The DDF document“Infinite Dignity” is here. I’ll comment on the part about the death penalty being contrary to the infinite dignity of human persons.

“Here, one should also mention the death penalty, for this also violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances.[56] In this regard, we must recognize that “the firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe. If I do not deny that dignity to the worst of criminals, I will not deny it to anyone. I will give everyone the possibility of sharing this planet with me, despite all our differences.”[57] It is also fitting to reaffirm the dignity of those who are incarcerated, who often must live in undignified conditions. Finally, it should be stated that—even if someone has been guilty of serious crimes—the practice of torture completely contradicts the dignity that is proper to every human being.” (Infinite Dignity 34)

There are three types of evil in Catholic philosophy:
1. moral evil, which is sin
2. physical evil, which is any type of suffering or disorder (even if not literally physical)
3. metaphysical evil, which I will simply as the lack of absolutely full goodness, due to finiteness.

The death of any human person is a type of “physical evil”. It is tolerable to kill in self-defense, in just war, which is the defense of a nation, or in defense of the community, via law enforcement using deadly force or the death penalty.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. However, recent Popes have judged that, in present-day circumstances whereby criminal guilty of grave evils can be incarcerated, the death penalty is not necessary. And since each person has a dignity that is never lost, even with grave sin or grave crimes, AND the circumstances allow for sufficient defense of society without the death penalty, then society should not use the death penalty.

In order for an act to be moral, all three fonts of morality must be good. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil, but it still cannot be used with a bad intention or in circumstances where the reasonably anticipated bad consequences morally outweigh the reasonably anticipated good consequences. Thus, the death penalty can be judged by the Church to be inadmissible, due to circumstances: ability to incarcerate dangerous criminals as weighed against the loss that occurs with the death of any human person, due to their dignity (being made in the image and likeness of God).

The Gospel aims to lead everyone who is willing to eternal life. The Gospel aims to lead everyone away from grave sin. And so the death penalty, which is predicated on a response to certain grave sins, and the death of a human person called by Christ to eternal life, is inherently contrary to the Gospel. But this does not mean that the death penalty is always wrong.

The loss of any human person’s life is a physical evil, contrary to the Gospel, which leads us to eternal life. Such a loss is tolerated for self-defense of the person, the community, or the nation, but it is still a loss of a human person with the full dignity bestowed by God. If there were no grave sin, there would be no killing in self-defense, as no one would attack another person. And there would be no just war, as even a “just war” involves a gravely unjust attack by another nation. And there would be no death penalty, as no one would commit a crime serious enough to consider such an option. So the death penalty represents a disorder, in the crime committed by the person found guilty, and a disorder in the loss of a human life.

Even so, a particular circumstance might justify the use of the death penalty. For when the Popes consider the circumstances of present-day society, they cannot take into account every possible future situation, and they can err to a limited extent in evaluating the circumstances. My position is that the death penalty is still admissible in extra-ordinary cases.

Ronald L Conte Jr