Pope Francis clarifies Archbishop Chaput’s confusion

Religion News Service ^ | October 24, 2014 | Mark Silk

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

The types of crimes that result in sentences of life without parole are so heinous that the perps have given notice to society that the they are not fit to be among us.

How about having sympathy for victims? And how about protecting society from evildoers?

Forms of punishment are a matter of prudential judgement, based on first principles of justice and public safety. The pope admitted as much, saying that the Church has always upheld the authority of the State to utilize the death penalty as a way of protecting the public. In this respect, he is following the teaching of Pope John Paul II.

The Catechism states:

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.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

These circumstances may be largely true in the West, but not in most parts of the world. "Supermax" prisons are the only prisons where other prisoners and guards can be reasonably well protected from convicted murderers. These prisons are very expensive.

The pope also overlooks the possibility of regime change, where, for example, a communist could assume the presidency and pardon convicted murderers, endangering the public.

The Church teaches infallibly when outlining the moral principles that should guide the State with regard to determining criminal punishments.

While priests and bishops may feel called to speak out against particular governments in particular cases with regard to what they perceive to be unjust punishment, they would not be acting infallibly when doing so.

[piusv]

I’m still confused..lol.

Did Francis clarify or not? And if he did, does this mean he’ll be clarifying a host of other comments he has made since he was elected? Or does this mean that this needed clarification and everything else was meant to be confusing (and he therefore leaves it that way)?