I agree that some Catholics find this confusing, and quite a few, especially academics, exploit it.
Justice Scalia simply said that the state has a right to defend itself from people who mean it harm.That is Catholic teaching. Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. Catholics are not supposed to be gleeful about anyone’s death-not even the death of the most heineous criminals. Justice Scalia was not gleeful.
The deliberate murder of innocent human beings, what we call abortion, is intinsically evil. Under Church teaching, the baby may be removed from the womb (not deliberately killed) only when the mother’s life is in imminent danger.
Church teaching, known as proportionalism, is often misused by elitists and, unfortunately, by Cardinal Bernardin, to suggest that abortion is one of many issues with which Catholics must be concerned. However, abortion is not an issue. It is the deliberate destruction of innocent human beings. In this country, that means 4,000 human souls are separated from their bodies daily through deliberate violence.
So, 4,000 innocent souls trumps poverty concerns,capital punishment(even if 4,000 accused adults are electrocuted daily), housing inequities, etc. If we ever get rid of institutionally protected murder of innocent human beings, then maybe there will be some reason to apply proportionalism to all other issues of injustice. Until then, altogether, they don’t come close to the death of 4,000 innocent human beings on a daily basis.
As usual, Scalia is maligned to promote some other agenda.
From the Catechism: "If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means...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 non-existent." (Prudential judgment in bold.)
I think Rutler has it exactly right: and the prudential judgment is a question of fact rather than of doctrine; and the "facts" are highly dubious.
The instances of murderers NOT being rendered incapable of further aggression, have been shockingly numerous and frequent. The circumstances that prevent true, secure life imprisonment include:
I read somewhere on the Internet--- and I can't find the source, but if somebody could find it for me, I'd sure appreciate it --- that just in the state of California, there are approx. 2500 murders/year, of which 20% (500) are committed by somebody who had already previously been convicted of murder.
Not just as an occasional slip-up, but as a routine, even a daily matter, the present system of trial, conviction and imprisonment in California (and elsewhere in thr USA) does not suffice to protect society from aggressors.
So what would I, as a faithful Catholic recommend? About 500 executions per year in California alone? (Two murders and that's it?) Horrifying. No. But punishment for this crime should be swift, sure, and severe, and life imprisonment has to mean life imprisonment.
And for the convict who commits murder while serving a life sentence? Shackle him to a wall for the rest of his natural life? Brain surgery, so that cutting a fish stick with the edge of a plastic spoon is about as aggressive as he can get? Or execution, and may God have mercy on his soul?
I've been against the death penalty almost all my life. But I think I could be persuaded that the death penalty could be more "in conformity to the dignity of the human person" than the alternatives.