CCC SNIP
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm . . . the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”[/INDENT]
This is astounding, impossible ignorance.
Understand the Church and Pope John Paul II were in the middle of an excruciating and highly public priest sex crimes scandal, many cases which allowed for priests to re offend, over and over, again.
These pronouncements, within 2267, reflect zero knowledge or concern about the reality of violence within prisons and the fact that prison systems, worldwide, allow unjust aggressors to re offend over and over, again.
The “non-existent” statement, within both EV and the CCC, shows astounding ignorance of innocent victims being harmed, over and over, again, by all of those connected to those two documents.
This is such a poorly considered prudential judgement as to negate any “prudential” moniker or any reference to judgement.
Cases whereby the unjust aggressors harm and murder, again, in prison, after escape or improper release are way too common (4) - the factual opposite of the Church’s incomprehensible finding that such cases are “very rare, if not practically non existent”, a factual error so profound and obvious that it is clear that fact checking was avoided in both EV, as well as in the Catechism, showing zero concern for innocent victims.
The Church and Pope John Paul II made no prudential judgement, here, but instead, made a factual assertion which was entirely false, with zero fact checking and showing little interest - a grossly irresponsible judgement — this at a time when both the Church and PJPII were in the midst of a horrendous moral scandal of priests being allowed to sexually assault children, repeatedly.
A Google search of – recidivism crime worldwide – produced 4.76 million hits, within 0.21 seconds. Try it.
Let’s look at “the means at the State’s disposal” and the absolute willful ignorance of anyone that would state that repeat offenders are “very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh the teachings based in justice, balance, redress, reformation, expiation, all of which are primary, within 2000 years Church teachings.
All villages, towns, cities, states, territories, countries and broad government unions have widely varying degrees of police protections and prison security. Murderers escape, harm and murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder and/or harm, again, because of “mercy” to the murderer, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released or otherwise given the opportunity to cause catastrophic losses to the innocent, repeatedly, when such innocents are harmed and murdered by unjust aggressors, over and over, again. (4)
Incarcerated prisoners plan murders, escapes and all types of criminal activity, using proxies or cell phones in directing free world criminal activities. All of this is well known by all, with the apparent exception of the authors of the Catechism and EV (4).
Some countries are so idiotic, reckless and callous as to allow terrorists to sign pledges that they will not harm again and then they are released, bound only by their word, a worthless pledge resulting in more innocent blood (4).
It is as if the Church was unaware of Her disastrous problems of the last 5 decades, when violent sex offenders were allowed to re victimize innocents over and over, again, inside the Church.
How could this happen?
There exists the clear conflict between (1) this unprecedented and unjustified restriction on the death penalty and (2) “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” found earlier in this same Catechism.
Which is it? Is the Church going to require “rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” or is the Church going to require that we do everything except render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm?
Inexcusably absent from consideration, within the Catechism, is any specific discussion of harm to “innocent” murder victims and potential murder victims and the effects on their earthly and eternal lives when we give known murderers the opportunity, too often realized, to harm and murder, again.
It is as if the Church didn’t consider that executed murderers cannot harm, again, but that livings murderers can and do. Stark realities escaped the Church’s and EV’s review (4).
Why has the Church chosen to depend upon widely varying and error prone incarceration systems, when the reality is that so many innocents are caused further suffering by known unjust aggressors, because of the failings in those systems (4)?
It appears the Catechism’s (& EV) authors never considered the reality of such suffering (3&4).
And why has the Church done this when it commands “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.” ? 2265
Here are the known realities of all unjust aggressors, murderers and other violent offenders. They can morally/criminally/spiritually:
(a) improve, which can mean everything in a spectrum from still quite bad to sainthood;
(b) stay the same, a bad result for them and others; or
(c) become worse, a more severe, negative outcome which puts the unjust aggressor and all others even more at risk.
What the Church has done is to reverse its longstanding emphasis on protecting innocents, already a recognized disaster with Her priestly sex horrors.
CONTD
