Oregon unborn victims bill loses Catholic Church backing over death penalty

Catholic News Service ^ | 5/18/2005

[sinkspur]

PORTLAND, Ore. (CNS) -- Concerned about a possible expansion of the death penalty, Catholic leaders in Oregon have withdrawn their support for an unborn victims of violence bill in the state Legislature. In February, the Oregon Catholic Conference voiced conditional backing for the legislation, which would create separate criminal charges when an unborn child is killed or injured in crimes carried out against the mother. The support was contingent on an amendment which would ensure that the measure would not make the death penalty a more frequent sentencing option. But the conference withdrew its support after a House panel May 2 took up the unamended version. On May 12, the Oregon House of Representatives passed the legislation without the amendment. "The Oregon Catholic Conference must advise the House Judiciary Committee that it cannot support H.B. 2020 ... with the inclusion of the death penalty as a sentencing option," said a May 2 letter from conference director Bob Castagna to the House Judiciary Committee chairman.

[sinkspur]

A Bishops' Conference, for one thing, has no canonical authority in itself: none whatsoever.

Well, the USCCB is currently in the middle of a major campaign against the death penalty. There is little doubt where the American bishops stand on this issue.

And, there is little doubt where JPII stood as well.

I don't find it surprising at all that the Oregon Catholic Conference took this stance.

[BikerNYC]

This is a "prudential judgment" where the LAITY have the competence to craft the best law possible.

This may be true, but do the Bishops have the right to withdraw their support of a bill the laity crafts?

[St. Johann Tetzel]

A Bishops' Conference, for one thing, has no canonical authority in itself: none whatsoever.

Well, the USCCB is currently in the middle of a major campaign against the death penalty. There is little doubt where the American bishops stand on this issue.

As sitetest has articulated, this papacy will likely see a de-coupling of capital punishment from real "Culture of Life" issues:

Pope Benedict XVI has weighed in on this subject too. Who must we follow now? Pope John Paul II was offering his personal opinion about the prudential decision of whether recourse to capital punishment is just.

On the other hand, Card. Ratzinger was making a doctrinal statement about the relative moral aspect of abortion versus capital punishment:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

Worthiness to receive Holy Communion General principles
By Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Sep 1, 2004, 16:50

Obviously, Pope Benedict XVI is backing away from the stance of his predecessor, and is decoupling the abortion issue from that of capital punishment.

[Mrs. Don-o]

From The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

As you can see, the Catechism says that there ARE cases in which the death penalty is an absolute necessity: these would be cases where the only way the authrities can "defend human lives" and "protect people's safety" is to execute the offender. The Catechism adds that in modern society, such cases are vanishingly rare.

So that's not just JPII's opinion, or BXVI's opinion: there may be differences of emphasis, but that's solid Catholic moral teaching: that's Catechism.

As such, it has little or nothing to do with the Oregon bill protecting unborn victims of crime. As I understand it, the OCC wanted an amendment in the bill excludng the possibility of the death penalty; and when the bill was passed without their amendment, they withdrew their support.

This is just political stupidity.

It's akin to taking homicide out of the criminal code altogether, because the dealth penalty wasn't excluded beforehand. Like I said, I'm a opponent of the dealth penalty myself, but on this the Bishops are blundering into the laity's proper spehere of action, and impeaching the laity's competence to make PRUDENTIAL judgments. I repeat: it's the laity's job to get the best bill possible to protect the unborn, under the circumstances.

If I were in Oregon, I'd be trying to get the bishops to radically downsize the OCC-- or at least to fire their incompetent policy-wonk periti.

[TradicalRC]

PJPII Never ever said the death penalty was immorral, nor has any Pope. They have criticized the system under which it is applied, but capital punishment is NOT in conflict with the Catholic faith.

JPII came out strongly against the death penalty to the point where my pastor believes the Church is against it. He is by no means liberal, either. The catechism takes a fairly prudent approach to the issue, however.

As for myself, I go back and forth; on one hand, I think that there are those who have killed so many that even capital punishment is a mitigated justice and maybe we should bring back torture. On the other hand, power in the hands of government is like car keys in the hands of a drunk teen. Should government be trusted with the power to kill? But what if the criminal kills again? Can you then say the government has become negligent for shirking it's duty? It is a tough call for this Catholic.

[HamiltonJay]

Well, PJPII NEVER not once stated the Death Penalty was in conflict with the faith... He did criticize the judicial system under which it is applied... at times unfairly to poor and minority etc.. but he NEVER said the death penalty was in conflict with the faith.

The media cherry picked sentences in its reporting of the Pope's words at times to give that impression, but his full text never once stated Capital Punishment was immoral or a sin.

Many folks are under the wrong impression on this one... and you can blame media bias and laziness on this one.

[HamiltonJay]

I do not go back and forth on this one. Society has no right to keep those who kill alive... Christ himself was executed, and done so unjustly... yet he NEVER argued the Roman's authority to do it. He did not call out for the sparing of the thief that died on Calvary that day with him... or any other execution that occurred during his time on earth.

A person who decides that they, personally have the right to end others lives, has defacto forfieted their own. The state has not only the authority, but the obligation to ensure that this forfieture is enforced. Will the murderer go to heaven or hell? That is up to the almighty to decide, but the state defiantely has the authority to enforce the forfeiture of a murderer's life for the taking of innocent life.

I have no qualms with the exercise of capital punishment within a just judicial system. I do not find any moral confusion on this issue, nor do I find anything in scripture old or new testament that is in conflict with it.

The danger is of course an unjust judiciary enforcing it, and the Pope and church have criticized the US for percieved unjust behaviors of the courts.. but NEVER not in all his years as Pope, or any Pope before him, did PJP state that Capital Punishment itself is wrong, immorral or not in keeping with the faith.

[TradicalRC]

He did not call out for the sparing of the thief that died on Calvary that day with him... or any other execution that occurred during his time on earth.

Well then you need to go back and read the Gospel account of Christ stopping the crowd from stoning the adulteress to death and explain what exactly that was all about.

but NEVER not in all his years as Pope, or any Pope before him, did PJP state that Capital Punishment itself is wrong, immorral or not in keeping with the faith.

Oh really? Check it out:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1398&scid=64

[rogator]

" Oregon falls out of unity with Rome. Shocking."

You are assuming that the Oregon archdiocese was in union with Rome to begin with.
A quick perusal of the heresy and sacrilege contained in OCP publications should quickly clear up that notion. Bear in mind that the Archbishop of Portland is publisher-in-chief of OCP.

[rogator]

" Oregon falls out of unity with Rome. Shocking."

You are assuming that the Oregon archdiocese was in union with Rome to begin with.
A quick perusal of the heresy and sacrilege contained in OCP publications should quickly clear up that notion. Bear in mind that the Archbishop of Portland is publisher-in-chief of OCP.