Posted on 05/11/2004 9:14:06 PM PDT by Coleus
| Tuesday, May 11, 2004 |
Newark Archbishop John J. Myers said Monday that politicians who support the death penalty wouldn't face the same level of condemnation from the Catholic Church as those who support abortion rights.
"There are instances, such as a time of war or civil unrest, or when the government cannot protect the citizens in any other way, that the death penalty could be tolerated," Myers told Fox News. "So it is a moral issue of a different order."
In drawing the distinction, Myers said abortion is "always wrong."
The interview at Fox News studios in New York was the archbishop's first public statement since the release last week of his strongly worded pastoral statement that condemned Catholics who support abortion rights. Myers said that those Catholics - especially public officials - have separated themselves from the church and shouldn't seek Holy Communion.
The statement, as well as actions by other bishops, has sparked an intense debate among American Catholics.
One day after Myers issued his statement, Governor McGreevey, who had recently faced criticism from two other New Jersey bishops, announced he would no longer receive Communion publicly. McGreevey is a Catholic and a supporter of abortion rights.
Myers told Fox he hadn't intended his letter as a personal attack on McGreevey.
"I directed my statement at all Catholics as a statement of faith and principle," he said. "The governor, I think, was honest, and I respect his honesty, and we go on from there."
Myers has stopped short of saying he would deny anyone Communion. He said in the interview that his goal is for individual Catholics to decide for themselves.
"It is not a penalty if someone judges himself or herself" unfit for Communion, he said. "And I have tried to shift the responsibility to the person."
E-mail: chadwick@northjersey.com
NJ politicians: Catholic Church is seeking too big a role, Senate leader leaves Church
Kerry: Abortion, HELL is a Reality and we are Free to Choose it, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila, Fargo
and on the very same page in the newspaper is this story: Trantino is a convicted Cop Killer who was sentenced to death in the 1960's; he was subsequently paroled and is living. So much for the Democrats' position that life in prison is just as bad!! What life? This cop killer is FREE and was walking the streets until he beat up his girlfriend
The man convicted of murdering two Lodi police officers was offered a deal that would return him to prison for up to four years if he pleads guilty to charges that he beat his girlfriend while on parole, officials said Monday.
Thomas Trantino, who was convicted of murdering the Lodi officers in 1963, must decide by June 1 whether to accept a deal offered by Camden County prosecutors that would let him avoid a much longer prison term if he were convicted on charges of assaulting Carmen Gonzalez, a recovering heroin addict with whom he was living last fall.
But under the state court sentencing guidelines, Trantino could actually become eligible for release from prison after serving only 16 months depending on his behavior behind bars and other factors, officials said.
Details of the plea deal were made public by Judge Linda G. Baxter during a brief hearing Monday morning in state Superior Court in Camden. If he rejects the deal, Trantino runs the risk of returning to prison for a substantial time, officials said.
He has been charged with five counts of aggravated assault and one count of criminal restraint. If convicted of these charges at a trial scheduled to begin in Camden on June 28, Trantino could be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison, with a minimum of 15 years required before he becomes eligible for parole, said Bill Shralow, a spokesman for the Camden County Prosecutor's Office.
In addition, the 65-year-old Trantino would face an additional sentence of 1 to 1½ years behind bars for violating the terms of his parole, said Ed Bray, a spokesman for the state Parole Board.
It was not clear Monday whether Trantino would decide to reject the deal and take his chances before a jury. Another question remaining is whether he would get a sentence reduction for the time he has served since fall awaiting trial.
Justin Loughry, Trantino's attorney, declined to comment after the hearing.
Trantino was New Jersey's longest-serving inmate until in 2001 the state Supreme Court ordered his release to a halfway house. A year later, he was released on parole and took up residence in Camden, where he began an inmate counseling program with the assistance of a Quaker group.
Trantino has been behind bars since last Nov. 6, after his arrest at the counseling center headquarters in Camden. Police said Trantino, the program director, was seen by a witness dragging the 33-year-old Gonzalez through the hallway in a chokehold. Trantino told police that he was trying to prevent Gonzalez from committing suicide.
Authorities said Gonzalez showed them bruises on her arms and legs and provided police with tape-recorded descriptions of beatings Trantino allegedly gave her between Oct. 27 and Nov. 6, including one incident in which he choked her until she nearly lost consciousness.
But Gonzalez later recanted to reporters and eventually in front of a Superior Court judge, which poses challenges for prosecutors who must prove their case to a jury.
Loughry has called Gonzalez's credibility into question. He has said that on the same night Gonzalez said she was beaten, she also filed a false complaint with police on another matter.
Loughry also suggested that Gonzalez fabricated an elaborate story about her children being taken from her home, when she knew that they were living in Puerto Rico.
Prosecutors have denied they pursued the case based solely on Trantino's conviction in the execution-style murders of Lodi police Sgt. Peter Voto and Officer Gary Tedesco three decades ago, and the public furor that followed his release.
Lodi Police Department Memorial
It's nauseating, and straight from hell.
This could be a lively disicussion!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
I'm going to burn myself in the eyes of some fellow fire-breathers on this issue, but I consider this acceptable. The difference between this and someone like Cardinal Mahoney is his public and outspoken teaching of the Church's position. He's not coddling the pro-aborts. He's making them very uncomforatable, as Governor McGreevey's response demonstrates.
After that point, his implementation of discipline is about what the bishop deems the most effective discipline for his flock. I may not agree with any particular bishop's methods in these sort of cases. But the pastoral decisions are his. Whether or not to proclaim the true faith is a different matter, and in this area Myers is solid as a rock.
As a caveat, if I was a priest under Bishop Myers, and an avowed pro-abort politician presented himself to me for communion, I'd have to seriously consider denying it no matter what the Bishop himself allowed. The soul of the priest is also at risk if he indiscriminately tosses to body and blood of Christ around. And he won't be answering to Bishop Myers about it ultimately.
The Archbishop is wrong.
Certain crimes cry out for the death penalty, such as the murder of a child or of a police officer.
Texas has it just about right: commit a murder while in commission of another crime, and, you are subject to the death penalty.
"While one has a clear and grave obligation to vote against legislation that bolsters abortion, the view of refusing Communion to politicians who support keeping abortion legal is not part of the pastoral tradition of the Church."
The Church cannot change the legal status of roe, but it can apply it's own standards to its parishoners. If Kerry took money from PP then his hands are bloodied, period, and that should allow the Church to not only refuse him the Sacraments but excommunicate him as well.
I should have been excommunicated for a couple of things that I did back in my twenties, and if I would have been I wouldn't have gone around whining about what a great sin the Church was committing against me, because as diseased as I was, I was still at least humble enough to know that my actions merited it.. Weak and feeble priests, weak and feeble deacons, like weak and feeble doctors forestall and eventually proscribe healing and health. They are the death knell of the beloved Catholic Church, at some point in the future someone with tremendous stature is going to have to declare this ad alta voce.
You want to be in the Church, fine, there are rules though. If you break them and are genuinely sorry, make restitution if it's possible then fine, a member you'll stay. But if your faith is a pretense, be prepared to face the consequences, and quit whining like some 13 year old school girl, for goodness sake. The Church, just like the rest of Society has a ton of boys and very, very few Men.
Pastoral decisions cannot be applied without an understanding of those to whom you are the pastor. And therefore, I certainly would believe this is something best left to the decision of the individual bishop.
That does not mean that anyone has to agree with him, or that no one should try to persuade him to change a pastoral direction. They just have to recognize that this is an area left to his own authority. And that lax disciplinarians can still be very orthodox bishops.
This is fundamentally different from those clerics who refuse to teach the faith, and scandalize the faithful.
I think many Bishops are against the idea of withholding Communion from the pro-abortion politicians because they don't want the politicians to have any reason to be a martyr in the eyes of the uninformed faithful. This whole situation shows just how much education about Church teaching is needed, even on the part of some priests who are still clinging to the Seamless Garment idea because that is what gave the pro-abortion Democrats cover in the late 80s and 90s
"Certain crimes cry out for the death penalty, such as the murder of a child or of a police officer.
Texas has it just about right: commit a murder while in commission of another crime, and, you are subject to the death penalty."
Sometimes you supprise me! Maybe you are not as liberal as your NCR posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.