Pope Francis and the Death Penalty: More Contradiction on Church Teaching

Hey Lord, I love abortionist Emma Bonino, but
can you please do something about those rigid
Catholics who support the "inhumane" death
penalty that "humiliates...human dignity?"

Here we go again. Pope Francis has come out in an address October 11th to members of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization saying, that treatment of the death penalty now requires, “leav[ing] out positions in defense of arguments which now appear decisively contrary to the new understanding of Christian truth. ... It is necessary to reiterate that, no matter how serious the crime committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attempt against the inviolability and dignity of the person.” [Read articles here and here.]

Wow! 

Pope Francis is adamant in his condemnation saying:

• “It must be strongly confirmed that condemning a person to the death penalty is an inhumane measure that humiliates, in any way it is pursued, human dignity.”

• and also, the death penalty -- “is in itself contrary to the Gospel because it is voluntarily decided to suppress a human life, which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of which God only in the final analysis is the true judge and guarantor.”

• And again -- “No one, therefore, can have their life taken from them, nor the possibility of a moral and existential redemption that goes back in favor of the community.”

I'm not quite sure what that last statement means, but there's no question Pope Francis opposes the death penalty. Absolutely! No exceptions! Nothin' doin'!

Actually, in view of his honoring abortionists like Emma Bonino and population controllers like Paul Ehrlich, I'd say he's a lot more opposed to the death penalty than to either abortion or population control. Ah well, some lives are more equal than others.

The USCCB while adamantly against the death penalty was more nuanced than Pope Francis raising this qualification:  "No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so." I suggest that's a big IF. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects that. It does NOT  agree with the pope's opinion. Here's a portion of what the catechism says that the pope wants to change:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

I'd like to be opposed to the death penalty, and for the most part I am, but with qualifications. I don't believe the death penalty should be used as revenge. People can repent in jail and many have including St. Maria Goretti's killer. But that doesn't change the fact that government has a serious moral obligation to protect the common good. And in some cases the only way to do that is to use the death penalty. 

Let's raise some real situations. If a murderer is in prison for life what does he have to lose by killing other prisoners, or murdering guards in an escape attempt or, if he does escape, killing anyone who gets in his way? There are many documented cases of murderers who escape or get out of prison and kill again. Check out this website and this one and this one and this one. Do the lives of these victims have no value? Shouldn't a murderer who murders again during and after an escape face the death penalty? Is sending him back to jail to possibly escape and kill again protect society? 

There are murderous psychopaths who if they get a chance will kill again. Certainly any convicted murderer who murders while in prison or escapes and murders witnesses in revenge or murders people who threaten his freedom is a menace to society. Allowing these killers to continue to rampage against the innocent, those "sacred in the eyes of the Creator," is a serious injustice. How many murders does one person get before he forfeits his own life?

And now a last question. If the pope "develops" the doctrine of the death penalty to the point where it is labeled as an unequivocal moral evil, and I refuse to accept his opinion as valid, can I be denied Holy Communion? 

What do you think?