given above by pointing out that the final part of 2267 says that “the Church teaches,” in light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability anddignity of the person. It would seem that the ultimate source of the inadmissibility of the death penalty is the Gospel itself, which does not change. Also, the problem with the death penalty is represented as being an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. Such an attack would seem to be condemned by natural law, such that it cannot become right based on mere changing circumstances. Hence, the teaching of 2267 appears to imply the intrinsic moral evil of the death penalty.

One way to respond is to point out thatwar, and a time for peace” (3:1–8). In his reply to an objection in the Summa Theologiae (II-II 64, 2, 2), Saint Thomas writes:

God, according to the order of His wisdom, sometimes slays sinners right away, for the liberation of the good; however, sometimes He concedes to them a time of repenting, according as He knows that to be expedient for His elect. And this also is imitated by human justice according to its power, for it slays those who are destructive to others; but it reserves for repentance those who sin while not harming others.

Combining elements from these passages, perhaps the new text of the Catechism can be understood as the product of a judgment, based upon a spiritual reading of modern conditions as signs in light