(LifeSiteNews) — Prior to the years of Pope Francis, the Catholic Church and many saints taught that the death penalty was morally permissible. Pope Francis then published the following, which is now included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
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.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. [Author’s note: In-text citations omitted.]
Catholic philosophers, especially Edward Feser, Ph.D., have somewhat thoroughly commented on the subject.
There is, however, more on the subject that could be mentioned or emphasized if it has already been mentioned by others.
The new wording for the Catechism seems to be, at minimum, ambiguous or nonsensical. The statement says that “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.” Then, it says, “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’” and so on.
Combining those statements seems to result in nonsense.
Thus, several questions arise from the above statements published by Pope Francis and now included in the Catechism. The first question is about the apparent nonsensical wording of the statement. Did Pope Francis teach that the death penalty is “inadmissible” simply “because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”? Or is the death penalty inadmissible both “because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and because “more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens”?
Is the condition of “more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens” necessary for the inadmissibility of the death penalty?
In other words, would the death penalty still be “admissible” if there were not “more effective systems of detention … which ensure the due protection of citizens?”
One thing that is easily ignored is the fact that murderers and other criminals are not always uneducated gangsters or mafia members. Criminals might at one time have been sophisticated psychologists, sociologists, or lawyers in the FBI, local police, or other type of government entity.
Such criminals could be reasonably said to have friends or acquaintances in law enforcement and/or the prison system. Thus, no matter how “effective” the new systems of detention are, the weakest link – humans who control those systems – could very easily also be criminals and could easily set their friends free. This could be done all while the public thinks that the criminals are still locked up. A false assumption in the new Catechism teaching above seems to be that all “detention systems” are controlled by honest and otherwise virtuous humans.
Say, for example, several government scientists, sociologists, psychologists, lawyers, and others in a secret policing entity like the FBI (but not necessarily the FBI – could also be the local police or a previously unnamed secret government entity) develop new secret, silent, and invisible weapons and/or methods to torture and kill targeted Americans, all while making it appear as though the targets died from medical conditions or self-murder. The sophisticated criminals within the government use the false excuse of “investigation” or “interrogation” of “potential criminals” to support their use of such torture methods and technologies.
In this hypothetical scenario, say that multiple whistleblowers from within the government entity publicize the new technologies and sociological/psychological torture methods through the work of journalists. The government employees are found guilty but are not given the death penalty.
In the scenario, several people are at risk of retaliation from the criminals if they were ever set free – the whistleblowers, journalists, judges, and others who participated in getting them in trouble.
Now, say that the government criminals have several friends in either local or Federal politics, police, and the prison system. While the prison they are detained in is a maximum-security prison, it is still operated and overseen by human beings, all who are themselves corrupt and criminal. Thus, in this scenario, those who oversee the prison secretly set the prisoners free, while lying for many years by saying that the criminals are still detained. The criminals go back to torturing and murdering and getting revenge on those who got them in trouble – all while making it appear as though the targeted people were experiencing medical problems.
Thus, one should be able to see how, no matter how “more effective” the “systems of detention” are, there are always people overseeing such detention systems, and in today’s society it is not unlikely that they themselves are criminally oriented. (This is particularly true in countries with jihadi and otherwise anti-Catholic governments.)
But another question arises from the new words in the Catechism on the death penalty. The above words state “that there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.”
What about the unjust aggressors in a war, though? War is still permitted in certain circumstances. It is presumably “admissible” to use physical force to the point of killing the unjust aggressor in a war. Does that imply that the unjust aggressor “lost their dignity?” Or does the unjust aggressor still have their dignity, even after “committing serious crimes,” but using deadly force is acceptable in war against those who still have their dignity?
If Pope Francis and/or others intended to write that the death penalty is inadmissible only “because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” (rather than both the previous statement and because prisons are “more effective” at detainment), what effect does that have on soldiers who defend people from unjust aggressors?
Or consider another scenario that is apparently not far off either. The U.S. government has described a desire for developing weapons that a soldier could remotely control using only their thoughts. Now, say that the weapon that the person is controlling is a Directed Energy Weapon which can “shoot” invisible, silent, and deadly radio waves through buildings and never miss their target. Say that such technology is perfected to the point of the controller of the weapon not requiring a headset, and it is otherwise undetectable. This might be achieved through optogenetics, radiogenetics, electrogenetics, or similar technologies.
If one or more of those technologies was developed or already is in use, a government employee in secret policing, investigating, or law enforcement is the most likely person to have the ability to use them. Theoretically, such a person could simply command a technology from their mind while in prison by merely thinking something like, “Directed Energy Weapon cause brain aneurysm rupture in targeted person now.”
Now, back to the hypothetical scenario: say that a criminal is a non-U.S. soldier detained by a country which is the middleman, so to speak, between two countries at war. It is somehow discovered that the criminal does in fact have the ability to remotely control deadly secret weapons. Would the death penalty be “admissible” in such a scenario?
There is more to mention, although complete elaboration will not be provided here. Secret technologies and weapons like the Directed Energy Weapons, mind-control weapons, or mind-reading technologies would likely be so difficult to detect that serious punishments should be provided for in laws to deter government employees and others from using such technologies.
But it seems that only the death penalty might deter government employees from using the previously described technologies and weapons. If a person knows they could still secretly command with their thoughts that weapons kill others while they are locked up for many years in prison, including, say, prison employees, they might not be deterred from beginning the use of such technologies. They might make a sport out of it, so to speak.
Thus, is not the death penalty necessary for deterring potential government employee criminals?
Those at the Vatican might consider some of these questions; at minimum, it seems that the Vatican should specify whether the death penalty is admissible if “detention methods” are not adequate.
