Kincaid writes: Article 2267 of the Catholic catechism, an authoritative compendium of church teaching, says the church "does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives" against criminals.

So the next questions might be: a) does the death penalty *effectively* defend human lives and b) is it the *only* possible way?

Kincaid also writes: Because of the actual church position, Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, where Turley resides, has never argued that capital punishment is inherently immoral. He cannot make that argument because that is not the position of the church.

I wonder, then, what is considered to be "inherently" immoral. It appears killing is not, as it depends on circumstance.

Thou shalt not kill unless thou feels it is justified and the margin of error is acceptable... to you, that is, not the occasional innocent.

As a matter of fact, Jean, the full text of the catechism agrees more with you than with the article author. I feel that in the name of correcting Turley's "inherently immoral" phrasing, he's gone too far in the other direction, muddying the waters too much.

Here's a full copy of Article 2267 [and the latin version]:

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."

There is even a paragraph-for-paragraph comparison of the old version of 2267 and the current version, demonstrating how the language has been revised to amplify and clarify the church's position that cases of absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent. And if the necessity is not absolute, then the penalty is certainly immoral.

My own reading of the sections on legitimate defense (2263-2267) suggest that something like the death penalty would, in today's world, be acceptable only in immediate self-defense. This, in combination with the opening words "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined" demonstrates that by Church teachings, the haphazard US implementation of the death penalty is indeed "inherenty immoral."

FWIW, this revision was overseen by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.