Replies

This is the most frightening Supreme Court decision since Roe v Wade.

The end does not justify the means. Has the otherwise extraordinary archbishop actually read Kennedy's and Scalia's opinions?

1)anti-sovereignty: citing of international law
2)mendacious terminology: calling 1/3 of the states a nationwide consensus
3)anti-Constitutional: 5 judges declare themselves above the jury system (following the Euro model)

This is the same Archbishop who compared Scalia to Frances Kissling (of Catholic for Free Choice). For whatever reason, he refuses to acknowledge that abortion and Capital Punishment are in no way morally equivalent. It is an absurd theological position, reminiscent of Bernardin's 'seamless garment' nonsense. The state has the right to execute. Always has, always will. The Church cannot change that position. So even if she wants to try to downplay it today, it remains as true today as it was 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago. It is a matter of natural law. The judgment when to apply it is a prudential one and rests with the legitimate authority, namely, the state. One final point, the primary end of punishment is restoration: to restore the disorder caused by the crime. The CCC is confusing because it acknowledges this point, then tries to claim that the only legitimate reason for using capital punishment is for the protection of society. That is to put a lower end above the highest. It doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, Cardinal Ratzinger has made it very clear that there can be a legitimate diversity of opinion on this issue, so one can go along with the Holy Father's personal opinion that the DP should be abolished or exercised only in very rare cases, or one can hold (as I do) the traditional teaching that the judgment is left to the legitimate authority. Such judgments take place on the individual level, and therefore "rare" is a value that does not play into the discussion. Rather, the appropriate term is "just". In other words, we should not say the the application of the DP should be rare, since that would be making a judgment on the frequency of its use without even looking at the individual cases, and instead we should say that the application of the DP should be "just" which is a judgment one can only know by weighing the merits of individual cases. Frequent does not equal unjust. If only the Archbishop understood this.