Scalia Questions Catholic Opposition to Death Penalty

Fox News | Tuesday, February 05, 2002 | AP

[meandog]

Remember what JFK said about papal influence on presidential policy..."I'd never consider it," he said. Scalia is dead right about the death penalty and Roman judges. If the Roman judges can't take a separate church/state position, they're unfit for the bench!

[moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing]

I'm curious, and maybe some Catholics out there can answer this, is it possible to be a good Catholic and NOT follow the doctrines of the Church? Doesn't Scalia's position (and JFK's) make them bad Catholics in the eyes of the Church?

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Scalia questions

[gcruse]

Anyone who will not apply the law as it is written has no business being on the bench.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Doesn't Scalia's position (and JFK's) make them bad Catholics in the eyes of the Church?

Scalia's position is completely in line with Church teaching. Refer to Catechism of the Catholic Church #2267 and Evangelium vitae #56. Scalia's remarks are directed at those Catholic jurists who refuse to follow the law and impose the death penalty, even when it is justified. Thus they legislate from the bench, which is not their role.

[RLJVet]

Where are you on calling for the excommunication of pro-abortion "catholic" politicians?

[thinktwice]

... is it possible to be a good Catholic and NOT follow the doctrines of the Church?

Joan of Arc was a good Catholic and she was burned at the stake by a Catholic, bishop led, tribunal.

Joan of Arc's canonization came about 25 years later, necessitated by a need for the king of France to overcome criticism for being king as a result of acts by a convicted heretic and witch.

[Sneer]

Scalia is not questioning a dogma of the Catholic Church. There is no dogma against capitol punishment but actually one supporting it from the Council of Trent. A catholic does not commit a sin by either supporting capitol punishment nor by opposing it. A dogma is the truth and cannot change but new light can be shed on it as the Holy Father has tried to bring forth. However, he has not and cannot change the doctrine to the point of it being a sin for a catholic to support Capitol Punishment.

[livius]

He's following the doctrines of the Church, so far as I know. (Although I'm not sure you'd call the death penalty a "doctrine"....)

While there is considerable opposition to the death penalty in certain sectors of the Church, including, apparently, the Pope, it's still legitimate. Much of the opposition, actually, is from left-wing clergy who are covertly in favor of abortion and use the death penalty issue as a way of attempting to delegitimize the anti-abortion movement. It's called the "seamless garment" - meaning that if you're opposed to abortion, you also have to be opposed to the death penalty, ignoring the difference between an innocent unborn child and, say, a cold-blooded mass murderer. And ignoring the fact that abortion IS forbidden by the Church, without any ambiguity.

I was very glad that Scalia said what he did. A judge who doesn't want to impose this penalty should excuse himself from death penalty cases. It's time to discuss this matter openly.

[DaveyB]

Scalia may be guilty of a type of revolt against the Vatican, like Luther and Calvin he is denying that the Pope is the supreme spokesman for God and truth. Unlike the reformers though he substitutes history and natural law for the rulings of the church. Had he based his reasoning in the written revelation of God like the reformers did he would gain my respect (and the animas of the left).

Both the Pope and Scalia have found for themselves a standard of truth that for them is higher than the word of God. This ultimately will doom those under their influence to the rule of human wisdom rather than the wisdom of God. Our puritan founders would not find much in joy in the good judge's response.

[meandog]

Let's start a Christian/Roman debate because it is certainly germane to what the Bishop of Rome should/should not say. This is exactly how the Roman church lost its property, priests and pulpits in 16th Century England and why it is losing masses of communicants today. The Bishop of Rome has no business in the affairs of state-sanctioned judicial matters; he may lament it ecclesiastically from his altar, but to put his misgivings in an encyclical as a dictate to judges goes beyond the scope of papal authority!

[Redbob]

I've got another question then: In his opposition to the death penalty, has the Pope invoked the doctrine of "Infallibility"?
Because if not, he's just offering his opinion.

[meandog]

A catholic does not commit a sin by either supporting capitol punishment nor by opposing it. A dogma is the truth and cannot change but new light can be shed on it as the Holy Father has tried to bring forth. However, he has not and cannot change the doctrine to the point of it being a sin for a catholic to support Capitol Punishment.

The point, as I see it, is that the Bishop of Rome has no business issuing an encyclical on capital punishment at all. He can only issue an opinion which frees his bishops to form their own. I see nothing wrong with John-Paul II stating that this or that person should not be put to death, or that capital punishment goes against his grain; but when he states that it is "ungodly" and judges ought to ignore that option of punishment he is barking up the wrong tree, IMHO! Popes need to remember that they are "picked" only through selection process from non-elected cardinals (often after numerous ballots) and were never duly "elected" by those millions of Roman parishoners that they seem to believe they govern. Papal arrogance has cost the Roman church more than any other issue in ecclesiastical history.

[RyanM]

For a very good summary of Church teaching and history regarding capital punishment, please read Cardinal Dulles' article from the 4/01 issue of First Things here . It would dispel a lot of the misinformed opinion.

Thanks

[mondonico]

If Catholic judges should resign just because they oppose the death penalty, why shouldn't leftist judges resign becaues they oppose (a) the death penalty, (b) racial preferences, (c) the Bill of Rights, (d) separation of powers, (e), property rights, (f) the rule of law, (g) etc.?

[DaveyB]

...Scalia is speaking basically as a barist, not as a theologian. If his questioning were theological...

In a Christian worldview the word of God is the ultimate authority in every area of life. It is in MHO heresy to deny the sovereignty of God in any area of life. To withhold God’s Lordship in law (secularism) is rebellion against his authority and to deny Him.

[winstonchurchill]

Both the Pope and Scalia have found for themselves a standard of truth that for them is higher than the word of God.

Ok, I can't resist. NO, Justice Scalia may be at the threshold of finding that the Word of God is only occasionally coincident with a human who claims "infallability" apart from the Word of God. In his heart of hearts, Justice Scalia is too intelligent to be a "good" catholic. Who knows, praying to the goddess Mary may be next to go?

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Scalia may be guilty of a type of revolt against the Vatican, like Luther and Calvin he is denying that the Pope is the supreme spokesman for God and truth.

God doesn't need a Pope to speak for Him. That's the role of the Holy Spirit and the Bible.

When we start substituting the words of a man, even a GOOD man, for those of God, only trouble can follow.