[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote:

"Insofar as the Oregon Catholic Conference includes the bishops of Oregon, it speaks for the Catholic Church in Oregon."

This is true, but please don't leave the impression that it speaks AUTHORITATIVELY for the Catholic Church.

A Bishops' Conference, for one thing, has no canonical authority in itself: none whatsoever. (Individual bishops have canonical auhority within their diocese.)

Plus, while the individual bishop has a very important role in teaching AUTHORITATIVELY on faith and morals, and governs his diocese in terms of ecclesiastical discipline, the bishop has no particular authorityu when it comes to prudential judgments, which is what their position on this legislation comes down to.

The Church has never taught that support for capital punishment per se is a sin. And here, the proposed legislation didn't even mention capital punisment; it's that c.p. opponents wanted an amendment specifically excluding it.

This is a "prudential judgment" where the LAITY have the competence to craft the best law possible. The Oregon Bishops are out of their league.

[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?