You assent based on the level of authority. If by “defer” you mean something like that, fine—we agree. But the point is that we need to assent to ordinary teachings, not just to the extraordinary magisterium. I’d like to see a theological discussion about the development in teaching on capital punishment. A future pope could reverse JPII—that’s the point of it NOT being infallible.
A non-infallible, ordinary magisterium teaching doesn’t clear the way for us to dissent from it (na, na, na-nah nya, it’s not infallible, I can dissent —that’s the way the libs act), but it means that we assent to it knowing that future development could modify it or reconsider it.
But when somethings taught with definiteness and surrounded with invocation of irreformable authority, as in the case of non-ordination of women or taking of innocent life and abortion being definitively classified under taking of innocent human life, that “irreformable” quality (infallibility is more accurately described as irreformability), then we can’t say, “well, this could develop further, I assent to it as it stands and I do so cheerfully and loyally, not grudgingly,” as we have to say with ordinary magisterium.
The “virtually never” part of the capital punishment teaching leaves ambiguity. To me it says that, as a Catholic layman I need to ask what can concretely be done to protect the innocent, truly protect them (that’s part of JPII’s teaching too) without, except as an absolute last resort, taking guilty life. It would mean campaigning for changes in parole processes. It would mean somehow finding ways to keep the executive’s ability to pardon under control. I don’t know how to do that. I don’t want to take away the prerogative to pardon—mercy is also part of Catholic teaching. But we have to protect the innocent.
The solution would be only ever to elect wise and prudent executives and to have parole boards that are wise and prudent and honest . . . .
But JPII has said that we can’t solve these terrible dilemmas merely by executing people. And he’s right about that. But he’s just made our task as citizens harder. Except that it always was hard.
The practical use of the death penalty is to reserve punishment to the king so as to deny the right of vendeta—private revenge. The worship of process in the legal profession undercuts even this aim, because the victims families too often feel that the perp literally gets way with murder. In the interest of social peace it really is better that the innocent sometimes suffer.