Consistently, the studies showed that there was NO reduction in murder rates in the death penalty states compared to the life prison ones. The pro-death penalty advocates are the ones who wave hands and have no scientific data to back their claims.
I find it strange that so many catholics trust the Church to be their moral guide on matters they already agree with, but so willingly disregard her clear instructions when it requires a submission of the will. What’s up with that?
See my Death Penalty Information Center post, re murder rates and death penalty.
What’s up with that is that the Church has a lot of problems:
Some thoughts: The Death Penalty & the Catholic Catechism
The foundation of the death penalty is found in Genesis and is, based, specifically, upon “shedding blood”.
The Catechism got rid of the"bloodless means" language that was, originally, in the Catechism and which was, specifically, referenced by Pope John Paul II(PJPII) in Evangelium Vitae (EV) in the context of the non amended Catechism.
Context suggests “bloodless means” was removed in the amended Catechism because of its obvious and embarrassing conflict with the Genesis passage.
The Catechism was amended, allegedly and specifically, to insert PJPII’s death penalty comments within EV, yet “bloodless means” was specifically removed from the original Catechism, even though PJPII referenced it in EV.
It appears that the amendment was used as a convenient method to remove the improper “bloodless means”, even though an amendment, truly based upon PJPII’s EV, would have required that it remain.
The 2267 amendment replaced it with "If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. "
“Non-lethal” is simply a conspicuous way to avoid using “bloodless means”, but it is the exact same meaning and therefore, irreconcilably, contradicts Genesis.
Catechisms should not have such nonsense within them.
In addition, the “more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.” are a humanist base, not a biblical one.
Biblically, theologically and traditionally, the death penalty, certainly, is in keeping with “the common good and with the dignity of the human person.”
Even humanistically, we can see how execution is more in keeping with the common good and more supportive of human dignity.
More on that, below.
In 2265 we have “Legitimate defense can be not only be a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.”
To repeat: “the common good” “requires” that an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable” to cause harm."
With individual murderers such requirement is only met with the death penalty. Only dead murderers are incapable of causing harm - a rational truism.
In 2266: “The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good.”
The requirement is that the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm." Again,with individual murderers such requirement is only met with the death penalty.
2266 continues: “Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.”
Biblically, we know the death penalty is proportionate to murder.
2266 continues: “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.”
Expiation, though a gift from God, must be seized by the guilty party. It is arguable, as per Aquinas and Augustine, that the death penalty is better apt to provide that correction and is, therefore, more in tune with the eternal aspects of the wrongdoers salvation. (See also, paragraph, numbered 3, within Reference (1), below)
From 2267: “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
That is, most certainly, not the traditional teaching of the Church. Such teachings include , among others, that when committing murder, the offending party has forfeit their right to live. (Reference 1)
In addition, there is a major conflict between 1) “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” and 2) the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm."
(1) states that use of the death penalty is just “if it is the only ‘possible’ way of defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”
contd
