by Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
October 1997, with subsequent updates thru 6/2024
SEE ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT
“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II."
“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.”
from Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, appointed by SPJPII, “Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp),
https://avemarialaw-law-review.avemarialaw.edu/Content/articles/V5i2.flannery.copyright.pdf
. . . yet, it is much, much worse than that.
The new Roman Catholic position on the death penalty, the 1997 CCC 2267 amendment, is based upon the thoughts of Pope John Paul II, whose position conflicts with reason and the facts, as well as biblical, theological and traditional Catholic teachings spanning nearly 2000 years, as well as eternal commands Genesis 9:5-6, of 4500 years ago, the biblical timeline.
Pope John Paul II’s death penalty writings in Evangelium Vitae are flawed and their adoption into the Catechism was, therefore, improper and, therefore, invalid.
In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal Catechism to reflect Pope John Paul II’s comments within his 1995 encyclical, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae- EV).
Therein, the Pope finds that the only time executions can be justified is when they are required “to defend society” and that “as a result of steady improvements . . . in the penal system that such cases are very rare if not practically non-existent.”
That qualifies as absurd and reveals a pattern.
Since 1973, the US has seen 500,000 ADDITIONAL murders by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again - recidivist criminals, which equates to an ADDITIONAL 3.5 million violent crimes by those KNOWN criminals that we have allowed to harm, again (1973-2024).
PJPll finds that "very rare if not practically non-existent".
By the numbers, much worse than the priest sex horrors, but the same horror - innocents harmed over and over and over, again, promoted by lack of knowledge and reason, by PJPII (1-4), which had to be willful, as here:
======
Pope John Paul II harms sex abuse victims, even more, rewards Cardinal Law with honored post in Rome Cardinal Law Given Post In Rome - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
"David G. Clohessy, national director , Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests: ''Why can't the Vatican officials see that any position of honor afforded to Law will inevitably and needlessly cause more pain to hundreds who have been abused and have already suffered enough?'It just rubs salt into already deep wounds for parishioners, victims and their families.''
The Church had to do it. The pattern (4).
======
Societal defense is, primarily, via laws, law enforcement and sanction.
Executions are required when we know that innocents are better protected by the execution of unjust aggressors, which is unchallenged (1-4), and penal systems are well known to allow unjust aggressors to harm, over and over, again (1,2).
Neither is in dispute, rationally nor factually (1-4). But for PJPll, "very rare if not practically non-existent".
Murderers, as most criminals, tragically, harm or murder, again, way too often (1), as the Church and all, have known (1), way before 1995.
Three issues, inexplicably, escaped the Pope’s consideration.
First, in the Pope’s context, “to defend society” means that the execution of the murderer must save future lives or, otherwise, prevent future harm (2,3).
When looking at the history of criminal justice practices in a) not incarcerating known criminals, b) pre- trial releases c) early releases d) probations, e) paroles and f) incarcerations, we all know that there are countless examples of when judgments and procedures failed and, because of that, murderers harmed and/or murdered, again (1,2).
Such was well known by PJPII and the Church, as all of us, way before 1995, 1997 and 2018 and that such meant, absolutely, nothing to them, with regard to protecting the innocent.
It is impossible for them not to have known, just like the priest sex scandal, whereby additional innocents were harmed, when that should have been stopped, but, knowingly, was not, until outside forces forced the Church to do so, as She unethically, immorally, would not, on Her own.
That pattern is being repeated, herein (4) .
======
PJPll refuses investigation of McCarrick, harming the Church and victims, again
=======
History details that murderers murder and otherwise harm again, time and time again — in prison, after escape, after improper release, and, of course, after we fail to capture or incarcerate them (1,2).
Reason dictates that living murderers, unjust aggressors are, infinitely, more likely to harm and/or murder again than are executed murderers (1,2).
Rationally, uncontested.
PJPII could err, by calling for a reduction or end to execution, and thus sacrifice more innocents, or he could “err” on the side of protecting more innocents by calling for an expansion of executions.
He chose by sacrificing more innocents (4). Mercy?
History, reason and the facts support an increase in executions based upon a defending society foundation (1-4).
Secondly, if social science concludes that executions provide enhanced deterrence for murders, then the Pope’s position should call for increased executions (2,3).
If we decide that the deterrent effect of executions does not exist and we, therefore, choose not to execute, and we are wrong, this will sacrifice more innocent lives and also give those murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again.
Never have the deterrent effects of severe criminal sanction, the possibility of severe negative outcomes and severe negative incentives been negated, nor can they be. Never.
If we choose to execute, believing in the deterrent effect, and we are wrong, we are executing our worst human rights violators and preventing such murderers from ever harming or murdering again – again, saving more innocent lives.
Factually and rationally uncontested.
Nobel Prize Laureate (Economics) Gary Becker:
“the evidence of a variety of types — not simply the quantitative evidence — has been enough to convince me that capital punishment does deter and is worth using for the worst sorts of offenses.” (NY Times, 11/18/07)
"(Becker) is the most important social scientist in the past 50 years (NY Times, 5/5/14)
No responsible social scientist has or will say that the death penalty deters no one. Quite a few studies, including 10 (now 24) recent ones, find that executions do deter (2,3).
As all prospects for negative consequence deter some, it is a mystery why the Pope chose the option which spares murderers and sacrifices more innocent lives, exactly, the choice the Church made in protecting/hiding guilty priest sex offenders and, thereby, casing more harm to the innocent, reflecting a pattern.
Factually and rationally uncontested.
If the Pope’s defending society position has merit, then, again, the Church must actively support executions, as it offers an enhanced defense of society and greater protection for innocent life.
Thirdly, we know that some criminals don’t murder because of their fear of execution. This is known as the individual deterrent effect.
Unquestionably, the incapacitation effect (execution) and the individual deterrent effect both exist and they both defend society by protecting innocent life and offer enhanced protections over imprisonment (1-4).
Furthermore, individual deterrence assures us that general deterrence must exist, because individual deterrence could not exist without it. Executions save more innocent lives in multiple ways (1-4).
Therefore, PJPII's defending society standard should be a call for increasing executions.
Instead, the Pope and other Church leadership has chosen a position that spares the lives of known murderers, resulting in more innocents put at risk and more innocents harmed and murdered — a position which, quite clearly, contradicts both PJPII and the Holy See, as others' conclusions.
It could not be more obvious.
Contrary to the Church’s belief, that the Pope’s opinion represents a tougher stance against the death penalty, the opposite is, factually and rationally, true.
======
The Catholic Church & The Death Penalty
12 (14) Factual Errors: 2018 CCC 2267 amendment
======
When properly evaluated, the defending society position supports more executions.
Had these issues not been, willfully, avoided, prior to 1995, 1997 and 2018, the Catechism would never have been amended — unless the Church endorses a position knowing that it would spare the lives of guilty murderers, at the cost of sacrificing more innocent victims - very much duplicated by the Church's protecting/hiding guilty priest sexual offenders, at the known cost of more innocents harmed.
When the choice is between 1) sparing murderers, resulting in more harmed and murdered innocents, who suffer through endless moments of incredible horror, with no additional time to prepare for their salvation, or 2) executing murderers, who are given many years on death row to prepare for their salvation, and saving more innocents from being murdered, the Pope and the Catholic Church have an obligation to spare the innocent, as Church tradition, the Doctors of the Church and many Saints have concluded. (see reference, below)
Pope John Paul II’s death penalty stance was his own, personal prudential judgement and does not bind, nor should bind, any other Catholic to share his position, which was devoid of truth, reflection, history and facts.
Any Catholic can choose to support more executions, based upon their own prudential judgement, and remain a Catholic in good standing.
Prudential judgement requires a foundation of reasoned and thorough review.
PJPII avoided both.
A defending society position supports more executions, not less. Therefore, PJPll's prudential judgement was in error on this important fact.
Furthermore, defending society is an outcome of the death penalty, but is secondary to the foundation of justice and biblical instruction.
Even though Romans and additional writings do reveal a “defending society” consideration, such references pale in comparison to the mandate that execution is the proper punishment for murder, regardless of any consideration “to defend society.”
Both the Noahic covenant, in Genesis 9:6 (“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”), and the Mosaic covenant, throughout the Pentateuch (Ex.: “He that smiteth a man so that he may die, shall be surely put to death.” Exodus 21:12), provide execution as the punishment for unjustifiable/intentional homicide, otherwise known as murder.
These texts, and others, offer specific rebuttal to the Pope’s position that if “bloodless means” for punishment are available then such should be used, to the exclusion of execution.
Pope John Paul II’s error filled prudential judgement cannot trump eternal biblical instruction. The Church cannot believe that they do.
Telling is the fact that Roman Catholic tradition instructs four elements to be considered with criminal sanction.
1. Defense of society against the criminal.
2. Rehabilitation of the criminal (including spiritual rehabilitation).
3. Retribution, which is the reparation of the disorder caused by the criminal’s transgression.
4. Deterrence
It is a mystery why and how the Pope could have excluded three of these important elements and wrongly evaluated the fourth.
In doing so, though, we can confirm that PJPII's review was in error, incomplete and improper.
At least two Saints, Paul and Dismas, faced execution and stated that it was appropriate. They were both executed.
The Holy Ghost decided that death was the proper punishment for two devoted, early Christians, Ananias and his wife, Saphira, for the crime/sin of lying. Neither was given a moment to consider their earthly punishment or to ask for forgiveness. The Holy Ghost struck them dead.
For those who erroneously contend that Jesus abandoned the Law of the Hebrew Testament, He states that He has come not “to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17-22.
If one rejects Jesus' words, there may be an honest debate regarding the interpretation of Mosaic Law within a Christian context, but there is no dispute that the Noahic Covenant is still in effect and that Genesis 9:6 deals directly with the sanctity of life issue in its support of execution, for all peoples and all times.
(read “A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World” by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).
“In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). (Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000)
======
Jesus and the Death Penalty
======
Saint Pius V reaffirms this mandate, in the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), stating that executions are acts of “paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment.”
(“Thou shalt not murder,” sometimes improperly translated as “kill” instead of “murder”).
Not only do the teachings of Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine concur, but both saints also find that such punishment actually reflects charity and mercy by preventing the wrongdoer from sinning further.
The Saints position is that execution offers undeniable defense of society as well as defense of the wrongdoer. Such prevention also expresses the fact that execution is an enhanced defense of society, over and above all other punishments.
The relevant question is “What biblical and theological teachings, developed from 1566 through 1997, provide that the standard for executions should evolve from ‘paramount obedience’ to God’s eternal law to a civil standard reflecting ‘steady improvements’ . . . in the penal system?”, when the civil standards in penal systems are, incredibly flawed, even, much worse than the Church's priest sex abuse horrors (1), as is well known, unless one is determined to be willfully ignorant, as PJPII and the Church have chosen to be.
Such teachings hadn’t changed. The Pope’s position is secular and social and contrary to factual, rational, biblical, theological and traditional teachings.
Saint Pius V is correct, that executions represent “paramount obedience to the [Fifth] Commandments, then is it not disobedient to reduce or stop executions?
The Church’s position on the use of the death penalty has been consistent from 300 AD through 1995 AD.
The Church has always supported the use of executions, based upon biblical and theological principles.
Until 1995, says John Grabowski, associate professor of Moral Theology at Catholic University, ” . . . Church teachings were supportive of the death penalty. You can find example after example of Pope’s, of theologians and others, who have supported the right of the state to inflict capital punishment for certain crimes and certain cases.”
Grabowski continues: “What he (the Pope now) says, in fact, in his encyclical, is that given the fact that we now have the ability, you know, technology and facilities to lock up someone up for the rest of their lives so they pose no future threat to society — given that question has been answered or removed, there is no longer justification for the death penalty.” (All Things Considered, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, 9/9/97.)
PJPII's position is now based upon his egregious, willful mischaracterization of corrections systems, a position neither biblical nor theological in nature.
======
“Capital Punishment and Magisterial Authority”
"Fastiggi on Capital Punishment and the Change to the Catechism,
Part I," Edward Feser, 8/26/2023,
Part 2, 8/30/2023
=======
Long term incarceration of lawbreakers in Europe began in the 1500s. Long term incarceration of slaves had begun thousands of years before — meaning that all were aware that criminal wrongdoers could also be subject to bondage, if necessary – something that all historians and biblical scholars — now and then — were and are well aware of.
Since it’s inception, the Church has issued numerous pronouncements, encyclicals and previous Universal Catechisms. Had any biblical or theological principle called for a replacement of the death penalty by life imprisonment, it would have been revealed long before 1995.
There is, finally, a disturbing reality regarding the Pope’s new standard. The Pope’s defending society standard requires that the moral concept of justice becomes irrelevant. The Pope’s standard finds that capital punishment can be used only as a vehicle to prevent future crimes.
Therefore, using the Pope’s standard, the moral/biblical rational — that capital punishment is the just or required punishment for murder — is no longer relevant to the sin/crime of murder.
If defending society is the new standard, the Pope has decided that the biblical standards of atonement, expiation, justice and required punishments have all, necessarily, been discarded, with regard to execution.
The Pope’s new position establishes that capital punishment no longer has any connection to the harm done or to the imbalance to be addressed. Yet, such connection had always been, until now, the Church’s historical, biblically based perspective on this sanction.
Under PJPII's defending society standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer relevant to the murderer's punishment (4).
Executions can be justified solely upon that punishments ability to prevent future harm by the murderer. Therefore, when considering executions in regard to capital murder cases, a defending society standard renders justice irrelevant.
Yet, execution defends society to a degree unapproachable by any other punishment and, therefore, should have been fully supported by the Pope, when considering factual and rational truths,
“Some enlightened people would like to banish all conception of retribution or desert from our theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by doing so they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it?” (quote attributed to the distinguished Christian writer C. S. Lewis)
Again, with regard to the Pope’s prudential judgement, his neglect of justice was most imprudent.
Some Catholic scholars, properly, have questioned the appropriateness of including prudential judgement within a Catechism. Personal opinion does not belong within a Catechism and, likely, will never be allowed, again.
I do not believe it had ever been allowed before.
In fact, neither the Church nor the Pope would accept a defending society standard for use of the death penalty, unless the Church and the Pope believed that such punishment was just and deserved, as well.
The Church has never questioned the authority of the government to execute in “cases of extreme gravity,” nor does it do so with these recent changes.
Certainly, the Church and Pope John Paul II believe that the prevention of any and all violent crimes fulfills a defending society position.
There is no doubt that executions defend society at a level higher than incarceration (1-3).
Why has PJPII and many within Church leadership chosen a path that spares murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives, when they could have chosen a stronger defense of society which spares more innocents?
Properly, PJPII did not challenge the Catholic biblical and theological support for capital punishment. The Pope has voiced his own, personal belief as to the appropriate application of that penalty.
So why has the Pope come out against executions, when his own position — a defense of society — which, both rationally and factually, has a foundation supportive of more executions?
It is unfortunate that the Pope, along with other leaders in the Church, have decided to, improperly, use a defending society position to speak against the death penalty.
The Pope’s position against the death penalty condemns more innocents and neglects justice.
FN
1) Read footnote 4, first, then read the rest
Catechism & State Protection
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html2) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
3) Deterrence, Death Penalties & Executions
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/04/deterrence-death-penalties-executions.html
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/04/deterrence-death-penalties-executions.html
4) 30 Examples: How Death Penalty Abolitionists Value Murderers
More Than Their Innocent Victims:
AKA - Full Rebuttal of Sir Richard Branson & His Death Penalty Comments
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
These references provide a thorough rebuke of the current Roman Catholic Church teachings against the death penalty and, particularly, deconstructs the many improper pronouncements made by the US Bishops, which they refuse to correct, their unethical position.
Religion and The Death Penalty
=====
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
======
Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone in a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
The media/academic norm is to use anti-death penalty material, refuse to fact check or vet it and avoid all pro-death penalty research and experts. How will you know that is true? You haven't seen this material, prior.
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
7 pro-death penalty experts
======
Partial CV
