of the building's courtyard. From the street behind them, Chapman fired five hollow point bullets from a .38 special revolver, four of which hit Lennon in the back and left shoulder. The death certificate^[14] officially gives the following description of the wounds and cause of death: "Multiple gunshot wounds of left shoulder and chest; Left lung and left subclavian artery; External and internal hemorrhage. Shock."

There was an isolated newspaper claim at the time that, before firing, Chapman softly called out "Mr. Lennon" and dropped into a "combat stance";^[15] Chapman has said he doesn't recall saying anything and Lennon did not turn around.^[16]

Chapman remained at the scene, took out his copy of The Catcher in the Rye and read it until the police arrived. The New York City Police Department officers who first responded to the shooting, recognizing that Lennon's wounds were severe, decided to transport him in their police car to Roosevelt Hospital. Chapman was arrested without incident. In his statement to police three hours later, Chapman stated, "I’m sure the large part of me is Holden Caulfield, who is the main person in the book. The small part of me must be the Devil."^[14] Lennon was pronounced dead at 11:07 pm at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center.

Trial and sentencing[link]

Chapman was charged with second degree murder. He was taken to Bellevue Hospital for psychiatric examination. The conclusion was that, while delusional, he was competent to stand trial. Nine psychiatrists/clinical psychologists were prepared to testify at his trial – six of the clinical opinion that he was psychotic and three of the clinical opinion that his delusions fell short of the necessary criteria for psychosis. Lawyer Herbert Adlerberg was assigned to represent Chapman but, amid threats of lynching, withdrew. Police feared that Lennon fans might storm the hospital and they transferred Chapman to the Rikers Island jail.^[17]

At an initial hearing, in January 1981, Chapman's new lawyer, Jonathan Marks, entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. In February, Chapman sent a handwritten statement to The New York Times, urging everyone to read The Catcher in the Rye, calling it an "extraordinary book that holds many answers."^[18] The defense team sought to establish witnesses as to Chapman's mental state at the time of the killing.^[19] It was reported that his defense team was confident he would be found not guilty by reason of insanity, in which case he would have been committed to a state mental hospital and received treatment. However, in June, Chapman told Marks he wanted to drop the insanity defense and plead guilty. Marks objected with "serious questions" over Chapman's sanity, and legally challenged his competence to make this decision, requesting a further assessment of his mental state. In the pursuant hearing on June 22, Chapman said God had told him to plead guilty and that he would not change his plea or ever appeal, regardless of his sentence. Marks told the court that he opposed Chapman's change of plea, but that Chapman would not listen to him. Judge Dennis Edwards refused a further assessment, said Chapman had made the decision of his own free will, and declared him competent to plead guilty.^[4][20][21]

On August 24, the sentencing hearing took place. Two psychiatrists gave evidence on Chapman's behalf. Judge Edwards interrupted the second psychiatrist, saying the purpose of the hearing was to determine the sentence and that there was no question of Chapman's criminal responsibility, drawing applause from the courtroom. The District Attorney said Chapman committed the murder as an easy route to fame. The defense lawyer said Chapman did not even appreciate why he was there. When Chapman was asked if he had anything to say, he rose and read a passage from The Catcher in the Rye, when Holden tells his little sister, Phoebe, what he wants to do with his life:

Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around — nobody big, I mean — except me. And I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff — I mean if they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That's all I do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye and all.

The judge ordered that Chapman should receive psychiatric treatment in prison and sentenced him to 20 years to life, less than the maximum possible of 25 years to life.^[22]

Imprisonment[link]

Chapman was imprisoned in the Attica Correctional Facility, outside of Buffalo, New York in 1981. He fasted for 26 days in February 1982. After the New York State Supreme Court authorized the state to force feed him, Dr. Martin Von Holden, the director of the Central New York Psychiatric Center, said Chapman still refused to eat with other inmates but agreed to take liquid nutrients.^[23] Chapman was confined within a Special Housing Unit (SHU) for violent and at-risk prisoners. There were 105 other prisoners in the building who were "not considered to pose a threat to him," according to the New York State Department of Correctional Services. He had his own prison cell, but spent "most of his day outside his cell working on housekeeping and in the library."^[24]

It is also reported that Chapman worked in the prison as a legal clerk and kitchen helper, but otherwise his activities are severely curtailed. He was barred from participating in the Cephas Attica workshops, a charitable organization which helps inmates to adjust to life outside prison. He was also prohibited from attending the prison's violence and anger management classes due to concern for his safety. Chapman reportedly likes to read and write short stories. In his parole board hearing in 2004 he described his plans, if paroled, as follows: "I would immediately try to find a job, and I really want to go from place to place, at least in the state, church to church, and tell people what happened to me and point them the way to Christ." He also said that he thought that there was a possibility he could find work as a farmhand or return to his previous trade as a printer.^[25] The Daily Mirror reported he wanted to set up a church with his wife.^[26]

Chapman is on the Family Reunion Program, and is allowed one conjugal visit a year with his wife,^[27] due to having accepted solitary confinement. The program allows him to spend up to 42 hours alone with his wife in a specially built prison home. He also gets occasional visits from his sister, clerics, and few friends. James Flateau, spokesman for the state Department of Correctional Services, said in 2004 that Chapman had been involved in three "minor incidents" between 1989 and 1994 for delaying an inmate count and refusing to follow an order.^[28]

Chapman was transferred to the Wende Correctional Facility in Alden, New York on May 15, 2012.^[29]

Parole applications and campaigns[link]

As a result of his sentence of 20 years to life in prison, Chapman first became eligible for parole in 2000 and, if denied, he is entitled to a hearing every two years. Chapman has been denied parole six times by a three-member board since then. Prior to his first hearing, Yoko Ono sent a letter to the board opposing the release of Chapman.^[30][31] In addition, State Senator Michael Nozzolio, chairman of the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Correction Committee, wrote to Parole Board Chairman Brion Travis saying that "It is the responsibility of the New York State Parole Board to ensure that public safety is protected from the release of dangerous criminals like Chapman."^[32]

At the 50-minute hearing in 2000, Chapman claimed that he was not a danger to society. The parole board concluded that releasing Chapman at that time would "deprecate the seriousness of the crime and serve to undermine respect for the law" and that Chapman's granting of media interviews represented a continued interest in "maintaining your notoriety." They noted that although Chapman had a "good disciplinary record" while in prison, he had been in the SHU and didn't access "anti-violence and/or anti-aggression programming."^[33] Robert Gangi, a lawyer for the Correctional Association of New York, said he thought it unlikely Chapman would ever be freed because the board would not risk the "political heat" of releasing Lennon's killer.^[34] In 2002, the parole board stated again that releasing Chapman after 22 years in prison would "deprecate the seriousness" of the crime, and that while his behavioral record continued to be positive, it was no predictor of his community behavior.^[35] The parole board held a third hearing in 2004, and reported that their decision was based on the interview, a review of records and deliberation. The board declined parole again. One of the reasons given by the board was having subjected Ono to "monumental suffering by her witnessing the crime."^[24] Around 6,000 people had signed an online petition against Chapman's release by this time. Lennon fans were threatening retribution if he were to be released.^[36]

In October 2006, the parole board held a 16-minute hearing and concluded that his release would not be in the best interest of the community or his own personal safety.^[37][38] On December 8, 2006, the 26th anniversary of Lennon's death, Yoko Ono published a one-page advertisement in several newspapers saying that, while December 8 should be a "day of forgiveness," she had not yet forgiven Chapman and was not sure if she was ready to yet.^[39] Chapman's fifth hearing was on August 12, 2008. He was again denied parole "due to concern for the public safety and welfare."^[40] On July 27, 2010, in advance of Chapman's scheduled sixth parole hearing, Ono said that she would again oppose parole for Chapman stating that her safety and that of John's sons would be at risk, as would Chapman's. She added "I am afraid it will bring back the nightmare, the chaos and confusion (of that night) once again."^[41] On August 11, 2010, the parole board postponed the hearing until September, stating that it was awaiting the receipt of additional information to complete Chapman's record.^[42] On September 7, the board denied Chapman's latest parole application, with the panel stating "release remains inappropriate at this time and incompatible with the welfare of the community."^[2]

Motivation and mental health[link]

It has been suggested that, as a young boy, Chapman was "very sensitive and that his parents' anger towards each other intruded upon his normal development. He retreated from a very early age into a fantasy world."^[43] In his first explanation after his arrest, recorded by his lawyer, Chapman started off saying "I think I have some problems, and I don't know what some of them are." He went on to explain that he felt the main problem was he'd been too sensitive all his life, that he'd pent up all his aggression, that he often felt treated disrespectfully or carelessly, and would worry or feel haunted or confused by things people had done perhaps years previously.^[44]

For a while during his teens Chapman regularly smoked marijuana and ingested LSD. He was a fan of The Beatles, particularly Lennon, but later, after becoming a Christian, was reportedly angered by Lennon's infamous 1966 remark that The Beatles were "more popular than Jesus". The comment had not been taken offhandedly by many in the South and there were demonstrations, album burnings, boycotts, and projectile throwing. Some members of Chapman's prayer group at Columbia High sang a twisted version of Imagine referring to Lennon being dead.^[7] Chapman's childhood friend Miles McManushe recalls him referring to the song as "communist". Jan Reeves, sister of one of Chapman's best friends, reports that Chapman "seemed really angry toward John Lennon, and he kept saying he could not understand why John Lennon had said it. According to Mark, there should be nobody more popular than the Lord Jesus Christ. He said it was blasphemy."^[5]

Chapman had also read in a library book (John Lennon: One Day at a Time by Anthony Fawcett) about Lennon's life in New York. "He was angry that Lennon would preach love and peace but yet have millions [of dollars]," according to his wife Gloria. Chapman later said that "He told us to imagine no possessions, and there he was, with millions of dollars and yachts and farms and country estates, laughing at people like me who had believed the lies and bought the records and built a big part of their lives around his music."^[5]

Chapman has said that after converting to Christianity he "never again disbelieved in the Lord or Christ or in the fact that I knew Him and could of course talk to Him any time I wanted to and get back into a deeper relationship with Him". He remained within the denomination of Presbyterianism. Links have been drawn between Chapman's psychological disturbance and his perception that he was being tempted by Satan, and able to be saved from sinful human nature through praying to God. Chapman says that in the weeks prior to the murder, the message Thou Shalt Not Kill flashed on the TV at him, and was also on a wall hanging put up by his wife in their apartment. On the night before the murder, Chapman and his wife discussed getting help with his problems by first working on his relationship with God.^[5]

At some point, Chapman had become obsessed with the novel The Catcher in the Rye after rereading it for the first time since high school. He was particularly influenced by protagonist Holden Caulfield's polemics against "phoniness" in society, and the need to protect people, especially children. He was holding a copy of the book when he murdered Lennon, in which he had written "This is my statement." After his arrest, he wrote a letter to the media urging everyone to read the "extraordinary book" that may "help many to understand what has happened."^[45] When asked if he wanted to address the court at his sentencing, Chapman read a passage from The Catcher in the Rye that describes Holden Caulfield's fantasy of being on the edge of a cliff and having to catch all children from falling. A psychiatrist at the sentencing, Daniel Schwartz, said that Chapman wanted to kill Lennon because he viewed him as a "phony." Chapman later said that he thought the murder would turn him into a Holden Caulfield, a "quasi-savior" and "guardian angel."

Chapman recalls having listened to Lennon's John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band albums in the weeks before the murder and has stated: "I would listen to this music and I would get angry at him, for saying that he didn't believe in God... and that he didn't believe in the Beatles. This was another thing that angered me, even though this record had been done at least 10 years previously. I just wanted to scream out loud, 'Who does he think he is, saying these things about God and heaven and the Beatles?' Saying that he doesn't believe in Jesus and things like that. At that point, my mind was going through a total blackness of anger and rage. So I brought the Lennon book home, into this The Catcher in the Rye milieu where my mindset is Holden Caulfield and anti-phoniness." Chapman further said, "So the child and the adult conspired together to kill the phony. Then the child and the adult went to the Dakota on the morning of December 8. The adult, very charming, knows his way around-even invited one of the fans to lunch across the street-the child, frightened, alternately praying to God and the devil to get him out of this. The adult was praying to God. He was a fake adult, but he was scared and he knew that the child was about to do something very evil and wrong. The child was praying to the devil and the adult was praying to the Lord. The spiritual dichotomy: Devil-God. And the inner dichotomy: the child-the man. They're out there in front of the Dakota late one night."^[5]

Chapman later said that while the character of Holden Caulfield was not violent, he did "have a violent thought of shooting someone, of emptying a revolver into this fellow's stomach, someone that had done him wrong". And that the character was "a very sensitive person and he probably would not have killed anybody as I did. But that's fiction and reality was standing in front [of] the Dakota."^[46]

Following the murder, Chapman underwent dozens of assessments by different psychiatrists. He described his anger toward his father, who he said used to hit his mother. He spoke of his identification with Holden Caulfield and with Dorothy of The Wizard of Oz, and his conferences with the "Little People," an imaginary set of people with whom he had interacted and taken guidance from and controlled, starting from when he was a child. He also provided a list of other celebrities he had thought about killing. Chapman later told journalist Jack Jones that he had told his "Little People" he intended to go to New York and kill Lennon and they begged him not to, saying "Please, think of your wife. Please, Mr. President. Think of your mother. Think of yourself." Chapman says he told them his mind was made up, and that their reaction was silence.^[9]

Chapman also said that, while in New York, he had thought of leaping to his death from the Statue of Liberty. Overall the psychiatrists concluded that, while delusional, he was competent to stand trial. However, six were prepared to testify for the defense that Chapman was psychotic. The prosecution presented three psychiatrists who said that Chapman fell short of full psychosis.^[47] Chapman has since said he thinks he was suffering from schizophrenia, a diagnosis made by some in his pre-sentencing psychiatric assessments. Journalist Jack Jones has referred to him as a sociopath.^[46]

Chapman stated to his parole board hearing in 2000 that "I feel that I see John Lennon now not as a celebrity. I did then. I saw him as a cardboard cutout on an album cover. I was very young and stupid, and you get caught up in the media and the records and the music. And now I've come to grips with the fact that John Lennon was a person. This has nothing to do with being a Beatle or a celebrity or famous."^[14]

In his 2006 parole board hearing, when asked if he murdered Lennon to become famous, Chapman said "The result would be that I would be famous, the result would be that my life would change and I would receive a tremendous amount of attention, which I did receive... I was in a very confused, dark place. I was looking for reasons to vent all that anger and confusion and low self esteem." In taped interviews in the early 1990s Chapman had said he did not think he could have stopped the course of events, that he had felt under a great compulsion, like a runaway train. But in the 2006 parole hearing he said "I believe that if I really wanted to, I could have changed my mind; I had ample opportunity to do it and I didn't do it and I regret that deeply."^[48]

Legacy[link]

Following the murder, and for the first six years in Attica, Chapman refused all requests for interviews. James R. Gaines interviewed him and wrote a three-part, 18,000-word People magazine series in February and March 1987. Chapman told the parole board it was an interview "which I regret." Chapman later gave a series of audio-taped interviews to Jack Jones of the Rochester, New York-based Democrat and Chronicle newspaper. In 1992 Jones published a book, Let Me Take You Down: Inside the Mind of Mark David Chapman, the Man Who Killed John Lennon. In 2000, with his first parole hearing approaching, Jones asked Chapman to tell his story for Mugshots, a CourtTV program. Chapman refused to go on camera but, after praying over it, consented to tell his story in a series of audiotapes. He told the parole board that the program "took a lot out of context, but that's okay." and that "Those three hours later were really great, because I was able really—it was like a confession almost. I was able to accept my responsibility in this for probably the first real time, and I told him I didn't deserve anything."

Chapman's experiences during the weekend on which he committed the murder have been turned in to a feature-length movie called Chapter 27, in which he was played by Jared Leto. The film's title is a reference to The Catcher in the Rye, which has 26 chapters.^[49] Chapter 27 premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2007 and received generally mixed reviews. The film had a limited release in theaters in the United States in March 2008.^[50] Chapter 27 was released widely onto DVD on September 30, 2008. Another film was made before the feature film entitled The Killing of John Lennon starring Jonas Ball as Chapman, which documents Chapman's life three months before and up to the murder and portrays Chapman in a somewhat sympathetic light. The film features Ball as Chapman narrating the film and states that all the words are Chapman's own.

A number of conspiracy theories have been published, based on CIA and FBI surveillance of Lennon due to his left-wing activism, and on the actions of Mark Chapman in the murder or subsequent legal proceedings. Journalist Fenton Bresler put forward the idea in a book published in 1990.^[51] Liverpool playwright Ian Carroll, who has staged a drama conveying the theory that Chapman was manipulated by a rogue wing of the CIA, suggests Chapman wasn't so crazy that he couldn't manage a long trip from Hawaii to New York shortly prior to the murder.^[52] Claims include that Chapman was a Manchurian candidate, including speculation on links to the CIA's Project MKULTRA. At least one author has argued that forensic evidence proves Chapman did not commit the murder,^[53] while others have criticised the theories as based not on the known facts but on possible or suspected connections and circumstances.

In 1982, Rhino Records released a compilation of Beatles-related novelty and parody songs, called Beatlesongs. It featured a caricature of Chapman on the cover which was drawn by William Stout. Following its release, Rhino recalled the record and replaced it with another cover.^[54] New York based band Mindless Self Indulgence released a track entitled "Mark David Chapman" on their album If. Irish band The Cranberries recorded a song called "I Just Shot John Lennon," for their 1996 album To the Faithful Departed. It cites the events that took place outside the Dakota on the night of Lennon's murder. The title of the song comes from the words said by Chapman that evening.

Austin, TX art rock band ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead have also released a song called "Mark David Chapman" from their 1999 album Madonna. Julian Cope's 1988 album Autogeddon contains a song called "Don't Call Me Mark Chapman" whose lyrics suggest it is told from the point of view of Lennon's murderer. Filipino band Rivermaya released a song called "Hangman (I Shot the Walrus)" on their album Atomic Bomb (1997), supposedly written from Mark Chapman's point of view.^[55]

Chapman's obsession with the central character and message of the The Catcher in the Rye added to controversy about the novel. Some links have been drawn between Chapman and its themes of adolescent sensitivity and depression on the one hand, and anti-social and violent thoughts on the other, including in the play Six Degrees of Separation and its film adaptation. One writer has described Chapman’s claim that the book was his statement as "disarmingly honest".^[56]

Links have sometimes been drawn between Chapman's actions and those of other killers or attempted killers. John Hinckley, who only months later tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, was also associated with The Catcher in the Rye. More recently, a writer who experienced mental illness in the same city as Jared Loughner has suggested examples like Chapman's show the need to challenge stigma about mental health problems and ensure there are good community mental health services, including crisis intervention.^[57]

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Let Me Take You Down - Inside the Mind of Mark David Chapman, the Man Who Shot John Lennon, Jack Jones, Villard Books (Random House), ISBN 0-8129-9170-2
• Who Killed John Lennon? Fenton Bresler, St. Martin's Press, November 1990, ISBN 978-0-312-92367-9

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Mark David Chapman

• Chapman's New York Department of Correctional Services inmate information page
• Article on Mark Chapman which argues that he killed for fame (BBC)
• BBC News report with actual news footage from the time on right hand side of page