Question about the death penalty

[pnewton]

As an experiment in the mindset of a liberal and to test if it really is a mental illness, I have been copying and pasting the exact thing SoCal has been saying, but changing the bold. I found exactly what I expected to find, basically, he argued with himself. I refer to post # 403
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3254475&postcount=403
and post #405
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3254566&postcount=405

Then again in post #406
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3254680&postcount=406
and then in post
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3255713&postcount=409

I found in each case our west coast poster entered into an arguement with his on post eveidence bolded in a different spot. I point this out because of his continued insistence that his opinion is that of the Church. Obviosly to any one not blinded by their own opinion, if a change in text can cause such a challenge, then there is ample room for good Catholics to disagree. I would also note that such a “pro-life” person who wishes to defend life as of value even in the worst of perverts and most evil of men has not problem relegating food and water to Terri Schivo as extraordinary means and subject to denial and has posted against anti - abortion is several threads.

forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=1219355&pp=50

So, even though Jimmy Akin is a fellow Texan, I will stand by his rather educated view on the subject and be allowed freedom to follow church teaching, giving deference to mercy, yet engaging my own knowleldge, and give no deference to the opinion of one who’s opinion in other areas I find highly suspect.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp

 

[SoCalRC]

I found in each case our west coast poster…

If you would put a fraction of the effort you put into sophistry into theology, you might be a formidable thinker.

If it is not yet clear to you, I belong to the Roman Catholic Church, not the Church of Jimmy. If you have something other than like minded members of the laity telling you want to hear, fine, post it. If not, attacking me is not going to accomplish anything.

I saw combat on a regular basis for almost two years (with a bat&co that still has the unenviable distinction of sustaining the highest casualty rate in USMC history), do you really think that I am going to be ruffled by the opinion of someone like you? Besides, I’ve raised children (one severely disabled no less), so the terrible twos are old hat for me. If you decide to hold your breath until you pass out, just try not to stand by any furniture with sharp edges…

Ender: No one insisted that the Catechism is anything but a summary. However, the fact remains that there is no suggestion of any other ‘justifications’ in it. Further, the UNITED STATES CATECHISM FOR ADULTS (approved by Rome) goes into more detail, again giving no hint of another related set of principles that apply.

The Church generates many documents, Doctrinal Notes, Decrees, and Papal writings of various ‘levels’. If, as you say, the Catechism omits a critical aspect of Doctrine or Dogma, please cite it.

If we can all look at the material, we can meaningfully discuss. Arguing about ‘what is is’ seems pointless.

Similiarly, attacking individuals, as opposed to refuting quotes or ideas accomplishes nothing. I already know we are each quite capable of very un-Christian behavior. Further proof is not required.

P.S. One last note, in addition to fellow Texan Jimmy, Catholics in the Lone Star State can look to the Texas Catholic Conference for explanations:

txcatholic.org/death-penalty.asp

 

[Ray_Scheel]

The Church generates many documents, Doctrinal Notes, Decrees, and Papal writings of various ‘levels’. If, as you say, the Catechism omits a critical aspect of Doctrine or Dogma, please cite it.

Your stock response to all provided to this point (starting with those I listed in post 46, for instance, and Ender gave am even longer list, and fix recently posted a link to a very well documented article too) has been to either ignore them or declare them irrelevant since they were not referred to in the CCC / EV. There is no excuse for pretending that no citations have been provided to the relevant teachings not reiterated in the CCC…

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I saw combat on a regular basis for almost two years (with a bat&co that still has the unenviable distinction of sustaining the highest casualty rate in USMC history),

Putting this separately since I’m not asking for SoCal’s opinion on this part: Did this make light-bulbs click for anyone else the way it did for me? He’s had too many bursts of clarity to fit the typical pattern of mental illness, but that would certainly explain how he drifts in and out of a parallel universe where the CCC is the beginning and end of Church teaching and he is the final authority in interpreting the rules of English, debate, and doctrinal development, as well as his tunnel vision thinking where information that didn’t fit his world view didn’t exist (very common in PTSD patients) even when the sources had been posted multiple times by multiple parties.

For SoCal: The Catholic Church is not set up like the military, the CCC cannot be interpreted in the same way as the USMC rules and regs, and that you obviously think of all of us as “just” civilians to blow off does not count for a hill of beans in this discussion. Your problems transitioning to civilian interaction are interfering with your ability to participate in conversation with others without lashing out and losing the distinction between what is real and what you allow in your personal world of thought. Get some help.

 

[SoCalRC]

For SoCal: The Catholic Church is not set up like the military, the CCC cannot be interpreted in the same way as the USMC rules and regs, and that you obviously think of all of us as “just” civilians to blow off does not count for a hill of beans in this discussion. Your problems transitioning to civilian interaction are interfering with your ability to participate in conversation with others without lashing out and losing the distinction between what is real and what you allow in your personal world of thought. Get some help.

First of all, as a matter of faith, I served as a combat medic, hence the extended tours.

Second, psychobable is probably even less productive than overly simplistic theology. For example, I could suppose that you are projecting, but what would be the point?

Third, the USMC has the most adaptive chain of command in the military. Based on the rule of three, initiative and innovation are valued. This is why the USMC has been so success at reshaping itself as US defense needs change.

Fourth, the Church is most closely structured like a monarchy. In fact, 150 years ago the Church was highly suspicious of pluralistic societies. That may not be the Catholic Church you want, but I did not write the Dogmatic Constitution.

Fifth, I have asked only that we differentiate between what people individually believe, and what the Church actually teaches. Notice that the Texas Catholic Conference joins a growing list of like minded interpreations. Like the USCCB (and Rome), the Archdiocese of Texas seem to agree that the Church’s teaching are quite clear.

I keep asking for Church documents of any kind to justify your positions, but apparently asking for tangible support instead of taking rants at face is alien for you.

Last, please do not make light of what our troops endure for God and country. I know that you probably cannot help yourself, but I spend time with seriously disabled vets all the time (I volunteer for job training and assisted technology implementations). I don’t mind any barbs you direct at me - to me you are just yahoos on the internet, but making light of people who understand real sacrifice seems particularly unsuited for a supposedly Christian forum.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I keep asking for Church documents of any kind to justify your positions, but apparently asking for tangible support instead of taking rants at face is alien for you.

Your stock response to all document citations provided to this point (starting with those I listed in post 46, for instance, and Ender gave am even longer list, and fix recently posted a link to a very well documented article too) has been to either ignore them or declare them irrelevant since they were not referred to in the CCC / EV. There is no excuse for pretending that no citations have been provided to the relevant teachings not reiterated in the CCC.

Last, please do not make light of what our troops endure for God and country. I know that you probably cannot help yourself, but I spend time with seriously disabled vets all the time (I volunteer for job training and assisted technology implementations). I don’t mind any barbs you direct at me - to me you are just yahoos on the internet, but making light of people who understand real sacrifice seems particularly unsuited for a supposedly Christian forum.

Like most of the other insinuations, this one also has no basis in what I or anyone else has actually said on this thread. Recognizing the PTSD is a real condition for which there is real treatment is, if anything, a very heavy recognition that I understand that what combat veterans have endured is extreme. I’m sure you like to think of yourself as 10’ tall and bulletproof; that is certainly a type of attitude useful to staying alive in a combat situation, but now, back Stateside, when you are having very real and repeated difficulty telling what people have actually said from what is going on in the world in your head, now you need to get some professional help in figuring out why you are deliberately tuning out things that don’t fit your world view (like the citations that have been provided either to you or in your presence dozens of times) and are repeatedly inventing things that have no verifiable basis in reality (like this claim that I was making light of what our troops go through).

 

[frankadams]

I am seeing the same kind of thinking here I see in abortion threads. Pro-abotion Catholics have taken older documents of the Church that discuss the beginnings of life that appear at odds with contemporary Church teaching on the subject, i.e., life begins at conception. They insist that pro-life Catholics must take a look at the entire breadth of Catholic teaching on the subject, and not just contemporary teaching. They frequently note that Aquinas and others have used “quickening” and various other determinations as to when we become human and that the Church has never specifically and directly refuted these previous teachings.


It is true that Mother Church is hesitant to ever use the term “wrong” when describing the teachings of the Fathers. But the plain truth of the matter is that Aquinas and others were, indeed, wrong about the beginnings of life. I do not need a direct, particular refutation of those older statements to abide by the teachings of the Catechism in this instance. The refutation is implicitly clear, just not explicitly so. When the Catechism speaks of the “moment of conception” and “from the first moments of his existence,” it is logical to conclude that previous teachings that suggested otherwise were incorrect.


Now, the pro-captial punishment Catholics are taking a similar tact. They insist that pro-life Catholics must take a look at the entire breadth of Catholic teaching on the subject, and not just contemporary teaching. No one can deny their claim that there are older Church documents which allow for capital punishment for reasons other than protecting society than “defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”


The Catechism tells us, however, that “effectively defending human lives from the unjust aggressor” is, in fact the ONLY reason that the death penalty may be used and when using it may ONLY be done in cases in which is capital punishment is “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”


My use of God-given tells me then, that previous documents which asserted a different stance were, in fact, incorrect. To repeat what I said to the pro-abortion Catholics above, I do not need a direct, particular refutation of those older statements to abide by the teachings of the Catechism in this instance. The refutation is implicitly clear, just not explicitly so. When the Catechism speaks of the “only” and it is logical to conclude that previous teachings that suggested otherwise were incorrect.


The Church tells us that “experience” helps us in our quest to discover God’s moral norms for our planet. I am grateful that “experience” helped the Church reach her current teaching on abortion. I am likewise grateful that she did likewise to reach her current teaching on capital punishment.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

The Catechism tells us, however, that “effectively defending human lives from the unjust aggressor” is, in fact the ONLY reason that the death penalty may be used and when using it may ONLY be done in cases in which is capital punishment is “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

You are welcome to pitch in directly on the parsing of the sentences I stepped through just a few posts beck, but simply insisting that we must extend the application of “ONLY”'s in ways in which they were not actually used in the text of 2267 is not acceptable.

 

[frankadams]

You are welcome to pitch in directly on the parsing of the sentences I stepped through just a few posts beck, but simply insisting that we must extend the application of “ONLY”'s in ways in which they were not actually used in the text of 2267 is not acceptable.

The actual quote from the Catechism is.

“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.”

I read your previous post on “only.” You give no basis for this belief that the term “only” does not mean exclusive whatsoever. You cite Grammar 101, but I would place a sizable bet that if we were to send the statement to grammar experts, they would see “only” as meaning, in fact, “only.”

How is “only” defined? Webster’s online dictionary’s first definition reads "being the only one; single and isolated from others.“At Oxford online dictionary, the first defintion is: "used to say that no other or others of the same group exist or are there.” At dictionary.com, the first definition is "without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively."

Applied to the Catechism, this would seem to mean that “effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” is “the only one (reason), and “that no other or others (reasons) of the same group exist.” Or that “anything further (further reasons for executing beings)” and that this reason is " without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively.”

How do you define this otherwise? On what basis? Because you simply wish to define it in a way wholly alien to common and academic usage of the term? This is an incredible stretch, one along the lines of Bill Clinton claiming that different people have different definitions of the term “is.”

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I read your previous post on “only.” You give no basis for this belief that the term “only” does not mean exclusive whatsoever. You cite Grammar 101, but I would place a sizable bet that if we were to send the statement to grammar experts, they would see “only” as meaning, in fact, “only.” …

How do you define this otherwise? On what basis? Because you simply wish to define it in a way wholly alien to common and academic usage of the term? This is an incredible stretch, one along the lines of Bill Clinton claiming that different people have different definitions of the term “is.”

Assuming that the problematic component’s identity and failure have been fully determined, the customary repair procedure of the company does not exclude recourse to disposal of the unit, if this is the only possible way of effectively preserving a safe work environment in the area of the faulty unit.

That phrasing in a company policy clarification could not be reasonably interpreted to mean that disposal of the unit was not allowed for other reasons that had previously been specified as legitimate reasons in their own right that were not related to safety issues - lack of use, practical obsolescence, closing a location.

 

[TMC]

… as a qualifier specifying the role of the use of the Death Penalty in defense of the lives of the innocent against the human aggressor. This is English Grammar 101 (and in Latin parsing the sentence works the same) - there is no basis for a presumption that simply placing a qualifier on a single, specific, particular justification effects a complete revocation of several other unspecified - and independently sufficient - justifications.

Wow, this discussion has officially jumped the shark, landing on the other side in deep pit of Clintonian double-speak. When the Church says “only this” what it really means is “not only this, but also some other things we won’t bother to mention”? I guess I skipped that day in English 101.

 

[Ender]

the starting principles on the question of the death penalty are three. The first principle is that, as a creature created in the image and likeness of God, and the human person has a sacredness and dignity that is innate to his nature. The second principle is that the essence of man that is the ends to which he was created is union with God (The Beatific Vision). The third operative principle is by his nature man is a social being and that the State exist for the “Common Good” so that within the Just State man’s nature can move towards perfection. But the State whose goal is the common good as such it has its own nature and its own ends. (All this comes from St. Thomas.)

Well … I don’t feel competent to address the issue at this level. I am not capable of digesting the works of St. Thomas and integrating them into the works of JPII, and were I capable of it I should still be very wary about doing it as I recognize the likelihood of using general principles to support my own personal inclinations.

I am, however, comfortable using specific comments St. Thomas made that directly address this issue even if I lack the ability to assess the validity of the reasoning behind them. I realize that St. Thomas was not correct on everything but I’ll proceed on the assumption that what I quote agrees with what the Church proclaims and I’ll leave it up to you to dispute and disprove it.

The great shortcoming of 2267 is that it does not address the primary function of punishment, which is not the protection of society but is to “redress the disorder caused by the offense.” (2266) That is, the primary function of punishment is not protection but is justice and an unjust punishment is improper whether or not it protects society. Furthermore, punishment can be unjust either by being too severe or too mild.

Summa Theologica II/II 33
(1) Consequently the correction of a wrongdoer is twofold, one which applies a remedy to the sin considered as an evil of the sinner himself. This is fraternal correction properly so called, which is directed to the amendment of the sinner. … *There is another correction which applies a remedy to the sin of the wrongdoer, considered as hurtful to others, and especially to the common good. This correction is an act of justice, whose concern it is to safeguard the rectitude of justice between one man and another.

*Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Wow, this discussion has officially jumped the shark, landing on the other side in deep pit of Clintonian double-speak. When the Church says “only this” what it really means is “not only this, but also some other things we won’t bother to mention”? I guess I skipped that day in English 101.

See my post immediately before this one of yours; there is no basis for a claim that interpreting papal statements requires following unstated rules of linguistic interpretation where “if” statements are not the actual conditional to the use of “only” to which the “if” is applied… Actual double-speak would be saying that limiting the use of a specified justification to only one circumstance must be presumed to revoke all unspecified justifications under any circumstance unless all the other reasons were explicitly reiterated every single time any of the justifications were addressed.

 

[frankadams]

See my post immediately before this one of yours; there is no basis for a claim that interpreting papal statements requires following unstated rules of linguistic interpretation where “if” statements are not the actual conditional to the use of “only” to which the “if” is applied… Actual double-speak would be saying that limiting the use of a specified justification to only one circumstance must be presumed to revoke all unspecified justifications under any circumstance unless all the other reasons were explicitly reiterated every single time any of the justifications were addressed.

No, *actual *doublespeak involves stating that all previous justifications for the death penalty are wholly unaffected by newer documents which narrow its scope considerably. The Church indeed used to proscribe the death penalty for reasons besides safety (heresy, for example, was among those reasons). Even if it is implicitly clear that the recent Catechism, because of the particular gravity of the death penalty, excludes reason other than safety, you demand that without a specific and particular refutation, all other previous justifications must be unquestionably accepted.

Again, I compare you to the Catholic pro-abortion crowd. The Catechism never explicitly states that “Thomas Aquinas was wrong when he linked the beginning of life to ‘quickening’.” Nonetheless, when the Catechism states that life begins at conception, it is wholly clear (albeit implicit) to any thinking person that they are repudiating this previous statement about life (and all other similar “life” statements of previous centuries). The same holds true for capital punishment.

 

[frankadams]

The great shortcoming of 2267 is that it does not address the primary function of punishment, which is not the protection of society but is to “redress the disorder caused by the offense.” (2266) That is, the primary function of punishment is not protection but is justice and an unjust punishment is improper whether or not it protects society. Furthermore, punishment can be unjust either by being too severe or too mild.

Summa Theologica II/II 33
(1) Consequently the correction of a wrongdoer is twofold, one which applies a remedy to the sin considered as an evil of the sinner himself. This is fraternal correction properly so called, which is directed to the amendment of the sinner. … There is another correction which applies a remedy to the sin of the wrongdoer, considered as hurtful to others, and especially to the common good. This correction is an act of justice, whose concern it is to safeguard the rectitude of justice between one man and another.

Ender

You are correct about Catholic statements regarding the nature of punishment. However, the better response would have been “The great shortcoming of II/II/33 is that it does not address the unique nature of the death penalty. It does not account for the fact that the Church of the 21st Century teaches that, given the final and grave nature of the death penalty, this particular punishment, unlike all others, may only be used when it is ‘the only way to effectively defend human life from the unjust aggressor.’”

The Catechism has the benefit of nearly 800 years of post-Aquinas experience to reflect upon the uniqueness of capital punishment and now makes a distinction about it that it does not do for other forms of punishment.

 

[fix]

No, *actual *doublespeak involves stating that all previous justifications for the death penalty are wholly unaffected by newer documents which narrow its scope considerably. The Church indeed used to proscribe the death penalty for reasons besides safety (heresy, for example, was among those reasons). Even if it is implicitly clear that the recent Catechism, because of the particular gravity of the death penalty, excludes reason other than safety, you demand that without a specific and particular refutation, all other previous justifications must be unquestionably accepted.

Again, I compare you to the Catholic pro-abortion crowd. The Catechism never explicitly states that “Thomas Aquinas was wrong when he linked the beginning of life to ‘quickening’.” Nonetheless, when the Catechism states that life begins at conception, it is wholly clear (albeit implicit) to any thinking person that they are repudiating this previous statement about life (and all other similar “life” statements of previous centuries). The same holds true for capital punishment.

Aquinas is not the magisterium. Changes in biology does not mean the magisterium taught direct abortion was licit.

Leaving out other specific reasons in the CCC for justifying the death penalty does not mean the Church teaches that was wrong previously.

Seeming contradictions need to be reconciled rather than claiming the magisterium got it wrong.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

The Catechism has the benefit of nearly 800 years of post-Aquinas experience to reflect upon the uniqueness of capital punishment and now makes a distinction about it that it does not do for other forms of punishment.

If one does not simply arbitrarily exclude the statements by Pius XII in 1952 (and various others before then, there was not even 80 years between the last statement of the Church on the other justifications and the changes it is claimed EV should be extended to presume. Just 50 years ago we had a pope that was very certain that for certain crimes the right to life of the offender was forfeit because of the gravity of the crime itself - with no limitation or qualification based on that offender’s future threat to society.

 

[frankadams]

Aquinas is not the magisterium. Changes in biology does not mean the magisterium taught direct abortion was licit.

Leaving out other specific reasons in the CCC for justifying the death penalty does not mean the Church teaches that was wrong previously.

Seeming contradictions need to be reconciled rather than claiming the magisterium got it wrong.

I concur. Aquinas is not the magisterium. He is, however, an oft-cited source of many of the pro-capital punishment poster here and so I use him as an example.

I am posting the fuller Catechism citation below. Your response seems to suggest that the Congregation “left out” the other reasons rather than repudiated them by clear logic. I know that the Church never likes to say that it was “wrong” and that the custom has been to “reconcile” teachings rather than claim that a previous one was erroneous.

But there are plenty of examples of the Church essentially asserting that previous claims were wrong, even when not utilizing that terminology. Teaching on religious freedom, the use of military force to supress heresy, and many others were “reconciled” in such a way as to completely repudiate them, with or without the use of words like “wrong.”

Regarding abortion, you are also correct. But with life being a necessary precondition of murder, previous Church documents that taught that life began sometime later than conception, taught de facto that abortions prior to that time were not murder. For practical purposes, the Church did not “reconcile” older teachings about when life begins, they more or less declared them flat-out wrong. This is among response to pro-abotion Catholics, and pro-capital punishment Catholics

**2267 **Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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.

If, however, nonlethal 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 are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

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 - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I am posting the fuller Catechism citation below. Your response seems to suggest that the Congregation “left out” the other reasons rather than repudiated them by clear logic. I know that the Church never likes to say that it was “wrong” and that the custom has been to “reconcile” teachings rather than claim that a previous one was erroneous.

So, just because two of the three reasons listed in 2266 (“defending public order”, “protecting people’s safety”, and “correction of the guilty party”) are not explicitly repeated when stating the limit of the “protect” justification in 2267, those two justifications for punishment must presumed to be revoked/not apply for only capital punishment by something inferred by the white space between those two adjoining paragraphs? In your opinion does that necessity for explicit restatement carry through the CCC as a whole, within particular topical themes, or for 2267 and only 2267?

 

[SoCalRC]

If one does not simply arbitrarily exclude the statements by Pius XII in 1952 (and various others before then, there was not even 80 years between the last statement of the Church on the other justifications and the changes it is claimed EV should be extended to presume. Just 50 years ago we had a pope that was very certain that for certain crimes the right to life of the offender was forfeit because of the gravity of the crime itself - with no limitation or qualification based on that offender’s future threat to society.

This is the problem with always making indirect citations, this is what Pope Pius XII said about the death penalty in 1952:

“Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.” - Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952

Look at the first sentence, look at the target audience, and most importantly, read the entire speech. Pope Pius was making an extremely pro life speech. His words were a preview of what we would see the Second Vatican Council proclaim, and the definition of “right to life” Pope John Paul II presented in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38). Multiple times the Pope asserted that the right to life is fundemental and should never be abridged, hence “Even in the case…”

The Pope appears to be claiming that the right to life remains inviolate in even extreme cases, that is, the state is not demanding a life for justice, but the sentenced is forfeiting life because of of the circumstances created by his/her actions. We can try to stretch this one quote to absurdity, but the entire speech centers on the fundemental and inalienable right to life.

Now, let’s go back further, to the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

“The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.” - Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4

It is convenient to look at the second and last sentences. ‘It is obedience, and the taking of guilty lives…’ But we also have to look at the other sentences. For example, “For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life.”

So, if we go back 450 years, we can see that the Church has identified life as the central purpose of the law. 50 years ago we have a Pope declaring that the right to life is inalienable, not the state’s right to take, but soley the individual’s forfeiture. In both cases, the tension between right to life and the death penalty is present.

In this light it is easy to understand why so many theologians do not find JPII’s teaching incompatible with the Church’s past teachings. JPII is asserting that, yes, a guilty party can forfeit the inalienable right to life if he/she represents an otherwise unmanagable risk to the public. But that, in the current age, such need seems an extremely remote possibility. So, the balance tips to the inalienable right to life (the importance of which was asserted by Pope Pius XII) and the fundemental purpose of the law - “protect and foster human life” asserted by the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

It is important to remember that Christians were by and large, extreme pacifists for the first few centuries. When creating the concept ‘Just War’, St. Augustine asserted that there is no right to personal self defense, only the defense of one’s neighbors. The oldest official statement I can find from a Pope authorizing the use of the death penalty is from Innocent I. His stated reason for doing so is:

“We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.”- Innocent I, Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405

This should be music to your ears, basically ,‘Hey, the Bible permits it, in fact God appears to sometimes demand it, so who am I (or we) to change it?’

But the entire letter is worth reading (as is the original query from the Bishop of Toulouse). Pope Innocent based his thinking on Romans 13:1-4, that is, the death penalty is permissible because the powers-that-be are appointed by God. People who want to use this snippet on the death penalty, as opposed to earlier or later Christian writings should indicate if they accept all the claims in the letter, or just this one.