Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Catechism & The Death Penalty Problems: Section 2267

updated 7/2025

 Catechism & The Death Penalty Problems: Section 2267: 
A Rational Deconstruction of Catholic Revisionism, 1995-2019
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

 RE: Catechism of the Catholic Church, PART THREE LIFE IN CHRIST, SECTION TWO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, CHAPTER TWO "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF", ARTICLE 5 THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT

1995-1997

      The relevant, first, major shift in Catholic teaching on the death penalty occurred in 1997, with a hastily drafted amendment, to the newest Catechism (CCC, 1992), within section 2267 - an amendment based upon Pope (now Saint) John Paul II's "Evangelium Vitae" (EV) (1995).
      The amended CCC 2267 (2267) makes obvious rational, factual and secular errors, throughout, just as the problematic theological, biblical, traditional, Magesterium teachings, therein.
      Pope John II (PJPII) made a prudential judgement, within EV, and such judgement  had, very, obvious factual and rational errors and, then, those errors were amended into CCC 2267.
      I do not believe that a prudential judgment has ever been entered into a Catechism, before, as such is contrary to the purpose of a catechism,  ". . . a text which contains the fundamental Christian truths formulated in a way that facilitates their understanding." (USCCB). 
      The amended 2267 is a solid example of the opposite of that purpose and why a prudential judgement should never have been placed within a Catechism and, hopefully, such will not occur, again.
      "Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe."  paraphrase -  It has been recognized that the amended 2267 avoids the full Catholic teachings on the purposes of punishment, which are (1) defense of society against the criminal; (2) rehabilitation of the criminal, (3) retribution or the reparation of the disorder caused by the transgression . . . some authorities list (4) deterrence as a fourth purpose of punishment [Dulles, "Catholicism and Capital Punishment"]."The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)", by Canon Lawyer R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, Sept 14, 2003
      Only one of those is primary, that being (3) retribution or the reparation of the disorder caused by the transgression, aka redress, justice or just retribution. All the others are expected or realized outcome of sanction, but not the foundation for it. Justice is primary, with all other outcomes, deterrence, safety, etc, important, but secondary. Justice requires the guilt of the sanctioned party. Without that, all three others are unjust.
      “(The amended 2267) is problematic for placing a prudential judgment in a catechetical text, more problematically so than in an encyclical like Evangelium Vitae." "Paragraph 2266 of the Catechism names the primary consideration of retribution (redress), but (the amended) 2267 ignores it.” "There are times when the state needs capital punishment in order to save society." “This is Christian doctrine.” “The cogency of Catholic apologetics crumbles when reason is abandoned for sentimentality in consequence of philosophical idealism and subjectivism.”   “On Capital Punishment”, Fr. George Rutler, National Catholic Register, March 24-31, 2002

 1) The death penalty teachings in CCC 2267 are prudential judgments and have been confirmed as such by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (1), Cardinal-Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, who became Pope Benedict XVI.
      John Paul II (SPJPII) appointed Ratzinger.
      As a prudential judgment, any good Catholic may, justly, reject the 2267 amendment, may call for more executions, based upon 2000 years of Church tradition, finding that justice is primary, as confirmed within the most recent CCC (see redress) , and that a primary principle, justice,  cannot be subjugated by a secondary principle, even an important one, such as defense of society, and one can confirm the rational truth that the death penalty/executions save and protect innocents, in six ways, better than does a life sentence (2&5), calling upon a compassionate Church to consider that sparing more murderers will cause more innocents to be murdered (2), as history and the facts make clear (2&5) and that execution may provide some unjust aggressors with expiation (3), a means to salvation, the ultimate in restorative justice (3).
      As taught in this very same CCC, redress (aka justice and just retribution) are primary and eternal. Public defense/criminal justice systems are secular and utilitarian and, therefore, must always be secondary to the primary, eternal truth of justice. Yet, the CCC, SPJPII and Pope Francis are stating that secular utilitarianism must rule over the Church teachings of justice - a clear error.
      Always and everywhere there is the prescribed sanction of "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." (CCC 2260), "For in the image of God have human beings been made" (see Genesis 9:5-6). which, is confirmed in the Council of Trent, that execution represents paramount obedience to that commandment.

 Paramount obedience is primary.

 What we have today, in 2267, is the Church making every possible effort to avoid such paramount obedience to eternal teachings and to replace that with a human reliance on incarceration systems, strictly secular and in error.

 2) Re: CCC 2267:

 from Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
      Flannery was, also, appointed by PJPII.
      “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." (4).
      "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.” (4)

======
Pope John Paul II: His death penalty errors
======

 3) from the amended 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."

 Reply: Such does not appear to exist in traditional or any other Catholic teaching and, since this 1997 amendment, I am unaware that anyone has found that it does. It seems to have just appeared, out of thin air. It is, in fact, contrary to the traditional teachings.

 There are, also, both rational and lack of compassion errors: 

The issue is not the "only possible" way of "effectively" defending human lives. 
From a rational standpoint, that is irrelevant. 
      The issue is what is the "best possible and effective sanction to protect innocent lives from unjust aggressors".
      Rationally, that would be the death penalty, which protects innocent lives, in six ways, better than lesser sanctions (2&5) and which, in many cases, a) provides that the primary purpose of sanction, justice/redress will best be served by the death penalty and b)  Yes, the 2267 amendments were prudential judgments, with a factual assertion that was entirely false, with zero fact checking and showing little interest - a grossly irresponsible judgment, not prudent --- this at a time, 1995 and through today, when the Church, and four successive Popes were/are in the midst of the horrendous moral scandal of priests being allowed to sexually assault children, repeatedly, with many in the Church, actively, trying to cover it up (8).
      Why weren't the Church and those four Popes sensitive to crime victims and their offenders being allowed to re-offend, but, instead, such was, completely, forgotten within the amended CCC (8).

2022 update:  "German authorities called for further investigation after an independent audit faulted retired Pope Benedict XVI for having botched four cases of abuse when he was archbishop of Munich, Germany."  As Cardinal Ratzinger, he headed The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for nearly a quarter-century, before he became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005."

1997-2022

Death Penalty: Catholic Doctrinal "Development" Without Foundation

      From Evangelium Vitae (1995) forward, the Church has presented a false narrative, which is the foundation of the development of doctrine on the death penalty, wrongly placed into the CCC.(1997, 2018).
      The Church’s claim that the modern criminal justice systems have rendered the need for the death penalty either practically non-existent (1997) or inadmissible (2018) is clearly, obviously false (2 & 5).
      The Church is well aware that criminal justice systems are, highly, irresponsible, allowing violent offenders to harm and murder, again, repeatedly, in prison, after escape and after release or not restraining them, at all, resulting in countless innocents harmed or murdered, every day (2b).
         It is astounding that the Church, intentionally, avoided that (2b), in the context of Her 70-700 years of acting in a similar fashion (8).
      All of which is not only obvious to the Church but to anyone who pays attention.
      As such is the alleged foundation of the changes, since 1995, there is no foundation for those changes.
      The following is a review of the obvious problems within the latest amendment to CCC 2267 (2018):
       The Church made it about "safeguarding the common good" (2267), which the Church cannot do. Why? 
      The Church knows that justice is primary and safeguarding, while very important, must be and is, always, secondary.  Rationally and factually, the death penalty is a greater safeguard than either a life sentence and/or solitary confinement, both of which Pope Francis opposes, making it clear that "safeguarding the common good" is, certainly, of no concern (8) in refuting 2000 years of well established Church teachings.
 
2267: “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."
 
Reply: 1) There is no new increasing awareness of the dignity of persons, as has been, fully, covered from Genesis, as throughout the bible, witnessed by St. Dismas and fully, addressed by the Church, for centuries. 
2) We are all, well aware, or should be, of the many major problems within criminal justice systems, again and again, having practices and errors which harm innocents, every day and throughout the world (2,5). 
3) The Church cannot deny that God grants us the opportunity of redemption, at all times, and within all circumstances, regardless of how or when we die, obviously, inclusive of the death penalty. 
      Only man can deprive himself of the possibility of. redemption. God, always and in all circumstances, offers it to us, prior to our deaths, no matter when and what that death may be. As we are all "guilty", all Christians know the possibility of redemption will, always, exist, prior to our deaths, no matter what that death maybe. 
      The Church cannot refute that, as She attempts . . . and fails.

======
2018 CCC 2267 amendment: 13 (15) Factual Errors
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/02/7-factual-errors-2018-ccc-2267-amendment.htm
======

Relevant historical note:

70 AD and 1960   "Religious documents dating back to before the writing of the New Testament highlight problems inside the Church regarding sexual rule-breaking and the abuse of boys." " . . . examine the Didache, a very early theological text (accepted by Catholic Church in the collection of the Apostolic Fathers) which is usually dated around 70 A.D."
        " . . .  it does not appear that there was a time that the Church was effective at preventing child abuse -- this is a problem that reaches back to the earliest days of its formation and practice." 
        " . . . in the last 50 years (1960-2010) some 30,000 people in 25 countries have reported abuse committed by the Church's many workers."
The Long Scancdal: A History of Abuse  Alex Wilhelm, religious commentator, 
HuffPost Jul 5, 2010, Updated May 25, 2011  

 1980: Priest John Geoghan asserts that his repeated abuse of seven boys in one extended family was not a “serious” problem, according to a (Boston) archdiocesan record.

 1984: By 1984, Cardinal Bernard Law had no moral credibility. Law knew about Priest John Geoghan’s (child sex abuse) problems in 1984, Law’s first year in Boston, yet approved his transfer to St. Julia’s parish in Weston.". Bishop John M. D’Arcy wrote to Law, challenging the wisdom of the assignment in light of Geoghan’s “history of homosexual involvement with young boys.” The warning was not headed.

 1985: "At a bishops synod in Rome in 1985, Cardinal Law proposed the publication of a new Catholic catechism.", this one.
      Law is assigned to the Commission, writing the Catechism.
      The first significant US public disclosure of clergy sex abuse, in Louisiana.
      In 1989, (Geoghan) was forced to go on sick leave after more complaints of sexual abuse, and spent months in two institutions that treat sexually abusive priests.

1990-1993:  Even so, the archdiocese returned (Geoghan) to St. Julia’s, where Geoghan continued to abuse children for another three years.

 1992:  Newest Catechism published in French. Law is in charge of its English translation.

1994: English version published.

 mid 1990s: "Since the mid-1990s, more than 130 people have come forward with horrific childhood tales about how former priest John J. Geoghan allegedly fondled or raped them during a three-decade spree through a half-dozen Greater Boston parishes." " Almost always, his victims were grammar school boys. One was just 4 years old."

 1995: The St. Julia’s assignment proved disastrous. Geoghan was put in charge of three youth groups, including altar boys. 

 1997: The Latin typical edition of the CCC came out in 1997, with a few amendments to the original French text. All major documents issued by the Vatican are issued in authoritative Latin "typical editions," i.e. the editions from which all others are to be derived. All amendments, inclusive of 2267, were made to the other language versions, as second editions.

 2002: " . . .July’s (2002) disclosure that Cardinal Bernard F. Law knew about Priest John Geoghan’s (child sex abuse) problems in 1984, Law’s first year in Boston, yet approved his transfer to St. Julia’s parish in Weston."

(1940's through) 2002: "The (Massachusettes) attorney general’s office said the *child sex abuse) abuse extended over six decades and involved at least 237 priests and 789 children; of those, 48 priests and other archdiocesan employees were alleged to have abused children while Law was leader of the Boston archdiocese (1984-2002)."

 Dec, 2002: Law resigns.

 2004: John Paul II appointed Law archpriest of the Patriarchal Basilica of St. Mary Major (Rome), a sinecure which made him the pontiff’s delegate to one of Rome’s four principal basilicas. - a reminder of the regard in which the Vatican held Cardinal Law.
      JPII made it loud and clear how the Church viewed repeated and well known child sexual abuse, committed by its priests, and his regard for covering it up, thereby allowing that activity to continue (8).
    The gross insult to victims and their survivors was at a disgraceful level.
    Repulsive.

2019 - Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were both blamed in the Vatican report for allowing McCarrick to rise in power despite the fact that they both knew of sex abuse allegations against him.  
      Think about that. Hard.
 
2019 -  Numerous bishops across the United States withheld the names of hundreds of Catholic clergy who were accused of committing acts of sex abuse.
      Think about that. Hard.
 
2022 - Pope Emeritus Benedict XV Accused of Covering Up Abuse Cases in Germany | Joseph Ratzinger will have to give explanations before the Justice
      Think about that. Hard.

2024 - Catholic church still failing to deal with sexual abuse cases, The Guardian, Oct 29, 2024

 2025 - Catholic Church loses key battle to keep state probe of clergy sex abuse secret, New Jersey Monitor, March 6, 2025

2025 forward  -  "Is the Catholic church headed into a new era of secrecy over child sex abuse? A Vatican opinion released shortly before Pope Francis died advises against public church listings of clergy members deemed to have been credibly accused of sexual abuse — which virtually every American diocese has. By  Robert Herguth, Chicago Sun Times, Aug 1, 2025

The Church has, never, stopped secrecy, hiding and minimizing the horrors (8).
       After 65 or 2000 years, the Church has refused to learn to be responsible, open and transparent, hurting the innocent victims, even more, the pattern (8).
       Will the Church continue to act in this manner? There is zero indication of a reformed morality, with it evident the Church may do worse, recently choosing more secrecy, after 65 years within this, newest, mass of abuses. 

 ======

 4) from 2267: ""If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

 Reply: This is opposite the confirmed facts (2&5) and is in error, by reason.

"Sufficient' does not mean better, does not mean worse. It is no standard.

 In 2258-2266 the standard is a requirement to protect innocents from unjust aggressors: 2265: "the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.".

With the amended CCC 2267, the "common good" requires us to do everything we can "not to render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.", or, to put it another way, "the unjust aggressors must always be able to harm, again" - the opposite of 2258-2266 and of reason.

 Pope Francis has, personally, confirmed his support of that positions, calling for the removal of the death penalty, life in prison and solitary confinement (6), which conflicts with:

 CCC 2260: "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image." "This teaching remains necessary for all time."

This is an eternal command, contradicted by the amended 2267's secular "bloodless means".
      "surely require a reckoning" and "shall" overwhelm a "sufficiency" standard, which is no standard, at all.
      Also problematic is the lack of compassion, as detailed.
      The issue is what is the "best possible and most effective way to defend innocent lives. Such would be the death penalty, which protects innocent lives, in six ways, better than lesser sanctions (2&5) and which, in some cases, provides that the primary purpose of sanction, justice/redress will best be served by the death penalty.
      Later, the Church amended, again 2267, replacing "bloodless" with "non- lethal".    
      Why? 
      Because the secular "bloodless" was too obvious a conflict with that eternal command within 2260 - "by man shall his blood be shed;" - and 2260, further, establishes that execution is most "in conformity to the dignity of the human person", as it is a commandment from God, which defines the dignity of man, made in God's image.
      I cannot find where Church teachings define which sanctions are "most in conformity to the dignity of the human person". 
      The dignity of each human person is the result of the actions and beliefs of each individual, as observed with Sodom and Gomorrah and the like and what became of those individuals, just as with the Saints and Fathers of the Church, with their actions and beliefs and their dignity.
      Upholding human dignity cannot be anything but the foundation of the Genesis passage, as man was made in God's image. By their heart and actions, with free will, men may accept or reject that dignity, following the teachings of Christ or rejecting them.

 CCC 2265: "Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm." - "requires" - teachings which are contradicted, just a few paragraphs later, within 2267.

 "requires"and "shall" rule over "sufficiency". 
      Reason dictates that:
      If by "sufficient", 2267 is telling us that "sufficient" meets the requirement to render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm", then we know "sufficient" must include the death penalty, thereby finding that 2267 agrees with 2265-2266, but also contradicts 2267, which is not, rationally, possible.
      If 2267 excludes the death penalty, then we know that "sufficient" excludes sanctions which "render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm" and therefore, under 2267, the standard for the common good, now includes sanctions which fail to "render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm", lowering compassion and safety for the innocent, by allowing more murderers to harm, again (2&5), and is, therefore, in contradiction of 2265-2266, the pattern.
      Pope Francis doubled downs on this last paragraph, with his rejection of life imprisonment and solitary confinement, as well, thus condemning more innocents, in exchange that our worst unjust aggressors should be spared and freed (2&5).
      Obvious, unchallenged and a replication of the the priest sex horrors, except in plain sight.
      “Absolute rejection of capital punishment weakens the cogency of pro-life apologetics.” “As the Church's teaching on contraception cannot "develop" in a way that would declare its intrinsic evil to be good, so the right of a state to execute criminals cannot "develop" so that its intrinsic good becomes evil. “ “The pastoral commentary of the Church guides moral method, but the prudential calculus, in punishment as in the declaration of war, rests in the civil government whose authority pertains to natural law and is not granted by the Church." "To propose otherwise under the guise of doctrinal development would be a species of clerical triumphalism that post-Enlightenment humanists claimed to abhor.”  “On Capital Punishment”, Fr. George Rutler, National Catholic Register, March 24-31, 2002
      By reason and CCC, the common good requires executions, as it is the only sanction which "renders the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.". Unchallenged. Rationally undeniable.
      All are aware that living murderers, as other unjust aggressors, can and do harm and murder, again and again, countless times per day, within prison, under supervision, after release, after escape and after we fail to restrain them (2&5). Executed ones do not.  Obvious and unchallenged.
      What the amended 2267 teaches is that we must, always, keep our worst offenders able to inflict harm, again.
      Reason and history confirm, conclusively, that amended 2267 will produce more innocents harmed and murdered (2&5).
      Sufficiency is not the issue and it is not a standard. 
      The issue is what sanction best fulfills justice (redress), it's primary function, and what sanction best protects innocents, a secondary function, if both compassion and safety of innocents are to be, truly, considered.
      The Church and authors of the amendments willfully, refuse to, factually and rationally, consider those issues. Logically, the reason for that is that neither justice nor safety for innocents are the primary concerns, anymore.  The primary focus has become to make sure that all murderers, as other dangerous criminals, are protected and safe from the death penalty, even though it puts many more innocents at risk, as the Church must know.
      As confirmed by reason and 2000 years of Church teachings, execution is just in some cases (redress) and execution protects additional innocent lives, in six ways, better than does a life sentence (2&5) or lesser sanction, establishing execution as both more compassionate and a better defender of society and innocent lives, than lesser sanctions (2&5).

2266: "The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good." which "requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm".

"requires" and "shall" rule over "sufficiency" and saving more innocent lives rules over sacrificing more innocent lives, that is until the amended 2267 lays waste to everything before it (2258-2266).

5) from amended 2267:  "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Rebuttal

 The known reality is so in conflict with that statement (2&5) that one is staggered by its irresponsibility and/or deception.
      The reality is the opposite of the amended 2267.  To paraphrase, It is "very rare, if not practically non-existent.'" for the State "to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it." (2&5).
       Measured recidivism in the US is at about 80%, within 5 years of release (4a), yet we don't solve about 75% of crimes, so the recidivism rate is much higher, likely close to 100%. That recidivism does not include crimes committed within prison/jail, which are epidemic (2&5).
      All of which is very well known by the Church, again, rendering both EV and the amended CCC dead wrong, as all would have known had they cared one wit about additional harm to innocents. Clearly, they did not, or they lied. There is no other explanation - this in the absolute middle of uncovering the horrendous priest sex abuse scandals and its cover up, by Church leadership.
      It defies any type of rational consideration, with EV and the amended 2267.

b) It is not "possibility", "means" or potential of preventing crime, but the reality, which matters. Is the Church that oblivious or hiding it, when it cannot be hidden?
      The most obvious, relevant example is that the Church not only had the "possibility", the "means" and potential to prevent child sex abuse by priests, but the moral obligation and "absolute necessity" to do so, yet, instead, abandoned the innocent and protected the guilty, allowing some to repeat their crimes, over a period of 70-600 years, that we know of, with the Church covering it up.
      From where does the Church obtain such blind and irresponsible confidence that secular criminal justice systems will perform better than She did? 
      From nowhere . . . nor does the Church envision that either "possibility" or "means" will reflect any reality in actually protecting the innocent, which is why She completely avoids reality and replaced it with blind speculation - "possibility" and "means".
      It is a total abdication of responsibility and a negation of CCC 2258-2266 . . . by the Church.
      A significant rational error is that EV attempts to erase execution, if it is not the "only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings". There is nothing within reason or Catholic teachings that says we must either include or exclude a method of sanction, because there may be another "practicable way to defend the lives of human beings".
      Our obligation is to find the "best way to defend the lives of innocent human beings from unjust aggressors", which, in many cases, means the death penalty, which better protects innocents than do lesser sanctions, in six ways (2) and is a sanction which more corresponds with justice (redress), the primary function, as recognized by the Church, even in this CCC.
      It is astounding that the Church could say that such moral and protection failures are "very rare, if not practically nonexistent . . . ". in the secular world, when She has such horrendous failures Herself, so well observed, the exact moment of Her incomprehensible statements, when such secular failures are just as well known (2&5) by the Church and continue to occur, every day.
      So what does the Church say? 
      Avoid reality, instead establish what "means are possible",  thus, irrationally, excluding reality from the discussion, repeating Her same errors, as She, again, looks the other way as more and more innocents are harmed (8). Horrendous.
      Both EV and the CCC invented the fiction that such criminal justice failures, within our modern standards are "very rare, if not practically nonexistent . . . ". The Church, intentionally, evades fact and reason (2&5). Why? How?
      This may reflect the mindset: The majority of Pope Francis' 2014 speech to the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PENAL LAW looked at the unjust aggressors as the victims and left out discussing the true innocent victims until the near end of his speech (6). 
      Responsibility demands a consideration of reality which must rule over the irresponsibility of the "possibility" and "means", if innocent lives and compassion are relevant and they must be, but were negated by both EV and the CCC.
      Man errs and sins and any "err" by the Church and man should be on the side which protects more innocent lives (see 2258-2266) as opposed to what the CCC has now, in 2267, which is to, knowingly, spare more guilty lives at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives, again (2&5).
      How the Church jumped from a standard of "requires", "shall", "paramount obedience" and reality to one of speculation -  "possibility" "means" and "sufficiency" - within this same section, is a sad, irresponsible and dangerous mystery.
      It is hard to imagine how the Church subverted an eternal teaching, described by Her as primary, that being justice and redress, and replaced it with a prudential judgement, based upon Her willfully ignorant, secular fictions of prison security, admittedly secondary or tertiary in nature, and, in so doing put more innocents at risk by exposing them to the worst of the unjust aggressors, murderers, as others.
      To paraphrase: "Today, in fact, 'given the means at the State's disposal', countless innocents are murdered and harmed, every day, by known repeat offender/unjust aggressors, because of the reality of widespread human error and harm committed in the world's criminal justice systems (2&5), just as with the Church's 'mismanagement' of the priest sex horrors, whereby "possibilities", "means" and "sufficiency" had zero relevance to the reality of Her not protecting the innocent."
      Such reality is the factual opposite of: "very rare, if not practically nonexistent . . . ".
      And the Church has to have known it, since 1995 and long before, if aware of reality.
      It is astonishing that neither EV nor CCC show any consciousness of this, when EV and the amended 2267 were written as the firestorm of the priest sex scandal raged.
      
As Catholic theologian Steven Long places the arrow:

" . . . (it) is symptomatic of a society that can garner more support to spare the guilty than to save the innocent."

"The crowd still wants Barrabas." (15)

SPJPII, Francis and Church leadership, in general. seem to have, completely,  forgotten about the priest sex scandal, in this exact context, that the criminal justice system, as the Church, constantly, makes huge errors in judgement and practice and , because of that, many more innocents are harmed (2,5,8)
      Not only are all their writings and comments devoid of any awareness of that reality, but they seem determined to spread their dangerous falsehoods to others,  with Pope Francis doubling down, also seeking an end to life sentences and solitary confinement.
      When these well known realities are taken into account, the foundations of the newest death penalty teachings, within both EV and the amended CCC 2267, disintegrate.

 ======
Pope Francis' Many Problems
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2017/12/pope-francis-many-problems.html  
 ======

c)  ". . . without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself"

How this language could, possibly, get into a Catechism is incomprehensible.  Man does not redeem "himself", but is redeemed through the grace and mercy of God. 
      The CCC is saying that God is taking away from man the possibility of redeeming himself, because of an early and earthly death - execution.
      Biblically and theologically, that is not possible, of course.
      The, well, known teaching, not subject to change, is that we all have the opportunity of redemption (3), prior to our deaths, whatever that early and earthly death may be, whether by cancer, car wreck, old age, drowning, murder, execution (3) and all other deaths. None are excluded.
      The story of the good thief on the cross, St. Dismas, is an obvious example, contradicting the CCC's wrongful reversal of these eternal teachings.
      And the authors of CCC are, somehow, unaware?
      We all die early and earthly deaths.
      What the CCC has done is to make a secular exception to an eternal teaching. 
       Man, via the Church, has, now, established an exception to God's redemption, that being that execution is the only earthly and early death which denies that God provides for the opportunity for man's redemption, prior to death  --  a teaching that can, obviously, never be true.
      What 2267 does is attempt to establish a foundation for death penalty exclusion, based upon possibilities, means and sufficiency, thereby providing more harm to both innocents and murderers, in conflict with reason, fact, biblical and theological teachings, inclusive of the same CCC, and Church traditions. 
      This is not the norm for inclusion into a Catechism.

 ======

 Archbishop Charles Chaput: “Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment . . . " "The Church cannot repudiate (the death penalty) without repudiating her own identity." (3)

 2015, Pope Francis calls for the end of capital punishment, in all cases, thereby, according to Chaput, disavowing the Church's identity, as supported by . . .

 Saint (& Pope) Pius V, "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).

 Paramount obedience.

 From the newest Catholic Catechism

 CCC 2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God's gift of human life and man's murderous violence:

 "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. This teaching remains necessary for all time."

. . . the source for which is the Noahic Covenant, Genesis 9:6, an eternal command, for all peoples and all times, which establishes the sacredness of life as the foundation for death penalty support.

 ======
Additional writings:

 --- By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment, Edward Feser, Joseph Bessette 2017

 In defense of the, above, book:

 1) Hot Air vs. Capital Punishment: A Reply to Paul Griffiths and David Bentley Hart, Dr. Edward Feser, The Catholic World Report, November 28, 2017,
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/11/28/hot-air-versus-capital-punishment-a-reply-to-paul-griffiths-and-david-bentley-hart/

 "Griffiths’ review in First Things . . . is rich in condescension, high in dudgeon, and largely devoid of substantive engagement with the book’s arguments."

 "Hart’s review in Commonweal is so rhetorically over-the-top and dishonest that the effect is more comical than offensive"

 2) Yes, traditional Church teaching on capital punishment is definitive, Dr. Edward Feser, The Catholic World Report, 11/21/2017, 
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/11/21/yes-traditional-church-teaching-on-capital-punishment-is-definitive/

 "Scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the popes for 2000 years have taught that capital punishment can be legitimate in principle . . .  this teaching is irreformable."

 "Given the “hermeneutic of continuity” emphasized by Pope Benedict XVI – and given especially the teaching of the First Vatican Council that popes have no authority to introduce new doctrines . . . "

 3) Reply to Brugger and Tollefsen

 Part 1

 Traditional Catholic Doctrine on Capital Punishment is Irreversible: A Reply to E. Christian Brugger, by Edward Feser, The Public Discourse, November 19th, 2017, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20497/

 "The Catholic Church has always taught that capital punishment can be legitimate under certain circumstances. Scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and every pope who has commented on the topic up to Benedict XVI have all clearly and repeatedly affirmed this teaching."

 Part 2

 St. John Paul II Did Not Change Catholic Teaching on Capital Punishment: A Reply to E. Christian Brugger
by  Edward Feser, The Public Discourse,  November 20th, 2017, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20501/

 "To change (the Church's 2000 year old teachings) would be to contradict the clear and consistent teaching of scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the popes, and no pope has the authority to do that. "

Part 3

 Capital Punishment, Catholicism, and Natural Law: A Reply to Christopher Tollefsen, by Edward Feser, 11/21/2017, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20504/

 " . . . the reason a person can be deprived even of the highest good, God, is that a person can do something to deserve such a loss. The same thing is true of life. A person has a right not to be killed unless—by virtue of having committed a sufficiently heinous crime—he has, as Pope Pius XII put it, “deprived himself of the right to live.” Tollefsen’s argument against capital punishment simply ignores the fact that the right to the enjoyment of a good—any good—depends on whether or not one is guilty or innocent."
4)  Capital Punishment: Eppur non si muove, Michael Pakaluk, The Catholic Thing, NOVEMBER 4, 2017, https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2017/11/04/capital-punishment-eppur-non-si-muove/
"But in our day, when even the heavens apparently do move, we need a different sort of telescope for seeing the changelessness of the other – one that has the clear lens of reason, and the long extension of history, and which is situated in a calm and still observatory.
This exactly is what Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette provide in their recent book, By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed, the most comprehensive case ever assembled it. Yes, one can avoid becoming persuaded by not looking into that telescope. But if you do, you may see so clearly the unchanging nature of the question that you will quip, Eppur non si muove, “Nevertheless it does not move.”

 5) Reviews: By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment, Janet Smith, moral theologian, Claremont Review of Books, Fall 2017
 " . . . the arguments are so strong, I timidly suggest, that perhaps the authors should have allowed readers to “draw their own conclusions” more often.  But let me say, the book simply flattens its opponents."
"(Bessette) uses this data to refute claims made by the (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) that capital punishment has no deterrent power, that innocent persons are regularly executed, that the application of the death penalty has been unfairly applied to minorities and the poor."
"Feser systematically refutes the arguments of those who think the Church now teaches that capital punishment is intrinsically unjust.  He helps readers to see how weak our attachment to justice has become and how little we allow tight reasoning about justice to govern our thinking…"

6) Review: By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment, Daniel Lendman, Reading Religion, a publication of the American Academy of Religion, June 29, 2017,
"Feser and Bessette… insist that the legitimacy of capital punishment is the ancient and long-standing teaching of the Catholic Church.  [They] go even farther, laying out a compelling case that denying that capital punishment can be legitimate in principle is proximate to heresy…"

"While the context of this argument is decidedly and purposefully Catholic, readers of different religions and belief systems can still find forceful natural law arguments supporting capital punishment in this book.  The authors also offer arguments claiming the prudence of using capital punishment in the United States, . . . "

7) "Can the Church ever bless the death penalty?", by Dan Hitchens, deputy editor of the Catholic Herald, 25 May 2017,
"As Feser remarks  . . . some theologians “have turned the notion of development into a euphemism or lawyer’s trick whereby outright reversals of past teaching are magically made orthodox by slapping the label ‘development’ on them.  You might as well say that denying Christ’s divinity or the doctrine of original sin can be reconciled with past teaching as long as we call them ‘developments’ and get enough people to go along with this sleight of hand.”

“Punishment,” Feser and Bessette write, “is a matter of restoring the natural connection between pain and acting contrary to nature’s ends.”

"They quote Aquinas as saying that since an offender “has been too indulgent to his will”, he should suffer “either willingly or unwillingly, something contrary to what he would wish”, for the sake of the “restoration of the equality of justice”. The same idea is affirmed by the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offence.' ”

8) Edward Peters, Professor of Canon Law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Canon Law, May 23, 2017, https://www.facebook.com/canonlawinfo/posts/812849032206618

"Feser and Bessette’s defense of capital punishment is a triumph of truth over platitude, of fact over fiction, of argument over emotion.  In response to recent condemnations of the death penalty issued by various ecclesiastics, Feser and Bessette calmly and methodically set forth the philosophical, Scriptural, doctrinal, and sociological arguments grounding the Catholic Church’s hitherto unquestioned – and ultimately unquestionable – support for the death penalty when it is justly administered.  Defenders of capital punishment will find in these pages persuasive arguments upholding the proper exercise of this momentous state power and opponents of the death penalty will see their challenges accurately depicted and soberly answered.  From this point on, all contributions to the capital punishment debate, especially as conducted by and among Catholics, must incorporate the work of Feser and Bessette or risk irrelevance."

==============


 ---  The Traditional (CATHOLIC) Case for Capital Punishment, By Fr. C. John McCloskey, The Catholic Thing, MARCH 16 2015
www.thecatholicthing.org/2015/03/16/the-traditional-case-for-capital-punishment/

 ---  Four Catholic Journals Indulge in (anti death penalty) Doctrinal Solipsism, Steven Long, THOMISTICA, March 5, 2015, 
http://thomistica.net/commentary/2015/3/5/mutationist-views-of-doctrinal-development-and-the-death-penalty

 ---  Okay, what about Catholics and the death penalty? In the Light of the Law A Canon Lawyer's Blog, Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap. March 9, 2015,
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/09/okay-what-about-catholics-and-the-death-penalty/

 ---  Intellectual dishonesty and the "Seamless Garment" argument, JIMMY AKIN, National Catholic Register, 01/25/2015
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/intellectual-dishonesty-and-the-seamless-garment-argument#ixzz3PxPynfIi

 ----  New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming

Many more, here:

Religion and The Death Penalty


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.
 
a) The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
b) Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts are included)
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/01/students-death-penalty-research.html

600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/ 

======
FOOTNOTES

 1)   "3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

 "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, from a memorandum sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick, made public in the first week of July 2004.

 2)  a) The Death Penalty: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
A Review of All Innocence Issues
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html 

b) Catechism & State Protection
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html

 3)  The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation      
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html

 4) “Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University(Rome) and Permanent Research Fellow -  Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture (University of Notre Dame.    
http://avemarialaw-law-review.avemarialaw.edu/Content/articles/V5i2.flannery.copyright.pdf

 5)  see footnote 2, above
and
Do a google search:  I am sure this was not done for either Evangelium Vitae or the CCC amended 2267. 

 a) crime recidivism  --  852,000 results (0.34 seconds)
b) prison violence  --  179,000,000 results (0.24 seconds)
c) prison "cell phone" crime  --  1,780,000 results (0.37 seconds)
d) recruit terrorism prison  --  12,800,000 results (0.40 seconds)
e) prison escape news  --  5,720,000 results (0.31 seconds)
f) repeat offender  --  1,170,000 results (0.63 seconds)
 
and on and on and on, forever, and the Church, never, considered it

 6) ADDRESS OF POPE FRANCIS: TO THE DELEGATES OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PENAL LAW, Hall of Popes, Thursday, 23 October 2014

8) 30 Examples: How Death Penalty Abolitionists Value Murderers 
More Than Their Innocent Victims:
AKA - Full Rebuttal of Sir Richard Branson & His Death Penalty Comments
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/04/full-rebuttal-of-sir-richard-branson.html 

Posted by at

Friday, March 13, 2015

Rebuttal: Catholics Call For End to Capital Punishment

Rebuttal of Four Catholic Publications Call For End to Capital Punishment
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV included

Hendel stated that she did forward to the other publications.     
 
---------- Original Message ----------
From:  sharpjfa@aol.com>
To: chendel@ncronline.org
Subject: Rebuttal: End to Capital Punishment
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:52:13 -0500
 
To: Caitlin Hendel, CEO/President, National Catholic Reporter
 
Please forward to the Editorial Boards of America magazine, National Catholic Register, National Catholic Reporter, and Our Sunday Visitor
 
bcc: All editors NCR
 
Re: Part #1 and #2 combined  

 Rebuttal to:
 
Editorial: Catholic publications call for end to capital punishment, NCR Editorial Staff, ncronline, Mar. 5, 2015
 
From: Dudley Sharp
 
One of the major problems with the Church's newest teachings on the death penalty is that neither the Bishops, nor any other Catholics, opposed to the death penalty, appears to fact check anything the anti-death penalty movement produces, resulting in error after error presented to the flock, undermining the truth. You must fact check and consider opposing facts (1) to find the truth. As a rule, on this topic, the Church will not do that.
 
The Bishops have accepted anti-death penalty claims, as gospel (small "g"), even when they conflict with Church teachings, as described.
 
"NCR" is for quotes from the referenced op/ed, with my reply as "Sharp reply".
 
NCR: "Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will hear arguments in Glossip v. Gross, a case out of Oklahoma that challenges the most widely used lethal injection protocol as being cruel and unusual punishment."
 
Sharp reply: That is untrue. as found within Glossip, Oklahoma has adopted many new additional protocols, which are unique to Ok - not the most "widely used" and are those which will be the areas of contention at SCOTUS.
 
NCR: "Our hope is that (the Glossip v. Gross case) will hasten the end of the death penalty in the United States.
 
Sharp reply: SCOTUS will only look at the specific new protocols, within Glossip. All different protocols, of other jurisdiction will survive, be that alternate lethal injection methods, gas, hanging and firing squad, which exist in other states, the federal government and the military.
 
Based upon the facts, detailed within the 10th Circuit ruling (1/12/15), against the plaintiffs (the Oklahoma murderers on death row), it appears most likely that SCOTUS will reject their appeals, as well, and accept Ok new protocol. (NOTE: That is what occurred).
 
In addition, it appears possible, if not likely, that Ok will adopt a nitrogen gas (NG) protocol, prior to the SCOTUS decision. NG has already been approved in an Ok legislative committee. (NOTE: This is, now, Ok law).
 
NG has none of the downsides of any other method, NG is a completely painless execution method, as well as providing an endless supply, which cannot be withheld (1) and which may be adopted by all states, which wish to minimize delay, legal challenge and costs.
 
NCR: Archbishop Thomas Wenski, of Miami stated, "... the use of the death penalty devalues human life and diminishes respect for human dignity. We bishops continue to say, we cannot teach killing is wrong by killing."
 
Sharp reply: For about 2000 years the Church has taught that the death penalty is based upon the value of innocent life and an abiding respect for the dignity of man (2).
 
What the Archbishop is, now saying, is that for 2000 years the Church supported that which devalued human life and that which diminished respect for human dignity, a claim which no knowledgeable Catholic can or should accept.
 
The Archbishop is just repeating standard anti-death penalty nonsense which has no respect for Catholic teachings and tradition.
 
One wonders - why he raises false anti-death penalty teachings above Catholic teachings, a common problem for many of the bishops.

The Archbishop states: "We bishops continue to say, 'we cannot teach killing is wrong by killing'. "
 
Sadly, they do.
 
The Bishops are just repeating, again, common anti-death penalty nonsense.
 
We all know that murder is wrong, even if there is no sanction.
 
The Bishops are unaware that sanction doesn't teach that murder is wrong - Church morality and tradition, as well as clear biblical texts teach that murder is wrong.
 
Sanction is the outcome of that moral teaching. Those are the rational and traditional teachings, which, somehow, the bishops have discarded and replaced with this anti-death penalty nonsense. 

 How and why?
 
Execution of murderers has never been declared immoral by the Church and never will be (2). The foundation for the death penalty is justice, as with all sanctions for all crimes. (NOTE: 2018 Pope Francis declared the death penalty inadmissible, but without any credible claims to defend or explain that finding, as reviewed throughout.).
 
These inexplicable gaffs may cause good Catholics to wonder when reason and tradition deserted their leadership.

=======
2018 CCC 2267 amendment: 12 (14) Factual Errors
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/02/7-factual-errors-2018-ccc-2267-amendment.htm
======
 
NCR: Boston Cardinal Seán O'Malley stated: "Society can protect itself in ways other than the use of the death penalty,"
 
Sharp reply: Cardinal, the proper standard is what sanction is most just for the crime committed, what the Church has called the primary consideration (CCC 1995, 2003) and what sanction provides greater protection for innocents.
 
The death penalty provides greater protection for innocents, in three ways, than does a life sentence (3).
 
One example:

 There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since the 1915 (3).
Just since 1973, from 14,000 - 28,000 innocents have been murdered by those known murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers ( two recidivism studies covering two different periods) (3).

 My guess is that none of the Bishops are aware, because they haven't looked, as with EV and CCC.

NCR: "the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church . . . include a de facto prohibition against capital punishment."
 
Sharp reply: First, the de facto prohibition is based upon several errors (4).
 
Secondly, as the most recent death penalty teachings (1997) have been confirmed, by the Church, as being a prudential judgment, any Catholic may reject the Church's latest teaching on the death penalty (4), honor the Church's teachings of the previous 2000 years, and seek more executions, based within justice and the fact that executions offer greater protections for innocent lives (4).     
 
NCR: "(The death penalty) is also insanely expensive as court battles soak up resources better deployed in preventing crime".
 
Sharp reply: It is all but guaranteed that the publication's editors blindly accepted the ant- death penalty material on the costs of the death penalty and fact checked nothing, just as with the bishops.
 
Since 1976, Virginia executed 108 murderers (70% of those sent to death row), within 7.1 years, on average, a protocol that would save money in all jurisdictions (5).
 
It is irresponsible not to fact check in any public policy debate, especially one where a religious flock is depending upon the truth, Fact check the cost claims and the studies, next time (5).
 
 
NCR: "Admirably, Florida has halted executions until the Supreme Court rules".
 
Sharp replies: Of the many options that Ok has for execution protocols, one of those. primarily, being considered, in the Glossip case, is nearly identical protocol in Florida, which is why Florida suspended executions. Florida has had no problems with that protocol. (NOTE: executions have resumed).
 
 
NCR: Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf declared a moratorium on the death penalty until he has received and reviewed a task force's report on capital punishment, which he called "a flawed system ... ineffective, unjust, and expensive." Both governors also cited the growing number of death row inmates who have been exonerated nationwide in recent years."
 
Sharp reply: Virtually all of the problems that Pa. has had are based upon a judiciary, which has no respect for the death penalty law. Only three executions have occurred within Pa, since 1976, all of whom were "volunteers" who waived appeals. allowing executions. The judges will, otherwise, not allow any executions and/or will overturn the cases, also stopping executions. See Virginia, above, in contrast.
 
The Governor only made official what everyone knew that the judges had already done.
 
You may be happy with the judges, but be careful what you wish for, with judges that flaunt the law, simply because they don't like it, becoming dictators in robes, not ruling guided by the law, but, instead, ruling to spite the law.
 
NOTE: Politics at play. The five Governors who have suspended executions are all Democrats, as, additionally, were/are the Governors that, in recent years, signed laws to repeal the death penalty, after Democratic majority legislators passed the bills. I believe all those governors support abortion, an intrinsic evil within Catholic teaching, whereas the death penalty is not and any Catholic can support more executions and remain a Catholic in good standing, the opposite of those who support abortion.
 
NCR: "In a statement thanking Wolf, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput said: "Turning away from capital punishment does not diminish our support for the families of murder victims. ... But killing the guilty does not honor the dead nor does it ennoble the living. When we take a guilty person's life we only add to the violence in an already violent culture and we demean our own dignity in the process."
 
Sharp reply: The Archbishop is factually wrong on all points. 

 It appears that about 95% of murder victims families, in death penalty eligible murder cases, support the death penalty (6). The Church's lack of support is obvious. 

The Church has a 2000 year history of support for the death penalty (7), which means support of the executed party, that mercy and expiation are crucial in that process, offering the greatest of restoration - salvation, as reviewed in detail (4). As Church teaching makes clear, executions counter a violent culture and fully recognizes the dignity of both the innocent victims and the unjust aggressors, which is why the Church's 2000 year history of death penalty support completely overwhelms any rejection of it (3).

Here, again, a bishop neglecting Catholic teachings, which, specifically, conflicts with his dependence upon secular anti death penalty positions.       
 
 
NCR: "Archbishop Chaput reminds us that . . . (it is death penalty supporters) who add to, instead of heal, the violence." Very much like "Mercy Sister Camille D'Arienzo: (mothers of murdered children) wouldn't want another mother to suffer what I have suffered.' Their hearts, though broken, are undivided in their humanity."
 
Sharp reply: This is common anti-death penalty speak which is contrary to Catholic tradition, as well as the facts.
 
From 14,000 - 28,000 additional innocents are murdered by those known murderers that we have allowed to murder, again - recidivist murderers, since 1973, in the US (two different recidivism studies, from two different periods) (5). Countless murders and other violent crimes are committed, worldwide, every day, by those known unjust repeat aggressors that criminal justice systems have not properly restrained (Google search: crime recidivism)., both in complete contradiction to CCC 2267's ". . . very rare, if not practically non-existent" claim.
 
By not executing murderers we are encouraging and receiving more violence, more innocents harmed and murdered (9) and, quite clearly, have put the unjust aggressors much more at eternal risk (8), by allowing so many to harm, again, as we know many often do, and as per St. Thomas Aquinas and historical facts.
 
 
NCR: "Advocates of the death penalty often claim that it brings closure to a victim's family."
 
Sharp reply: It is unquestioned that execution brings closure for many (10); the closure of the end of the case, the appeals, with the accomplishment of justice in the cases and, from a compassionate standpoint, we all know that only execution provides the closure of preventing any possibility that the murderers will ever harm and/or murder, again, as recognized within the latest CCC. Such is not only a great relief for those who wish to protect more innocents, but it is also a large step for those who care about the eternal salvation of the unjust aggressor, the most important restorative consideration.
 
 
NCR: 'The facts of the case in Oklahoma -- which echo reports from Ohio and Arizona -- were especially egregious."
 
Sharp reply: This is completely false (7) and just represents another example of the Bishops and these publications not fact checking, instead, blindly accepting anti death penalty nonsense, showing disrespect for the truth, as well as for the serious nature of the discussion.
 
Oklahoma's problems were ones of complete incompetence, not the drugs, as is well known. The evidence, in Ohio and Arizona, is that both executions took a long period of time, as per the nature of the drugs used (11), and that there is no evidence of suffering on the part of either murderer (11).
 
It is astounding how little these four publications and the Bishops care about the truth, a real problem for their readers and flock. They should start fact checking.
 
 
NCR: "We join our bishops in hoping the court will reach the conclusion that it is time for our nation to embody its commitment to the right to life by abolishing the death penalty once and for all."
 
Sharp reply: Again, just a thoughtless parroting on anti death penalty nonsense, with no recognition of Catholic teaching. Is this good for the Church and any Catholic?
 
The Church's death penalty teachings are that the execution of murderers is based within reverence for life and recognition of the dignity of the murderer, facts never mentioned anywhere within this op/ed, but well known by all those contributing to the op/ed.
 
The right to life, as the right to freedom, are based within a recognition of our commitment to the social contract, of being responsible citizens, who obey the law.
 
Violation of the law by unjust aggressor may result in incarceration or execution.
 
All sanctions are based upon that which we treasure - execution and life, incarceration and freedom, fines and money, community service and time/labor.
===========
 
Summary
 
Catholic leadership, inclusive of both Bishops and publications, has a unique responsibility to Catholic teachings and tradition, making this op/ed just another of many that have avoided both, along with fact checking.
 
Neither ignorance nor deception are welcome in any public policy debate. Both are, particularly, troubling when dealing with eternal matters.
 
How often has the Church taught that Truth is paramount? When has She not.
 
You have the means at your disposal to teach and discuss the Truth, "Means" have no value if you do not exercise them.

======
3300+ pro death penalty quotes, from some of the greatest thinkers in history, inclusive of 600+ quotes from victim's families
http://prodpquotes.info/ 
====== 

1) Intro. Basic pro death penalty review:
 
The Death Penalty: Justice and Saving More Innocents 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html
 
 
2) For more than 2000 years, there has been Catholic support for the death penalty, from Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church, church leadership, biblical scholars and theologians that, in breadth and depth, overwhelms any teachings to the contrary, particularly those wrongly dependent upon secular concerns such as defense of society and the poor standards of criminal justice systems in protecting the innocent.

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html
 
See Catholic references within:
New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming      
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-testament-death-penalty-support.html    
 
 
3) The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
 
 
4) Current Problems: Catholic Death Penalty Teaching
Most recent Catechism (last amended 2003)
 
 
6) 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html
 
 
7) New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-testament-death-penalty-support.html
 
 
8) The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation 
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html
 
 
9) The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
 
 
   
Murder Victims' Families Against The Death Penalty: More Hurt For Victims Families
 
 
 

 

 
Posted by at

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

The Benefit of Prisons

The Benefit of Prisons
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

===
Note: Read The Death of Punishment by Robert Blecker (Macmillan, 2014)
===

The US doubled their prison population to 400,000 by 1983, from the 200,000 of 1948-1976, and then, with an additional increase from about 700,000 in 1990 to 1.8 million in 2008.

Our crime rates plummeted to 40-60 year lows (1).

The murder rate dropped by:

46% between 1976 (8.7 murder rate) and 2012 (4.7 murder rate)
54% between 1980 (10.2 murder rate) and 2012

Violent crimes rates dropped by:

17% between 1976 (468 crime rate) and 2012 (387 crime rate)
49% between 1991 (758 crime rate) and 2012

Property crimes rates dropped by:

41% between 1976 (4819 crime rate) and 2012 (2859 crime rate)
53% between 1991 (5898 crime rate) and 2012

Patrick A. Langan, senior statistician at the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, calculated that tripling the prison population from 1975 to 1989 may have reduced "violent crime by 10 to 15 percent below what it would have been," thereby preventing a "conservatively estimated 390,000 murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults in 1989 alone." (2).

Studies by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 94 percent of state prisoners in 1991 had committed a violent crime or been incarcerated or on probation before. Of these prisoners, 45 percent had committed their latest crimes while free on probation or parole. When "supervised" on the streets, they inflicted at least 218,000 violent crimes, including 13,200 murders and 11,600 rapes (more than half of the rapes against children) (2).

1)  The exception is rape, which may be due to chronic underreporting, from previous decades.


2) "Prisons are a Bargain, by Any Measure", John J. DiIulio, Jr., Opinion, New York Times, 1/16/1996


Posted by at

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Death Penalty: Judge Tom Price - Dead Wrong

Edited version published, Dallas Morning News, 12/3/2014
Dudley Sharp: Judge Price: Dead Wrong
======
updated 2022

Texas Death Penalty: Judge Tom Price is Dead Wrong
by Dudley Sharp, Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

NOTE:  Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, is the Texas supreme court for criminal cases.

In a recent appellate opinion, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Tom Price went on a rant against the death penalty.

 He was dead wrong. on everything.

 The judge’s willful ignorance and grandstanding should be an embarrassment to the court.

 The judge thinks that Texas’ 2005 law establishing life without parole (LWOP) makes the death penalty unnecessary.

 That only makes sense if we equate life and death. Most folks, just as criminals, know the difference.

 99% of criminal defendants and those convicted, in death penalty eligible cases, do all they can, in pre-trial, trial, within appeals and in commutation proceedings to avoid death and pursue life.

 Unanimous Texas juries continue to select death in those cases wherein they find it the most just sanction available - 100 times since the new LWOP law was passed - proof that jurors appreciate the obvious difference between the two sanctions, just as do criminals, (all but one) judges, prosecutors, defense counsel and citizens.

 Justice is the reason for the death penalty, as with all sanctions.

 The judge thinks the possibility of executing a wrongfully convicted person is an “irrational risk that should not be tolerated by the criminal justice system.”

 Judge, consider reality:

 More actual innocents will die without the death penalty; more actual innocents will be spared with the death penalty.

 The death penalty helps to spare more innocent lives in three ways (later, actually four), to a greater degree than does LWOP (1):

 Enhanced due process — Unchallenged. No one denies that the death penalty has greater due process protections than do any other sanctions, offering greater protections for both the actually innocent and the actually guilty.

 Enhanced incapacitation — Unchallenged. Living murderers harm and murder, again. Executed ones do not. 

 Enhanced deterrence — Challenged, but rationally solid (1,2). The evidence that the death penalty deters some is overwhelming. The evidence that the death penalty deters none does not exist. Death is feared more than life. Life is preferred over death. That which we fear more, deters more.  That which we prefer more, deters less (2).

 Nationally,

 1) on average, since 1973, the US  has executed 33 murderers/yr., with no proof of an innocent executed, at least since 1915 (updated);

 2) since 1973, at least 20,000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered in the United States by KNOWN murderers that we have allowed to murder again — recidivist murderers (1);

 3) up to 10,000 ADDITIONAL innocents are murdered every year by KNOWN criminals that we have released or failed to incarcerate (1), about 500,000, since 1973.

 Based upon the judge’s reasoning and the facts, the true “irrational risk” is leaving murderers alive and letting countless known criminals back into the free world.

The judge is aware of lifers, in Texas, who have murdered, again. He has ruled on such cases.

 Judge?  Oh . . .  and 5,000 die/yr. while in US criminal custody (1), with only 33 executions.

The judges is clueless when actual innocents are at risk or he hides it well.

 Anti-death penalty folks have redefined both “exonerated” and “innocent” on death row to deceptively increase the numbers, a scam that has been exposed for over 29 years and is the model for Price’s reference (3), next.

 Judge Price heads down that required road of anti-death penalty advocacy, using a  Michigan/Northwestern study (3) that defines "exoneration" of those convicted in a manner that has absolutely nothing to do with actual innocence, as his referenced study makes clear (3) and as Judge Price, clearly, should know.

 Judge Price, did you fact check/vet?

 The Texas Center for Actual Innocence (U of Texas Law School) calls cases "actually innocent" when the new evidence "does not depend upon new evidence of actual innocence, but instead upon evidence of a constitutional violation that probably resulted in a trial in which an innocent person may have been convicted."

 "probably" "may have been" "does not depend upon new evidence of actual innocence" - Yet, they call them "actually innocent". The norm (3).

 There is no need to wonder why Judge Price completely avoided the Texas legal system, which has a statute to determine actual innocence (4), cases which are, thankfully, extremely rare.

 Texas has declared two from death row to be actually innocent, with that statute.

 As predicted, the anti-death penalty cabal, inclusive of the media, wrongly finds 12 Texas death row inmates to be "exonerated" or "innocent", an 83% "error" rate in such claims, the same error rate as the claims in Florida (3).

 Why have only two of those 12 inmates availed themselves of the legal system to declare themselves actual innocent and receive $80,000 in compensation for each year of incarceration? The others don’t have the proof for actual innocence.

 The Texas statute was amended, so that "belief", as opposed to evidence, can be used to determine "actual innocence" (4) -- a perversion of the intent of the original law and of the definition of "actual innocence".

 That amendment was added so that Anthony Graves could claim to be actually innocent and collect $80,000/yr., for wrongful incarceration.

 This "belief" foundation confounds a well known crime truism:  "absence of evidence" is not "evidence of absence".

 All states should have “Proof for Actual Innocence” laws, absent a "belief" category,  so we can get rid of these common exoneration frauds/confusions, something which had occurred in Texas, until that "belief" amendment was added.

 Let's deal with true actual innocence cases with the seriousness and clarity they deserve.

How about it Judge?
======

FN

 1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives

2)  Deterrence, Death Penalties & Executions
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2019/04/deterrence-death-penalties-executions.html  

3) The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds 
 71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims, Well Known Since 2000 

 4)  CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE, TITLE 5. GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY, CHAPTER 103. COMPENSATION TO PERSONS WRONGFULLY IMPRISONED, SUBCHAPTER A. ELIGIBILITY; NOTICE OF ELIGIBILITY
Sec. 103.001. CLAIMANTS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION AND HEALTH BENEFITS COVERAGE. (a) A person is entitled to compensation if:
(1) the person has served in whole or in part a sentence in prison under the laws of this state; and
(2) the person:
    (A) has received a full pardon on the basis of innocence for the crime for which the person was sentenced;
    (B) has been granted relief in accordance with a writ of habeas corpus that is based on a court finding or determination that the person is actually innocent of the crime for which the person was sentenced; or
    (C) has been granted relief in accordance with a writ of habeas corpus and:
          (i) the state district court in which the charge against the person was pending has entered an order dismissing the charge; and
          (ii) the district court's dismissal order is based on a motion to dismiss in which the state's attorney states that no credible evidence exists that inculpates the defendant and, either in the motion or in an affidavit, the state's attorney states that the state's attorney believes that the defendant is actually innocent of the crime for which the person was arrested.

======
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/ 
====== 
======
 
Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
 
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts listed)

Posted by at

Friday, December 12, 2014

Is the Death Penalty Constitutional? Is this a serious question?

Is the Death Penalty Constitutional? Is this a serious question?
 Dudley Sharp


Of the 112 justices of the US Supreme Court, I believe only two have declared the death penalty unconstitutional, showing how in disrepute that opinion is.


Easy to understand.


Twice, the  5th Amendment authorizes execution.


1) “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . ” and
(2) “. . . nor shall any person  . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ”.
 
The 14th amendment is, equally, clear:


” . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .”.


Not surprisingly, over 200 years of US Supreme Court decisions support those amendments and the US Constitution in authorizing and enforcing the death penalty.


Some wrongly believe that the US Supreme Court decision, Furman v Georgia (1972), found the death penalty unconstitutional. It did not.


The decisions found that the statutory enforcement of the death penalty in the US was a violation of the 8th Amendment.


Based upon the death penalty being integral within the constitution, through the 5th and 14th amendments, I do not believe it will ever be found unconstitutional.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)