Posted on 02/05/2002 10:58:18 AM PST by meandog
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia believes Catholic judges who oppose the death penalty should resign.
Scalia, a devout Roman Catholic, said that after giving it "serious thought," he could not agree with his church's stand on capital punishment.
The justice 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, America's oldest Catholic university.
The Vatican under Pope John Paul II has been strongly anti-death penalty, and the pope has personally appealed to leaders to reduce death sentences to life imprisonment. In 1999, he said capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are part of a "culture of death."
Scalia, who has consistently upheld capital cases, 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, 65, 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. 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.
Others applauded the justice's remarks.
"He's got a lot of courage and conviction," said Stephen Feiler, the student who organized the event to celebrate Jesuit heritage.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
"In a brief compass I have touched on numerous and complex problems. To indicate what I have tried to establish, I should like to propose, as a final summary, ten theses that encapsulate the Church’s doctrine, as I understand it.
1) The purpose of punishment in secular courts is fourfold: the rehabilitation of the criminal, the protection of society from the criminal, the deterrence of other potential criminals, and retributive justice.
2) Just retribution, which seeks to establish the right order of things, should not be confused with vindictiveness, which is reprehensible.
3) Punishment may and should be administered with respect and love for the person punished.
4) The person who does evil may deserve death. According to the biblical accounts, God sometimes administers the penalty himself and sometimes directs others to do so.
5) Individuals and private groups may not take it upon themselves to inflict death as a penalty.
6) The State has the right, in principle, to inflict capital punishment in cases where there is no doubt about the gravity of the offense and the guilt of the accused.
7) The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.
8) The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.
9) Persons who specially represent the Church, such as clergy and religious, in view of their specific vocation, should abstain from pronouncing or executing the sentence of death.
10) Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition.
I can't but wonder why Judge Scalia never commented publicly on the 4000 death penalties sanctioned by his court each day on the most innocent of us all since Roe v Wade 1973.
Autonomy: from Autos meaning self + nomos rule
lit. self-rule
To be ruled by self is to be not under the rule of God and therefore outside his kingdom. It is in fact the state of sin or separation from God. When one repents, they humble themselves from self-rule and place themselves under the authority or rule of God.
One cannot be fully devoted to God and deny His authority in their professional life - even in the civil magistrate.
In the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church "The Death Penalty " is allowed but as a last resort when the state can't protect the public good from the criminal in any other way.
This anti death penalty only became a cause of the church in the last few years, perhaps 1997 or so.
Next time, resist.
SD
If he had, these threads would have a very different tone and angle, whereas on principle, they shouldn't. I can't but wonder why Judge Scalia never commented publicly on the 4000 death penalties sanctioned by his court each day on the most innocent of us all since Roe v Wade 1973.</>
Wait till you find out the real numbers. 4000 is like two weeks. Find "Priests for Life". All the facts are there.
The number is (202) 863-8500
And that's exactly the same thing Planned Parenthood says about abortion. Hope you like baby-killers, because you're in league with them.
The next time your fundie pals trot out that nonsense about how God's mission for the United States is the preservation of Israel, I hope you're there to set them straight.
In the meantime, what do you plan to do with the millions of fifth-column Vatican agents in this country? We aren't going to leave, and you aren't going to shut us up. What do you propose? A Constitutional amendment restricting Papists to harmless occupations, like picking up garbage or trimming poodles?
If that's how you want it, to each his own.
Frankly, I don't care what you or the judges do, and I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm an autonomist. I was only pointing out the immorality of a judge who would obey the laws of another country over the laws of the one that made him a judge assuming he would be obedient to the laws of his own country.
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.