Posted on 02/04/2002 8:48:52 PM PST by Lancey Howard
By GINA HOLLAND
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday criticized his church's position against the death penalty, saying that Catholic judges who believe capital punishment is wrong should resign.
The devout Roman Catholic said after giving it ``serious thought'' he could not agree with the church's stand on the issue.
Scalia questioned the church's opposition to the death penalty late last month at a conference on the subject in Chicago. He was asked about it again Monday at Georgetown University, a Catholic school.
The Vatican under Pope John Paul II has been strongly anti-death penalty, and the pope has personally appealed to leaders to commute death sentences. In 1999, he said capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are part of a ``culture of death.''
Scalia told Georgetown students that the church has a much longer history of endorsing capital punishment.
``No authority that I know of denies the 2,000-year-old tradition of the church approving capital punishment,'' he said. ``I don't see why there's been a change.''
Scalia, a father of nine, including one priest, attended Georgetown as an undergraduate and later taught there as a visiting professor. He talked about the cultural move away from faith before answering questions from students.
In Chicago on Jan. 25, Scalia said, ``In my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty.'' His remarks were transcribed by the event sponsor, the Pew Forum.
Scalia said Monday that ``any Catholic jurist (with such concerns) ... would have to resign.''
``You couldn't function as a judge,'' he said.
Some in the crowd applauded when a female student asked Scalia to reconcile his religious beliefs with his capital punishment votes on the court. Scalia, 65, is one of the court's most conservative members and has consistently upheld capital cases.
Freshman Sean Kiernan said later that he was disappointed that Scalia talked about the importance of his religion, then took a stand contradicting the church. ``I don't think it's correct,'' he said.
``He's got a lot of courage and conviction,'' said Stephen Feiler, the student who organized the event to celebrate Jesuit heritage.
Also, account must be made of serial murderers such as Ted Bundy who seem adept at escaping and killing again and again. (Bundy escaped from the law twice!)
It might seem to be an ideal and wonderful world were we to forgive all crime, even murder. But, sorry to say, the world doesn't seem to work that way.
The Church has always held that civil authorities have the right to use the death penalty. JohnPaul II has come out and said just that, but he would like to see it used in only those cases where the criminal could pose a threat to others if he remains alive. Some examples may be terrorists who can still direct others from prison or drug kingpins who can do deals and threaten people from prison. But for most he advocates for mercy.
The Pope has always wanted the Church to have a consistent ethic of life and encourages countries to do the same. But there is always an allowance in the Church for those cases in which nothing but the death penalty will serve as far as punishment of the criminal and protection of society. It is the American Bishops who have made the most noise on this and in some instances the teaching has become muddied because of their pronouncements and the media's garbling of them. So many US Catholics are confused on it, and I guess that is what Scalia is addressing.
Wow. First I heard about this.
I imagine the whole place was pretty stunned.
So they didn't just randomly kill people for heresy - they required two witnesses first. I guess the inquisition wasn't such a bad idea after all.
(Forgot to close those tags in my previous remarks)
LOL !
I wonder how long it took the neighbors to figure out that two of them could split the dead guy's property?
If the death penalty was good enough for the Son of God, then it's good enough for the rest of the world.Are you suggesting that since Jesus was executed under a death penalty, the rest of the world should also be executed? Or that somehow man’s act in killing a sinless and flawless man justifies the death penalty? I’m sure I’m not understanding you here, please explain.
patent +AMDG
What's that phrase? 'Cafeteria Catholic?'There is more room for legitimate disagreement on the death penalty then there is on abortion or fornication. Even the Pope makes it clear that the state does have the legitimate power to execute, he just thinks it should be seldom used.
patent +AMDG
Since, at the Federal level, Catholic judges who believe that abortion is wrong have a very difficult time being nominated, much less confirmed, this would seem to leave very little opportunity for faithful Catholics to enter the judiciary. As far as I can see, Scalia is walking straight into a trap here: how can it be "wrong" for a Catholic judge to oppose capital punishment but "okay" for a Catholic judge to oppose Roe v. Wade?
It's already getting pretty difficult for a faithful Catholic to be a pharmacist (just ask K-Mart whether they appreciate pharmacists with consciences) and a doctor (mandatory abortion training, y'know).
Let's just skip to the endgame, and require everyone to carry an "APPROVED OPINION-HOLDER" stamp on their forehead and right hand before they can buy or sell anything, or hold a job.
The death penalty is a means to an end-- it is not the killing of the Son that justifies it-- it is its use. He said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." He did not reference the act of execution, but called attention to His mission on earth, and their denial His divinity and purpose-- yet out of their ignorance, He fulfilled His promise.
No, I disagree with Scalia on the death penalty, and agree with the Church on all three.There is more room for legitimate disagreement on the death penalty then there is on abortion or fornication.Is that because you disagree with the Church's position on the death penalty but agree with its position on abortion and fornication?
I recognize that not all teachings rise to the same level. Some can be legitimately debated, others are settled. The death penalty, at least in its application, can be debated. All parties here –the Church and Scalia – agree that the State has the legitimate power to use the death penalty, the disagreement is over when it should be used. That is a very debatable subject.
patent +AMDG
You can only discuss an issue in private with the Bishop? That has never been the case. Can you show me any teaching by the Church that one cannot issue one’s opinion on a non-formal teaching in public?There is more room for legitimate disagreement on the death penalty then there is on abortion or . . .If Justice Scalia were debating this with a bishop in private then your statement would have merit.
The Church can respond anywhere it likes. What is stopping it? It seems as though you think the Church is powerless to respond to this great man. I hardly think so.He dismissed the latest Ecclesiastical VitaeCriticizing in public without giving the church an opportunity to respond is not legitimate disagreement that I can see.
patent +AMDG
patent
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.