Depending on which version of the "modern position" is being advanced, I think your conclusion is highly strained or untenable, though I understand what you're

Depending on which version of the "modern position" is being advanced, I think your conclusion is highly strained or untenable, though I understand what you're saying and used to share that view. With respect to the teaching in Evangelium Vitae and the 1997 Catechism, the justification for the death penalty is essentially reduced to the defense of society from further physical danger posed by the condemned criminal. As such, it remains effectively silent on the retributive, vindictive, medicinal and expiatory dimensions of the death penalty, which have been expounded by the Church previously. In other words, a woefully incomplete argument is put forward which muddies the issue rather than make a compelling case for imprisonment as the better option. In more recent years, Catholic commentators, bishops, and now even a pope have gone further and declared the death penalty to be "inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed ... an offense against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person", or similar. To make matters more confusing, such statements are often couched with others related to historical context and the "legitimate defense" ideas proposed in the sources referred to above. So which is it? Is the death penalty inadmissible based on perennial principles perhaps overlooked in the past? Or with respect to current conditions in (all?) modern-day nation states? In all cases, the de facto "modern Catholic position" on the death penalty is unsound – either it is unnecessarily and confusingly incomplete, or it is downright contradictory to what has been taught previously. I do believe it will eventually clear up. Also, just to be clear, I do believe there is ample room for mercy, and the thought of people being executed saddens me.