Can a Catholic support the death penalty in good-faith?

[Ender]

What do you say Catholics ought to do about the death penalty? Is it okay to have some disagreement with the arguments put against it by contemporary popes?

“It is not one of those teachings a Catholic has to accept, like, for example, abortion. Abortion has clearly been defined by the church as a moral evil, which is never accepted under any circumstances or any justification.” …" If they’ve thought it through and prayed about it, they can still be a Catholic in good standing and not go along with the bishops on this (death penalty) issue.” (Bishop James Conley, 2016)

“Of course, having a private disagreement does not entail a right to publicly oppose Church teaching.

§3, Canon 212, Title I, The Obligations and Rights of All the Christian Faithful, Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici,states: Can. 212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

 

[OneSheep]

Nevertheless, after the criminal had been executed, she said she felt a profound feeling of relief, and she realized how much she still had worried about him attacking her again.

The man was incarcerated, so he wasn’t going to attack her again. The victim of any violent crime may have the recurring nightmare, the remaining fear. This is PTSD. The DP is not a remedy for PTSD.

I’ve read a similar story about one of Bundy’s survivors – profound relief and peace after the criminal was executed.

Yes, we all have consciences, and part of our conscience’s activity is that we want all bad deeds to be punished in some way. It is an impulse, we share this with chimpanzees. So yes, there will be some satisfaction, but punishment, in the catechism, is not there for the purpose of satisfying the victim. The victim is to be cared for, and that is most important, and that care is to include helping the people overcome their PTSD.

 

[Ender]

Yes, the deliberate act of taking another’s life is evil, without exception.

If that was true then it would mean the church taught evil as good until two years ago. It would mean virtually every Father and every Doctor of the Church (who addressed the topic) failed to distinguish good from evil. It would mean the Holy Spirit allowed the church to be in error for over 2000 years. A failure of this magnitude is hard to overstate.

Worse, however, it would mean that God himself commanded evil. "But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution." (Ex 21:14)

As hard as it may be to accept that killing (and specifically execution) is not intrinsically evil, accepting that it is is simply not imaginable.

Cool, so you agree that the DP is no longer applicable today.

I believe the church does not teach that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, that the decision to use it or not is a prudential judgment, and the right and duty to make that judgment belongs to the State. I do not believe her doctrines have changed, and that they are today as they have always been. I believe that the comments opposing it, starting with the 1992 edition of the catechism, express prudential opposition to its use as unwise, and not condemnations of it as immoral. I see this as the only explanation that does not put the church in the untenable position of having taught evil as good for 2000 years.

I was not asking about the ancient Israelites image of God thousands of years ago. I am asking today, “Are there specific people who you think deserve the death penalty? A specific category of crime?”

People who commit crimes are punished because they deserve it; that is a matter of justice. The severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime; that is also a matter of justice. God commanded murderers to be executed. Since God is just it must be true that execution is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder, and if it was true before it is equally true today. Therefore murderers deserve death today.

 

[OneSheep]

If that was true then it would mean the church taught evil as good until two years ago.

Actually, not. The DP was never perceived as an evil, it was not the intent. The intent (at best) was to protect, and protection is not evil.

It would mean the Holy Spirit allowed the church to be in error for over 2000 years.

It’s not the Holy Spirit’s fault how long it takes the Church to come to awareness. Thousands of years ago, the DP had its place. We can’t second-guess that. But for centuries, now, the DP has been an evil that the Church has taken a long time to grasp its significance. It seemed “right” because our conscience wants people to pay for their crimes. Humans learn very slowly.

Jesus appealed to the crowd who desired to righteously stone the adultress to look at their consciences. In effect he was saying “Oh, you are seeing this person as evil and deserving? Well, you are judging her, and I ask you not to judge. Indeed, point the judging eyes of the conscience at yourselves. What do you deserve?”

So you see, a person who condemns others is in effect condemning their own self, it is when we are enslaved by the impulse to punish rather than transcending this automatic aspect of human nature.

Worse, however, it would mean that God himself commanded evil. "But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution ." (Ex 21:14)

It was the right thing for the time and circumstances. The scripture also called for killing adulterers, do you think this is also applicable today?

I see this as the only explanation that does not put the church in the untenable position of having taught evil as good for 2000 years.

Well, since you are coming from the mindset that what the Spirit tells man is what is always appropriate, then your comment here is congruent with that belief. However, the Spirit continues to guide us as the world changes, in this case we have a much greater ability today to protect people from murderers.

Therefore murderers deserve death today.

Okay, would you consider Jesus’ death a murder?

If not, would you consider the death of St. Stephen a murder?

 

[Ender]

Cardinal Dulles appears to give an example of redressing the disorder, which in the catechism includes both “retribution” and the medicinal purpose. So here he is not denying that the medicinal is part of the primary purpose of punishment.

There is no doubt in my mind that “redressing the disorder” means retribution. The references are simply too numerous to believe otherwise.

According to Church teaching, a civil government’s response to crime should be to uphold justice by achieving four goals: rehabilitate the offender, protect society from the offender, deter future offenses, and redress the disorder caused by the offense. (Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2019)

Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

The new framework leads me to conclude that the Catechism is laying a theoretical foundation for a change (not “development” precisely understood) in the Church’s teaching on the death penalty that would at minimum state that the exigencies of retribution (i.e., of the need to redress the disorder introduced by a criminal’s crime) are never a sufficient condition for the inflicting of capital punishment. (E. Christian Brugger, 2007)

Three justifications for punishment are given: retribution redressing the disorder caused by the crime, protection of society, and punishment’s medicinal value. (Ralph McInerny, 2001)

Evangelium Vitae , no. 56, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church , no. 2266, agree that “the primary aim” of punishment is the retributive one of “redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” (Charles E. Rice, Notre Dame Law School, 2001)

The USCCB correctly defined retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” (USCCB, 1980) (Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., Ave Maria Law School)

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution; defending public order; deterring future wrongdoing; and promoting reform, repentance, and conversion of those who commit evil acts. (USCCB, 2005)

 

[Ender]

Actually, not. The DP was never perceived as an evil, it was not the intent. The intent (at best) was to protect, and protection is not evil.

The church through all of history taught that capital punishment was a moral right belonging to the State. She addressed the moral question repeatedly and always had the same answer: it is just. If it is evil today then it was evil for all those centuries when she taught otherwise. That she (according to you) misunderstood it and thought that evil was good is precisely the problem. What does it say about a church that can be so wrong about something so significant?

It’s not the Holy Spirit’s fault how long it takes the Church to come to awareness.

One of the points I’ve made in these discussions is in regard to arguments that are harmful to the church - such as this suggestion that the Holy Spirit was unable to get the church to see the truth of this matter.

Thousands of years ago, the DP had its place.

Morality does not change with time or place. If death as a punishment is wrong today it was wrong when God commanded it.

It seemed “right” because our conscience wants people to pay for their crimes.

And our consciences tell us that because it is true. It is a matter of justice. Justice demands that people be accountable for their actions.

A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. (Pius XII)

So you see, a person who condemns others is in effect condemning their own self, it is when we are enslaved by the impulse to punish rather than transcending this automatic aspect of human nature.

The individual is forbidden from judging and punishing, but the State is obligated to do both. You cannot condemn what the State does by pointing out that it is forbidden to the individual citizen.

 

[OneSheep]

There is no doubt in my mind that “redressing the disorder” means retribution.

Not a single one of the sources that represent Church leadership you quoted limited it to what you stated. So, from where does your opinion come?

Charles Rice doesn’t represent the Church, and he may have misstated. He is the only one who seems to agree with you. You might want to provide a link to the source.

I invite you to take the discussion a little deeper than the superficial opinion-level, because we are simply disagreeing without finding the inner sources of our disagreement.

Would you consider Jesus’ death a murder?

If not, would you consider the death of St. Stephen a murder?

 

[Ender]

Not a single one of the sources that represent Church leadership you quoted limited it to what you stated. So, from where does your opinion come?

This is like asking me to prove that logic is true. The Texas Conference of Bishops and Cardinal Dulles said exactly the same thing, except one said “redress the disorder” and the other said “retribution.” The other citations were explicit:

…retribution (i.e, of the need to redress the disorder…) (Brugger)
…retribution redressing the disorder… (McInerny)
…the retributive one of "redressing the disorder…(Rice)
…retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice”… (Falvey)

As for something from church leadership, does not the USCCB qualify?

punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution ;

I.e. means namely, or in other words. Replace i.e. with its equivalent and they said: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, namely, just retribution.

I am at a loss to understand how this can be misunderstood, or understood in any alternative way.

 

[OneSheep]

…retribution (i.e, of the need to redress the disorder…) (Brugger)
…retribution redressing the disorder… (McInerny)
…the retributive one of "redressing the disorder…([Rice])
…retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice”… (Falvey)

Again, the ccc places both “medicinal” and “retributive” as part of “redressing”. Nothing in the quotes above deny this.

We seem to be going round and round, and your opinion so far seems to be based on a law teachers at Notre Dame. Were their statements Nihil Obstat?

I think we can call it a draw on the doctrinal stuff, you are finding people who agree with you, and that’s okay.

Now, if you would like to go deeper than the superficial opinion stuff, you could answer the questions about Jesus’ murder, or you could address this one also:

Why do people murder? If you are familiar with Augustine, you might have a quick answer. You may have an answer from psychology. If not, I can help with either one.

I’m currently taking a history course at Fordham (online) and all the important theologians and spiritual leaders in the first 1300 years of Christianity emphasized awareness and self-awareness. These are those kind of questions. We need doctrinal discussion based on spiritual underpinnings, not superficial law stuff. Jesus and apostles all had things to say about superficial law stuff, changing to seeing the law in our hearts.

 

[Ender]

Again, the ccc places both “medicinal” and “retributive” as part of “redressing”. Nothing in the quotes above deny this.

No, it doesn’t. Mentioning them both in the same paragraph does not mean they are the same thing. Here is the relevant part of 2266 separated by sentence:

• The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.
• When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.
• Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

The medicinal scope refers to the “correction of the offender”. It doesn’t even apply to “preserving public order and the safety of persons”, let alone to redressing the disorder. Punishment has a medicinal purpose, but that purpose is different than its primary purpose which is retribution. Medicinal and retributive are different.

We seem to be going round and round, and your opinion so far seems to be based on a law teachers at Notre Dame. Were their statements Nihil Obstat?

We’re talking about the meaning of words; that doesn’t require one to be part of the Magisterium. You’ve even rejected the USCCB as relevant. I only have so many citations making the same point.

‘the Church in her theory and practice has maintained this double type of penalty(medicinal and vindictive), and that this is more in conformity with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority. (Pius XII)

Now, if you would like to go deeper than the superficial opinion stuff, you could answer the questions about Jesus’ murder…

I’m trying to settle the point that “redressing the disorder” means retribution, and that this is the primary objective of all punishment. Addressing Jesus execution is not relevant to that discussion.

We need doctrinal discussion based on spiritual underpinnings, not superficial law stuff.

We need to understand the plain meaning of words. Without that we cannot begin an intelligible discussion of anything.

 

[OneSheep]

No, it doesn’t. Mentioning them both in the same paragraph does not mean they are the same thing.

I’ve already responded to this.

We’re talking about the meaning of words; that doesn’t require one to be part of the Magisterium. You’ve even rejected the USCCB as relevant

That’s not true. What the USCCB says is very relevant. None of their statements supports your claim that retribution is a primary aspect of redressing the disorder. If you find one that explicitly says this, please bring it forth.

The petty discussion about the formation of the sentences in CCC 2266 is fluff, the fact is that 2267 is the catechetical teaching on the DP.

This is 2267:

1. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

I’m trying to settle the point that “ redressing the disorder ” means retribution, and that this is the primary objective of all punishment. Addressing Jesus execution is not relevant to that discussion.

What Jesus said and did is relevant to any discussion of Church doctrine.

We need to understand the plain meaning of words. Without that we cannot begin an intelligible discussion of anything.

Okay, here are my questions again in plain words:

Why do people murder? What is going on in their minds?

Would you consider Jesus’ death a murder?

Would you consider the death of St. Stephen a murder?

Is there a particular murder that you think of when you are expressing support for the death penalty?

These are all questions that go further toward a real discussion on the matter. If you don’t want to answer them, your position remains as one in which there is an inability, or unwillingness, to respond. (the definition of “irresponsible”, by the way)

 

[Ender]

What the USCCB says is very relevant. None of their statements supports your claim that retribution is a primary aspect of redressing the disorder.

Retribution is not the primary aspect of redressing the disorder; those terms are synonyms. Retribution means redressing the disorder, and that is exactly what the USCCB said.

Within the Catholic tradition, punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution…

Redressing the disorder caused by the offense, namely, just retribution…

This is not a theological conundrum; it is simply what the words mean. The USCCB said that redressing the disorder and retribution are the same things. The catechism says this is the primary objective of punishment.

The petty discussion about the formation of the sentences in CCC 2266 is fluff, the fact is that 2267 is the catechetical teaching on the DP.

One thing at a time. Everything has to fit together; the church’s doctrines must all work as a coherent whole. You cannot interpret 2267 in a way that conflicts with 2266, and if we can’t understand 2266 it is no wonder we disagree about 2267.

Okay, here are my questions again in plain words:…

Again, one thing at a time. If we start down this road we will never resolve the issue regarding the primary objective of punishment. All that you ask may be pertinent to the debate you want to have, but none of it is relevant to the one we are currently having.

Irrelevant as I find those questions, I will respond to them…just as soon as we resolve the question about punishment.

 

[OneSheep]

One thing at a time. Everything has to fit together; the church’s doctrines must all work as a coherent whole. You cannot interpret 2267 in a way that conflicts with 2266, and if we can’t understand 2266 it is no wonder we disagree about 2267.

Well, you continue to insist that retribution is primary, that it is equal to “redressing”, but retribution is only given as an example. So, if one interprets it your way, then there might be a slight contradiction with 2267, but even that slight contradiction goes away if retribution is not the same as “redressing”. So, other than a couple law professors at Notre Dame for who you have yet to show that their statements are Nihil Obstat, the authoritative statements are that the medicinal purpose is an important part of “redressing the disorder”, not unequal to retribution.

In addition, the Church has made statements about human dignity and has found that the DP does not uphold such dignity. So, if you want to have a discussion about the DP, then instead of the importance of retribution, we must turn to a discussion of human dignity. In addition, since no specific law is isolated from the whole, punishment itself and desire for punishment has to be addressed in light of the Gospel, and Jesus’ call for us to understand and forgive one another.

It is with forgiving hearts that we are to proceed in this world, Ender. Retribution is a very tricky area. The retribution itself, administered by the state, has to do with disincentivizing the crime. Christian teaching comes in with the question “Is that retribution carried out with forgiving hearts, or with resentful hearts?”

So if you want to talk about what is primary, then what is primary is that we forgive those who trespass against us. Now of course, forgiveness does not mean acquittal, but for all people forgiving from the heart, really understanding the sinner, changes what the victim (and all of society is a victim sometimes) wants from such retribution and changes the attitude of individuals toward the perpetrator.

The Kingdom that comes is one of forgiveness, not of revenge. When “justice” is carried out with vengeful hearts, it is still revenge; it is legal revenge. Arguably, it is this more deeply understood forgiveness and approach to justice, as well as the growing emphasis on human dignity, that has helped us see the light concerning the DP in today’s world.

 

[OneSheep]

Again, one thing at a time. If we start down this road we will never resolve the issue regarding the primary objective of punishment. All that you ask may be pertinent to the debate you want to have, but none of it is relevant to the one we are currently having.

The primary objective of punishment has to do be in line with the primary objective of the Kingdom. Jesus clearly states that we are to love and forgive one another, even our enemies. We cannot have a reasonable discussion about retribution without keeping in mind the Gospel, without being mindful of Jesus’ call to love and forgive one another. Love and forgiveness must be the starting point, because the human compulsion to want revenge must be addressed, for it is forgiveness that grounds us in seeing human dignity.

Irrelevant as I find those questions, I will respond to them…just as soon as we resolve the question about punishment.

Well, if you find forgiveness irrelevant, then you find Jesus’ words irrelevant on the topic. Jesus forgave the adulterer; Jesus forgave those who crucified Him. Jesus calls us, us as society, to forgive murderers, which is very difficult but doable, as He modeled. And again, this does not mean acquittal for murderers, but it does mean that in order for us to even have a discussion of the topic on the same plane, we must begin with understanding and forgiving hearts.

So, if you don’t want to address any of my other questions, try this one: Do you forgive those who murder? (this is assuming, of course, that you, like everyone else of good conscience, initially, normally resents/hates those who murder)

When we are applying it to Christianity, discussion about the DP outside of the context of the call to forgive is meaningless.

 

[Ender]

Well, you continue to insist that retribution is primary, that it is equal to “redressing”, but retribution is only given as an example .

But that’s not what the abbreviation “i.e.” means. Its definition is: namely, in other words, that is. It is not “for example”; that would be “e.g.” When the USCCB says “redress the disorder, i.e. retribution” they mean that one phrase is the same as the other. Nor is this a theological question that requires an imprimatur; it is basic English.

In addition, the Church has made statements about human dignity and has found that the DP does not uphold such dignity.

Yes, but this passage cannot be interpreted in such a way that it conflicts with other doctrines.

So, if you want to have a discussion about the DP, then instead of the importance of retribution, we must turn to a discussion of human dignity.

Again, everything must fit together. It is not sufficient to say it fits here and we don’t need to be concerned with the conflict over there. What I propose seems to fit not only with what is said today but also with what has been said before. Your interpretation dismisses 2000 years of teaching as error, which is to me a non-starter.

Retribution is a very tricky area.

Retribution is the very essence of justice.

We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. (Aquinas ST I-II 21, 3)

So if you want to talk about what is primary , then what is primary is that we forgive those who trespass against us.

What is primary is what the church says it is, and that is retribution. Your definition applies to the individual; it does not apply to the State. The obligations of the State are very different from those of the individual; the latter is forbidden to punish, the former is obligated to.

When “justice” is carried out with vengeful hearts, it is still revenge; it is legal revenge.

Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Aquinas ST II-II 108, 1) The state has a duty to punish the criminal. That some individuals may hate the sinner is not an argument that crime should not be punished.

 

[OneSheep]

Your interpretation dismisses 2000 years of teaching as error, which is to me a non-starter.

I never dismissed earlier teaching. You seem to forget my position. Take a look at my earlier responses.

Aquinas

Aquinas was appropriate for his time. That was many centuries ago.

That some individuals may hate the sinner is not an argument that crime should not be punished.

I agree, but since you are not answering questions in terms of the context of love and forgiveness, I’m going to leave it here. If you want to have a discussion about punishment in the context of love and forgiveness, then we can adequately address the DP. If not, its just a lot of technical wordsmith, it’s superficial.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

I think the penalty should be done if the person doesn’t show remorse and continues not to for a long period of time. Timothy McVeigh is a person that comes to mind.

Not sure how this would work. This implies some type of system where someone is found guilty of a crime, and then some period of time later are subject to a type of “remorse assessment” which would decide if the death penalty should be applied.

 

[OneSheep]

ImJustPro:

I think the penalty should be done if the person doesn’t show remorse and continues not to for a long period of time. Timothy McVeigh is a person that comes to mind.

Not sure how this would work. This implies some type of system where someone is found guilty of a crime, and then some period of time later are subject to a type of “remorse assessment” which would decide if the death penalty should be applied.

In addition, we have forgiveness from the cross as an ultimate example of Christian forgiveness. Jesus understood, and He forgave. He forgave even those who had no remorse, which was probably most of the crowd.

This is why a discussion on the death penalty should begin with a discussion of understanding and forgiveness. It is a default to forgive conditionally, because the conscience triggers negative feelings towards those who violate it. So, if the healthy conscience has an ideal “one should show sorrow/remorse for sin”, then the opposite is unconscionable, and we feel negatively towards the person, we “hold something against” the person who is not remorseful. This “holding against” is the sign that we are to forgive, as Jesus stated in Mark 11:25.

 

[Ender]

I never dismissed earlier teaching.

You believe capital punishment is intrinsically evil. The church has never held that position. If you are right then every pope up through BXVI (including JPII) was wrong.

Aquinas was appropriate for his time. That was many centuries ago.

Morality does not change with time or place. If Aquinas was right then he is equally right now. Conditions change so judgments about the fitness of the penalty can change, but the morality of it cannot.

This is why a discussion on the death penalty should begin with a discussion of understanding and forgiveness.

What does this mean? That criminals should not be punished? The death penalty is only one form of punishment, but the doctrines apply equally to all forms. Is sentencing someone to LWOP excluded because forgiveness forbids it? How about a sentence of 20 years? Is that forbidden because we must forgive? What are the criteria you would apply in order to find a just punishment?

In fact, forgiveness does not exclude punishment; those things are not mutually exclusive. The biggest problem with your position, however, is that it does not distinguish between the individual and the State, but the church does make that distinction. As the church makes clear, punishing the guilty is forbidden the individual, but is the obligation of the State. No discussion of punishment that does not account for that distinction is in accord with church doctrine.

For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis. (St Bellarmine)

 

[OneSheep]

You believe capital punishment is intrinsically evil. The church has never held that position. If you are right then every pope up through BXVI (including JPII) was wrong.

I didn’t say I was “right”. I only gave my opinion. Any deliberate taking of life is evil, even if it is for self-protection. Sometimes, it is an evil that is necessary.

Morality does not change with time or place.

Morality does not change with time or place. If Aquinas was right then he is equally right now. Conditions change so judgments about the fitness of the penalty can change, but the morality of it cannot.

You quoted something from Aquinas about vengeance. How society has changed today makes it much closer to “vengeance belongs to God” (not man). There has been enormous conceptual, language, and ethical change since Aquinas. It’s not applicable. And again, if we do not discuss this in the frame of God’s mercy and forgiveness, it is all meaningless.

What does this mean? That criminals should not be punished?

I guess you aren’t reading my posts. I consistently explain that forgiveness from the heart is not an acquittal.

Is sentencing someone to LWOP excluded because forgiveness forbids it? How about a sentence of 20 years? Is that forbidden because we must forgive? What are the criteria you would apply in order to find a just punishment?

All of the above can still be meted if there is forgiveness from the heart. However, if any of the above happens because of desire for revenge instead of redressing the disorder, then it is against the CCC. If “retribution” happens without forgiveness, it is contrary to the Gospel. Having a vengeful heart is contrary to what Jesus asks of us.

The biggest problem with your position, however, is that it does not distinguish between the individual and the State

The State is made of individuals. We don’t want to go into allowing a State to be less ethical than ordinary people; that runs into huge problems. We Catholics can support the State’s right to punish people in order to deter the perpetrator and “medicinally” correct them. We Catholics, though, are called to forgive.

So, Jesus understood and forgave those who were killing Him. Can you understand and forgive murderers? Someone brought up Timothy McVeigh. Do you see that he did not have a clue as to what he was doing? That man was quite blind.