True, we still use the death penality and true the Catholic Church does not prohibit it. My point is that our position on the use of deadly force must advance. Even though the Catholic Church does not prohibit the death penality, I don't know why we should still accept it. As CCC 2267 cites: "If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent." As the previous paragraph of the Catechism mentions: "...the primary scope of the penality is to redress the disorder caused by the offense." In our society, there exist ways to bring order to the disorder without the death of the one who caused the disorder. Back to the point that my argument was flawed in the original post, it was not intended to be a direct comparsion. As a society, we have advanced when and how we use capital punishment. We should as well advance when and how we act in war. The degree of advancement was not the point in question. However, I believe that our stance, as a society, on capital punishment needs to continue to advance. We, as a people, still believing that we must kill fellow citizens via capital punishment in order to maintain justice is sad. It's something that we can do but that doesn't mean it is something we should do.