High-level statements about the death penalty

As you probably know, Pope Francis has revised the Catechism of the Catholic Church to present a much more forceful opposition to the death penalty.  Briefly, I find Dr. Edward Peters's take on this to be very reasonable, as his opinions are with extraordinary reliability.  In addition to his take, and to points I have made previously, I have just two additional comments on the changes to the Catechism.

1. Any opposition to the death penalty from a Christian, let alone a Catholic, is woefully incomplete without a discussion of the virtue of charity (love), mercy, and forgiveness.  None of those words appear in the revision.
2. The revised version claims, "Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes."  That is a very, very dubious claim.  (a)  Previous generations would have recognized that the dignity of the person has its origin in our creation in the image of God, in the Christ's Incarnation as true man, and in Christ's atoning sacrifice for our sins; and indeed, they would have understood quite well that none of these are changed even after the commission of very serious crimes.  The difference is that they also obviously understood that there is no direct connection between "the dignity of the person" and "no death penalty".  (b)  It is very hard to see this sentence in the Catechism as anything other than chronological snobbery, as though it were self-evident that Popes and bishops over recent decades are smarter or holier than those of previous generations.  It also tends to confuse the Zeitgeist with the activity of the Holy Spirit.

You might think, then, that I would be a big fan of the "Declaration of Truths" that, among other things, defends the possibility that the death penalty may be proper under some circumstances.

28. In accordance with Holy Scripture and the constant tradition of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, the Church did not err in teaching that the civil power may lawfully exercise capital punishment on malefactors where this is truly necessary to preserve the existence or just order of societies (see Gen 9:6; John 19:11; Rom 13:1-7; Innocent III, Professio fidei Waldensibus praescripta; Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. III, 5, n. 4; Pius XII, Address to Catholic jurists on December 5, 1954).

Notice, however, what is missing:  any discussion whatsoever of justice!  Has any government ever massacred innocents without claiming it was "necessary to preserve the existence or just order of societies"?  No doubt that was what Herod would have said about the infants of Bethlehem, what the Hutu would have said about the Tutsi, what Stalin would have said about the kulaks.  Unless the "malefactor" has committed a crime so grave that it justly merits death, no prudential consideration can justify the death penalty.  In other words, prudential considerations can never be the primary reason for capital punishment; they can only limit the freedom of rulers to apply more lenient punishments.