Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scalia Questions Catholic Opposition to Death Penalty
Fox News | Tuesday, February 05, 2002 | AP

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last
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!
1 posted on 02/05/2002 10:58:18 AM PST by meandog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: meandog
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?
3 posted on 02/05/2002 11:10:47 AM PST by moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Scalia questions
4 posted on 02/05/2002 11:12:44 AM PST by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Anyone who will not apply the law as it is written has no business being on the bench.
5 posted on 02/05/2002 11:14:09 AM PST by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
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.

6 posted on 02/05/2002 11:16:39 AM PST by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
Where are you on calling for the excommunication of pro-abortion "catholic" politicians?
7 posted on 02/05/2002 11:21:20 AM PST by RLJVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
... 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.

8 posted on 02/05/2002 11:22:26 AM PST by thinktwice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
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.
9 posted on 02/05/2002 11:23:42 AM PST by Sneer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
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.

10 posted on 02/05/2002 11:25:52 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Okiegolddust
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.

11 posted on 02/05/2002 11:30:23 AM PST by DaveyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
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!
12 posted on 02/05/2002 11:37:52 AM PST by meandog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB
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.
13 posted on 02/05/2002 11:41:37 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Sneer
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.

15 posted on 02/05/2002 11:57:31 AM PST by meandog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Okiegolddust
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

16 posted on 02/05/2002 11:57:43 AM PST by RyanM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: meandog
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.?
17 posted on 02/05/2002 12:07:46 PM PST by mondonico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Okiegolddust
...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.

18 posted on 02/05/2002 12:08:10 PM PST by DaveyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DaveyB
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?

19 posted on 02/05/2002 12:12:32 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

20 posted on 02/05/2002 12:13:34 PM PST by John R. (Bob) Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mondonico
They should...the principle of judging is to be fair. If any judge is against anything you've cited, how can he/she be fair?
21 posted on 02/05/2002 12:23:28 PM PST by meandog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: meandog
Cardinal Dulles' synopsis on Catholicicm and the Death Penalty with thanks to the fella who supplied the link.

"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.

23 posted on 02/05/2002 12:29:08 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Too bad he didn't speak out against the death penalty for unborn American children. No even after a majority of his "colleagues" decided infanticide is moral and legal.

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.

24 posted on 02/05/2002 12:40:43 PM PST by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Okiegolddust
…True man does sin by demanding using this autonomy…

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.

25 posted on 02/05/2002 12:45:27 PM PST by DaveyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
Church opposition to the death penalty is not dogma, but current interpretation of the message of Christ. Unlike the matter of abortion which is held to be the taking of innocent human life, the stand on the death penalty is one that John Paul would want each Catholic to accept, but which is not imposed as a matter of Church dogma. Consider it in a similar vein as Churh teachings about responsibility to the poor. Many Catholics would be in opposition to this teaching if they voted for many conservative politicians in America, as institutions like welfare, and open borders for workers, and unions are central to current Catholic ideas about people's individual and collective responsibility, but no Church leader has ever insisted that failure to accept these attitudes puts a believer outside the Church. So Scalia is in no danger here. But On e question in his presentation intrigues me. He says that a Catholic who follows the Church's teaching on the death penalty cannot be faithful to his oath. Would not the same be true of a Catholic judge who accepted Church teaching on abortion and ruled as such from the bench in contravention to the law.?
26 posted on 02/05/2002 12:47:22 PM PST by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing
I don't think this is doctrine of the church but is a position the Pope and his clergy "SUGGEST" we follow. As opposed to doctrine put forth by the pope under the rules of Infallibility .

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.

27 posted on 02/05/2002 12:55:48 PM PST by chatham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
Ok, I can't resist. ...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?

Next time, resist.

SD

28 posted on 02/05/2002 1:07:10 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: meandog
This Pope is pathetic hypocrite. He claims to oppose a "culture of death" yet never misses an opportunity to kiss Yasser Arafat's a$$, and appease the radical Islamists at every turn. Most Catholics I know are waiting for Ratzinger to take over and restore order.
29 posted on 02/05/2002 1:10:00 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
Too bad he didn't speak out against the death penalty for unborn American children. No even after a majority of his "colleagues" decided infanticide is moral and legal.

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.

30 posted on 02/05/2002 1:21:54 PM PST by RLJVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Please call the RNC and have Racicot tell Bush to go before the cameras and state his case about the stimulus package.

The number is (202) 863-8500

31 posted on 02/05/2002 1:49:12 PM PST by HOYA97
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Basically its a choice of allegiances, to the US or the Vatican. If a judge feels he must obey the ruler of the Vatican, then he should resign. No man can server two countries.
32 posted on 02/05/2002 2:57:00 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meandog
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!

And that's exactly the same thing Planned Parenthood says about abortion. Hope you like baby-killers, because you're in league with them.

33 posted on 02/05/2002 3:07:38 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Basically its a choice of allegiances, to the US or the Vatican. If a judge feels he must obey the ruler of the Vatican, then he should resign. No man can server two countries.

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?

34 posted on 02/05/2002 3:12:16 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Campion
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.

The Autonomist's Notebook

35 posted on 02/05/2002 3:43:41 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: winstonchurchill
First of all no Catholic prays to the goddess Mary. If you’re going to make ignorant statements at least identify yourself Hillary. Catholics only pray to God. We adore Mary like you would look fondly on a picture of your mother. We ask her to be our mediator in our prayers occasionally because we suppose she is a tad closer to her Son than are we. Secondly, the Catholic Church’s teaching on infallibility is only applicable to the pontiff when, in conjunction with the Magisterium (the conference of Bishops), they issue a teaching on faith or morals. The Church is depressed by the culture of death and part of linking the death penalty with abortion and euthanasia is not only consistent doctrinally it puts the leftist whackos in their own moral dilemma. It’s the reverse of what we may think. “Golly-gee if I oppose putting a serial murderer to death because death is bad then I guess that killing innocent, defenseless babies must be bad too”…a reach in logic for the left but worth a shot. Thirdly, an encyclical is just a Papal letter. It has no binding authority doctrinally. Doctrinal changes are normally made only at Church councils which on average occur centuries apart. Encyclicals are the personal published wisdom of the current Pope, and are opinion influenced by faith and reason. Apparently, the Rome haters protest too much when they react to the opinion of the Pope so violently but don’t get too excited when their own series of “preachers” slide off the straight and narrow. By the way Bob Locke, who do you think assembled the bible?
39 posted on 02/05/2002 5:46:58 PM PST by RecallJeffords
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: RecallJeffords
First of all no Catholic prays to the goddess Mary. ... Catholics only pray to God. ... We ask her to be our mediator in our prayers occasionally because we suppose she is a tad closer to her Son than are we.

The RCC's continued and ardent desire to have a female goddess (as the other pagan religions do) is reflected in the international Catholic movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, which is seeking to encourage the papal definition of the Blessed Virgin Mary as “Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate.”

I can well understand your embarassment at such foolish (and likely soon-to-be-'infallible') 'additions' to the Gospel of the Bible. But it is the natural consequence of allowing men to create their own religion and then call it 'infallible'.

Mary was a good woman who was used by God (as, in other ways, we all can be). She died and, hopefully, went to Heaven. (Since, BTW, God doesn't know anything of a 'purgatory' or 'penances' or 'rosaries' or other (readily purchasable) bargaining chips and devices created by the RCC. God recognizes those who accept His Son and no others.) End of (His)Story.

41 posted on 02/06/2002 10:51:26 AM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: winstonchurchill
Sola Scriptura huh? Why did Christ bother to have disciples when he could just have dropped a book. He told the apostles to teach and the Church He began to spread his gospel. If you're completely dependent on Scripture where does it say Mary died? Where does it say to break off from the church, drop books that don't agree with you from the bible the Church assembled and break off and break off and break off and break off until you become so hostile to Catholicism that you think you understand it but you don't. It's amusing to Catholics that the Sola Scriptura types spend so much time bashing the Church. Catholics spend no time bashing Protestantism--we are merely saddened by it. The evident hostility only shows how far you can get from loving your neighbor. Praying to Christ by evoking his mother is not offensive to God. He loves her too. She was not just some good woman but a carefully selected sinless woman that had very special grace from God. The vessel used to bring Christ his human nature was not chosen by chance.Even if that were completely false why would you be so hostile to people praying to Christ in anyway?
43 posted on 02/06/2002 3:01:20 PM PST by RecallJeffords
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: HDMZ
What? Public heretic? How?
44 posted on 02/06/2002 3:05:14 PM PST by RecallJeffords
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: winstonchurchill
The RCC's continued and ardent desire to have a female goddess (as the other pagan religions do) is reflected in the international Catholic movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, which is seeking to encourage the papal definition of the Blessed Virgin Mary as “Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate.”

And it's a safe bet you have never read a single word of the theology behind that, which is profoundly Biblical, authentic, true, Christian, and right. You speak out of ignorance and prejudice and nothing else, except when you speak out of malice.

45 posted on 02/06/2002 3:13:02 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
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.

I have no idea what an "autonomist" is, nor do I care. However, if you think that laws define morality and obedience to laws, even bad laws, is automatically moral, you have problems that I cannot even begin to address.

Anyone whose obedience is not first to the moral law is not worthy to be a judge. I believe we discovered that in 1973.

46 posted on 02/06/2002 3:17:03 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: meandog
Actually, it's the Pope questioning the death penalty. He doesn't condemn those who support it and even implies it may be acceptible in some circumstances. His posistion is that life is sacred and it shouldn't be taken except in the most extreme circumstances

Here are the relevant excerpts from Evangelium Vitae

55. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes.(43) There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.
Moreover, "legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State".(44) Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.(45)

56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence".(46) Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.(47)
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".(48)

47 posted on 02/06/2002 3:26:14 PM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

To my knowledge the Catholic church has never had a pope speaking ex cathedra (Out of the chair infallibly)saying the death penalty is immoral. The church has supported the death penalty for many years. To now change the opinion on a basic moral question would make the church a laughing stock.

I have said it before on FR the pope and bishops when expressing their personal feel good opinions should be challenged by rank and file catholics. The clergy are no more catholic than you are. Don't take their liberal bullsh*t.

And while I am at it, why don't you resign Cardinal Law. You are a disgrace as a catholic. - Tom

48 posted on 02/06/2002 4:02:20 PM PST by Capt. Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Okiegolddust
>> Scalia is perfectly right here in asking the proper questions - i.e. how the Church can reconcile its often opportunistic left-wing political views, such as on disarmement, economic egalitarianism, immigration, and other concessions to modern trendiness, with historic Christian beliefs, including its own. Of course I can't help but note these were the exact same general type of concerns that Martin Luther had <<

Your post was making alot of sense until you got to the part about Martin Luther. It's amazing how Protestants will scream that all Catholics do is blindly follow the Pope, and then they call on all Protestants to follow EXACTLY what Martin Luther wanted on every issue that confronts him. Interesting double standard you have. Protestants ran around paranoid that JFK (who was only margincally "Catholic" was somehow "control" by the Pope (LMAO! JFK never meet the Pope and never wanted to!), but when devout baptist Jimmmy Carter ran from President, no Catholic complained that Martin Luther's teachings would "control" him. (which they didn't, even though he CAMPAIGNED like they would)

And it's funny how you would use the death penelty to bring up Martin Luther. It just so happens that the Catholic church RE-AFFIRMED their support for the death penelty when the convined the Council of Trent. Alot of us Catholics would perfer the church return to it's stances of the COUNTER reformation era, rather than those of the Vatican II era. Still, even with a couple "liberal" platforms, the Catholic church today is probably STILL more conservative than half the other Christian churches out there.

49 posted on 02/06/2002 11:07:37 PM PST by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John R. (Bob) Locke
>> God doesn't need a Pope to speak for Him. That's the role of the Holy Spirit and the Bible. <<

It just so happens that in "the bible", Jesus specifically states that PETER and HIS successors will be the spokesman for the church AFTER Christ is gone. (Peter became the first bishop of Rome...guess who holds the title NOW?) That's the section you Protestants like to ignore, while nevertheless complaining that Catholics pay no attention to the bible.

Matthew 16:18-19

50 posted on 02/06/2002 11:15:45 PM PST by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson