Scalia v. the Pope: Who's Right on Death Penalty? [Will new Pope side with JP or other 264 Popes?]

http://www.theamericancause.org/patscaliav.htm ^ | February 8, 2002 | Pat Buchanan

[rwfromkansas]

God commands the death penalty.

[B Knotts]

Would you then be in favor of the death penalty for adultery, on those grounds?

[murphE]

Did you add the subtitle? I love it!

[rwfromkansas]

Possibly.

[rwfromkansas]

But, I think we are not bound to the civil law in the OT anymore. Nevertheless, the death penalty is of God.

[Salvation]

New Pope A Strong Critic of War

[St.Chuck]

And, after watching our judicial system starve and dehydrate an innocent woman to death, I firmly oppose the state having the power of life or death over anyone.

I'm with you one hundred percent. When we start making these incremental judgements about what crime warrants a death penalty or what degree of comatose state justifies euthanasia, or at what age an embryo is actually a human life we are apt to make errors. Best to err on the side of life. For real.

[Diago]

I am opposed to the war in Iraq. I also think that a country that aborts millions of babies a year may not have clean hands when it comes to administrating the death penalty.

However, I believe that Catholics of good will can come to completely different conclusions as to when a war is just and as to when the death penalty is just .

That said, I think the American bishops squander their teaching authority whenever they say "Catholics should support this school levy," "Catholics must support a Nuclear Freeze," "Catholics must support gun control," "Catholics must support gun control," "Catholics must oppose the Death Penalty." These are all prudential judgments.

I do not care if the death penalty is eliminated. I do care if our bishops state "the death penalty must be eliminated." Dungeons have existed for 2,000 years. Criminals now have trials by juries, endless appeals, fre legal counsel, and DNA testing to prove their innocence. They are a lot better off than the criminals once executed by the Vatican state.

I think our new Pope would understand what I am trying to say this and agrees with me:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

[Diago]

Murphe, that is my subtitle. I have always been bothered by JP II's novel teaching on this subject for the following reasons:

Dungeons have existed for 2,000 years. Criminals now have trials by juries, endless appeals, Free legal counsel, and DNA testing to prove their innocence. They are a lot better off than the criminals once executed by the Vatican state.

Again, I could care less if no one is ever executed again. But please, do not claim that Catholic tradition some how opposes the death penalty.

The death penalty has never been more just - there was no DNA testing in 768 AD - and we now have endless appeals, trial by juries, an anti-death penalty left wing media that examines every case with a magnifying glass, and top legal firms doing pro bono work for death row inmates.

If there were to be a "development" in the Church teaching on the death penalty, it should be in favor of the death penalty!!!

[AlbionGirl]

I don't understand a fervent attachment to the death penalty. If Pope Benedict seems to favor it in certain circumstances or not at all, either way it'll be acceptable to me, specifically because I'm not attached to it at all.

Jail should be real punishment though. For rapists, pederasts and murderers you get to leave your cell once a week, or for educational purposes, that's it. Food should be decent, education, literacy should be mandatory, but where convicts can earn their keep, even by chain-gang they should be made to earn their keep. That's good enough for me, I don't need them to be dead. And for people that are mentally retarded, all the rules change. They aren't dealing with full, free will and as such should be confined, but the circumstances should not be as severe or punitive.

[Diago]

AlbionGirl, please read my two previous posts (#48 and #49).

Since the time of Christ, there have always been dungeons. And yet, until JP II, the Church has always supported the death penalty. Of the 265 popes, JP II is the only one to ever speak out against it.

Again, I do not care if no one is ever executed again. However, it bothers if one states that the Magisterium dictates that there be no executions.

[F.J. Mitchell]

The fact is that the Pope's opinion on the death penalty or any thing else before the Supreme Court, matters not one iota.

[B Knotts]

Well, I agree with you on that. Although I oppose the death penalty in the U.S., on the basis that a government that allows a husband to starve his wife to death cannot be trusted to decide life and death under any circumstances, I am nevertheless concerned about the appearance of the reversal of a constant teaching of the Church.

When a teaching is "developed" to the point that it begins to mean almost precisely the opposite of what it formerly meant, it seems to encourage dissent on other teaching, from those who might hope for similar doctrinal "development."

[AlbionGirl]

Point taken, Diago.

[Diago]

Well, I agree with you on that. Although I oppose the death penalty in the U.S., on the basis that a government that allows a husband to starve his wife to death cannot be trusted to decide life and death under any circumstances, I am nevertheless concerned about the appearance of the reversal of a constant teaching of the Church.

When a teaching is "developed" to the point that it begins to mean almost precisely the opposite of what it formerly meant, it seems to encourage dissent on other teaching, from those who might hope for similar doctrinal "development."

AMEN!!!!

[Diago]

B Knotts say it better than I can at #53. Thanks for listening.

[murphE]

I am in total agreement with you Diago. I think it is ludicrous that the bishops spend anytime at all trying to end the death penalty when ABORTION KILLS 4000 INNOCENT LIVES A DAY. First things first. Work to change laws that allow intrinsic evil, then when all of those laws have been changed, worry about the death penalty.

My theory, which has been vigorously attacked is that most bishops in this country are primarily concerned with the secular humanist agenda, instead of the Catholic agenda. Thank God for priests like Fr. Pavone.