View Comments Email Article
Printable Version
Published: May 8, 2012
San Diego bishop speaks from experience in Riverside County
The following op-ed piece by coadjutor bishop Cirilo Flores appeared on April 25 in the San Diego Union-Tribune.
This year, in the Easter season, San Diego reels from two recent murders – a young Iraqi mother of five and a 14-year-old boy visiting friends with his brother. Our community comes together in grief and to comfort the families who have lost loved ones. We recognize their profound pain.
During this difficult period, Easter’s promise of rebirth can seem like an illusion. The cycle of violence seems endless, with justice an impossible ideal. Some have even called for the death penalty for those responsible for these crimes.
So it is fitting that San Diegans should pause and think deeply about executions as many of us are celebrating new life. After all, Easter reminds us that before the Resurrection, an innocent man, Jesus of Nazareth, was executed by his government more than 2,000 years ago.
We know that innocent people have been convicted of murder in California – three were released in 2011 after serving a total of 57 years – and that innocent people have been executed in other states.
Nationwide, 140 inmates from death rows have been exonerated of the crimes for which they were wrongly convicted. In light of possible innocence, using the death penalty puts all Californians at risk of perpetrating the ultimate injustice of executing an innocent person, for when the governor gives the final order to execute, he does so in the name of California residents, and the death certificate will read, “Homicide,” as the cause of death.
The Catholic Church holds that all human life is sacred, even the life of someone who has done grave harm. In its 1998 “Good Friday Appeal to End the Death Penalty,” the U.S. Catholic Bishops stated, “Our witness to respect for life shines most brightly when we demand respect for each and every human life, including the lives of those who fail to show that respect for others. The antidote to violence is love, not more violence.”
Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, the state of California has devoted more than $4 billion to carry out a mere 13 executions. For the same $300 million we spent per extremely rare execution, we could have funded a full K-12 education for 3,000 children. We could have provided after-school programs for over 200,000 students.
Or we could have hired nearly 6,000 police officers to prevent and solve violent crimes. An outrageous 46 percent of homicide cases are never closed and 56 percent of reported rapes go unsolved every year in California because of a shortage of resources. While we spend hundreds of millions every year on our broken death-penalty system, we fail to fully protect our neighborhoods from violent criminals. We already have a much less expensive way to protect our society and to secure accountability from the guilty – a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. Our conscience and budgets can no longer justify any other option.
Growing up in a barrio neighborhood in Riverside County, I saw firsthand how violence destroyed lives and families. I knew perpetrators and victims of violent crime, yet I came to the conclusion that the death penalty serves no one – not society, not victim’s families, not those seeking personal safety.
To read entire story Click here.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 12:15 AM By Clinton
Again, it seems the bishops are more concerned with the death penalty than abortion. 13 executions in California since 1978. How many abortions in this state since 1978? Thousands! Those executed on death row received a trial, numerous appeals, and were not put to death until years after their conviction. The unborn receive no trial, no appeals, no clemency from the governor and the death sentence is rendered immediately. And yet the bishops and priests were largely silent about the parental notification for abortions of girls under 18. But let the ACLU push an agenda and the bishops trip over themselves to support those causes.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 4:56 AM By MAC
The death penalty is not intended to be justice or revenge, but merely to protect society (including those in prison and prison staff) from dangerous unjust agressors. Money is not the issue either. CCC – QUOTE “2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” UNQUOTE. If the death penalty is outlawed all together, then there is no protection from the serious unjust aggressor. Don’t you think it is interesting that most Diocesan Bishops in CA refuse to actively promote the reading of the CCC by all Catholics over age 16 ? ? ? – very interesting.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 4:57 AM By Daphne de Rutte
We can,t be forgiven if we don,t forgive. I would rather err on the side of life and let the Good Lord handle the justice.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 5:21 AM By Ted
Why don’t the bishops take into account that we do NOT always keep those who kill in prison for life ? I agree capital punishment needs to go away, but first we must have laws in place to ensure the safety of innocent citizens. We do let them out to re-offend. When we cannot do that, I’d agree to ban capital punishment but not one minute before that.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 6:32 AM By JMJ
For many years I used to have the mindset of most people and to use the death penalty and of course, when Manson’s gang did their horrible crimes, I was all for putting those fiends to death, thankfully, it didn’t happened as a few of them became Christians, and had deep remorse for their actions (unlike Manson, at least not yet, keep praying for him), and I finally woke up to see the wrongness of killing someone just to get ‘even’. Our Blessed Pope John Paul II, had it right: only use this when it is absolutely necessary, of which in the U.S., this means NEVER. +JMJ+
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 6:45 AM By Sue in soCal
Agreed. The death penalty in 99% of the cases is unnecessary. I do take issue with the good Bishop’s suggestion that the money spent would be better spent on education since currently 45% of the General Funds in this state are spent on education. This amount is mandated by the California State Constitution via Prop 98 which mandated a minimum of 39% when it was instituted along with mandated increases since then. (Has anyone else noticed that the more we’ve spent on education the worse our education system has become?) This is why any money saved by eliminating the death penalty will NOT be saved unless we follow the idea of subsidiarity. Sorry, Bishop Flores: while eliminating the death penalty is a great good, shuffling money around the budget is not.
I know this is slightly off point but it is a point I think needs to be made. Our bishops have been slightly off point in a number of their statements by promoting bad policies when they write about Church teaching. This is a case in point.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:22 AM By Steve Phoenix
I would like to see as much emphasis by Bp. Flores and his compatriot bishops placed on the innocent millions aborted in the womb as on those waiting on death row for a just punishment, upon whom the $4 billion is lavished because we are blocked from our lawful fulfilment (T Aquinas) of their punishment. I am always amazed at our cloistered bishops and their ilk. For those who want to know the truth, regarding Evangelium Vitae (EV), JP2 did NOT include his death penalty opinion in the ordinary magisterium. Other parts of EV, on willful murder, abortion, and euthanasia were. “Before writing Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II surveyed every Catholic bishop in the world asking whether they agreed that murder, directly-willed abortion, and euthanasia were immoral, and they all agreed that they were. To make this connection clear, the pope concluded each of these passages in Evangelium Vitae with a reference to the “ordinary and universal magisterium” (Francis A Sullivan Theo. Studies 9/95). Notably absent from this list: the alleged prohibition of the death penalty. The bishop’s death penalty position cannot square with what centuries of orthodox theologians (Aquinas included), the Church Fathers, and previous popes (P Pius XII in 1952 clearly affirmed the death penalty) have held, and conflicts with St Vincent of Lerins’ rule that Catholic doctrine can only be “what the Church has always taught and held everywhere and at all times.”
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 8:13 AM By Patrick
The Bishop’s view is personal, not church doctrine. The reason the State of CA has spent so much money regarding executions is that prisoners have unlimited appeals. They should be cut off.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 8:44 AM By Anne
I would remind the bishop that the Vatican had the death penalty on its books for persons who attempt to assassinate the Pope up until 1969. Pope-saints, like Pius V, as temporal rulers over the Vatican states imposed the death penalty on criminals. I think we’re all for making sure we don’t execute an innocent person, just as we’re all for not putting an innocent person in prison, but fear of making a mistake can’t take us to the point of eliminating punishment for criminals. The death penalty does need to be fixed in California…it’s absurd that the appeals process can take more than two decades…but I’m sure that most of us, Catholic or not, do not support its abolition.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:32 AM By jon
Kudos to the bishop. Two points of his are noteworthy. First, reminding all of us of the US Bishops’ words that “Our witness to respect for life shines most brightly when we demand respect for each and every human life, including the lives of those who fail to show that respect for others.” ON POINT! People, a consistent defense of the dignity of all human life makes the Church a genuinely powerful voice AGAINST ABORTION! Second, Bishop Flores’ point that the death penalty is financially wasteful. Four billion dollars spent for only 13 executions. The death penalty is not only “cruel and unnecessary” as the Blessed John Paul once said, but also wasteful. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:26 PM By Camille
Yes, prisoners get every advantage that the law permits, trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty (with extremely few exceptions), parole hearings, education, mental health counseling, exercise, tv privileges, visitation/spousal visits. What does the innocent baby or the elderly ill and disabled get?
Nada, nil, niente, nothing. And, it’s quite possible that some of the first generation prisoners exempted from the death penalty, or those who entered prison as minors and receive recall permission, may profit from life or reduced sentencing, but what about the next generation who will have no idea of long term confinement or potential forfeiture of their own life? They will probably think that any confinement is abusive of their rights.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:39 PM By Jose M
The bishop forgets that the death penalty is not based on revenge but on the right to self defense–where society cannot protect itself from the perpetrator by mere incarceration then use of the death penalty is justified. Remember that prison guards and other prisoners are to be protected as well. And, lest we forget, let’s recall that we have had cases where “life prisoners” have carried out deadly attacks on citizens-outside-the-prison-walls by communicating and controlling the actions of their accomplices on the outside–should society have no recourse against them?! Who should suffer the death penalty-Church doctrine teaches that the legitimate civil authorities are to determine how that is to be decided or whether or not to have that as a penalty.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:23 PM By Seraph
The now defunct Seattle Catholic ran a great article on the death penalty some years ago. You can find it at their site. Some excerpts: “..The idea that there should be no death penalty because of the dignity of the human person is completely new to Catholic theology. In the Old Testament, God Himself ordered Moses to tell the Israelites that they should condemn to death those who murder (Exodus, Chapter 22, 3). Also, at the words of St. Peter, God struck Anaias and Saphira dead because of their actions (Acts, ch. 5, vs 1-10). St. Thomas also gave many reasons for which the death penalty should be used when the crimes go against the public good, as is the case with murder and heresy…”
“…It does not appear that Our Lord or the Catholic Church place the same value on the dignity of the human person as do the American Bishops or Roeser when it comes to the death penalty. One important reason for this is that the American Bishops put all their emphasis on the ontological dignity of the human person as opposed to the operative dignity. In other words, the American Bishops believe that one is due particular treatment because of the fact that he is human and not because he operates or behaves in a moral way befitting what God expects of humans. The Church has always taught that when one commits an evil act he looses his operative dignity. This is why God could have told Moses to condemn murderers to death even though they possessed human ontological dignity. People are not rewarded or punished for what they are, but for what they do…”
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 6:25 PM By JLS
Make arrangements with China and North Korea to house and manage these extremely violent criminals. Pay these nations half what it would cost to house and manage them in the USA. They would benefit economically and so would this nation and its participating states.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:35 PM By Abeca Christian
Your excellency, Bishop since this is your personal opinion and the church allows you to have them, as the church allows me to embrace the teachings of the Catholic church that have always been and that is for the Death Penalty, I disagree with you. I will pray for your salvation and remind you to please preach on important issues that affect our salvation! Preach and teach what is the natural law, preach to protect the unborn from abortions because abortion is the real evil, speak up and preach what is true modesty, explaining to those of the faith that Drag shows break the virtue of modesty, love Jesus by being more holy, show compassion for the victims who were wrongfully murdered, raped, chopped up etc by having the zeal to protect society from evil predators who will continue to kill and kill etc. The church is doing more harm with these sentiments that ignore to reason well and to understand well why the church has always permitted the death penalty!
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 8:55 PM By Cody in Tucson
Several months ago I read an article about a man who murdered his wife. Why did he kill her? The state in which the couple lived had recently passed legislation outlawing the death penalty. So the man murdered his wife knowing that he would not be put to death for his action! Are those who passed the legislation also responsible for the death of this woman? Didn’t they in affect give the husband the green light?
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:01 PM By Steve Phoenix
Jose (and others) have it exactly right: these who are the most depraved criminals continue to murder and destroy other prisoners and prison guards without consequence in Bp. Flores’ world. Hardly any attention is paid to the brutality initiated by these “worst of the worst” that nearly daily occurs in our prison systems–certainly no pious episcopal attention, at least. Since the re-instatement of the death penalty in this country in the 1970′s, there have been roughly about 1300 capital punishment procedures in the US. During that same time, depending on whose statistics you employ, there have been between 300, 000 and some say over 500,000 known, documented murders–so the death penalty is actually rarely imposed, even where warranted as “fitting the crime.” So as a consequence we have the situation that we are warned against (cf Ps 94, or 1 Thess 5:14-15), where God’s ways and those who follow them instead comply with the punishment of evildoers in a ordered, lawful process, and our bishops instead side with an unjust situation “where even the just may lose heart” and will eventually turn to wickedness. No wonder S John Chrysostom said the roads of hell are paved with the skulls of…guess whom.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:07 PM By JLS
Cody, it’s that wife’s fault for marrying her murderer. He is a victim of her bad judgment.
Posted Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:39 PM By jon
Abeca’s point is wrong: the traditional teaching of the Church has always been that if the death penalty is the only way to defend human lives against an unjust aggressor may it be used. Check out the Catechism on this. The Pope’s judgment (not his opinion, but judgment) is that there are now non-lethal ways to protect lives short of the death penalty. I invite you to repent of your continued dissent from the Church, the Magisterium’s teaching on this issue for the salvation of your soul.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 5:06 AM By Angelo
A priest in a Sermon challenged us. He told those of us in favor of the death penalty to seriously think, “If a member of your loved ones committed a terrible crime, would you demand that the state uphold the death penalty and kill your loved one.” He answered for us how we really viewed the Death Penalty, “The death penalty is only for others, never ever for us or our own loved ones.” This priest spoke the truth in a manner we did not appreciate. He showed us that our real attitude was, Should the State sentence my Brother to death, or your Brother to death, better the State to sentence your Brother to death. When will we take the Gospel seriously???
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 5:58 AM By JMJ
It seems that those ‘catholics’ that are attacking this good Bishop, hasn’t bothered to read and understand the Ten Commandments or are did they just eliminate THO SHALL NOT KILL!! Read what Pope John Paul wrote about using the death penalty and hand your heads in shame. +JMJ+
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 7:15 AM By ANNE
Abeca – Cardinals, Bishops and Priests are not allowed to use their Religious office/title to further their own political agendas. Publically they must adhere to the CCC, and when they do not – we must all respectfully correct them for the good of their Soul and the Souls of others. – “Admonishing sinners” is a Work of Mercy. This Bishop needs to re-read the CCC.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 7:18 AM By Amy
Abortion is an intrinsic evil the death penalty is not. Is Bishop Flores as passionate about saving the lives of the innocent pre born as he is about people on death row? You rarely find those who protest outside of a prison protesting against the death penalty – outside of an abortion clinic standing up for LIFE.
Why is there such a disconnect in the Catholic Church between the Social Justice group and those who stand up for the pre born. Bishops appear to be for one or the other but not for both?
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 11:18 AM By Cody in Tucson
JMJ – Fr Trigillo in one of his books says that the correct translation is “Thou shall not MURDER”. There are several examples in the CCC where the act of killing is justified.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 12:08 PM By Seraph
Jon,
Pope John Paul II’s pposition to the death penalty is not Magisterial teaching. The Magisterium of the Church and God had always upheld the morality of the death penalty from the time of Moses all the way through the 2,000 year history of the Church. It has been supported by saints and Popes for centuries. Pope John Paul II had no authority to change this Magisterial teaching. Church teaching does not change. Pope JPII couldn’t contradict 2,000 years of Magisterial teaching. That is why he only gave an opinion and suggestion that the death penalty be not used anymore. John Paul knew he couldn’t really bind evey single Catholic to his own interpretation. He made it as a suggestion. That is why Cardinal Ratzinger in a letter in the early 2000′s, clarified that Catholics were free to disagree on the matter of the death penalty, and that the death penalty was not on the level of abortion or Euthanasia which are intrinsic evils. Pope John Paul II never went so far as to place it at that level, and call it an intrinsic evil, because even he knew that the death penalty was not an intrinsic evil. He wanted it abolished, but he knew it wasn’t a moral evil.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:34 PM By PETE
JMJ – The accurate words of POPE JOHN PAUL II are contained in the CCC which has already been QUOTED above in #2267 by MAC. QUOTE from JPII – “ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II. (pg 5)
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:07 PM By Abeca Christian
jon’s point is wrong. The truth will someday set him free.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:10 PM By Abeca Christian
ANNE thank you and yes I hope that my post respectfully corrected what personal agenda he is trying to carry out.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:41 PM By k
Abortion, euthanaia are intrinsic evils. They are morally wrong always-no matter the circumstances or reasons. The death penalty is not an intrinsic evil meaning there are times when it can be permitted because of circumstances. That does not make it a good. The law is “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:42 PM By jon
Contrary to Seraph and Abeca, the Blessed John Paul’s judgment that the present use of the death penalty be abolished is INDEED Magisterial teaching. His Magisterial teaching on this issue is articulated in his Encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” and in his Apostolic Exhortation “Ecclesia in America.” His teaching on this issue is repeated in his homilies, messages, speeches. In the Catechism itself, the majority of the section on the death penalty is taken from John Paul’s Encyclical. The abolition of the present use of the death penalty is undoubtedly the Magisterial teaching of the Church. To deny this is futile.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:49 PM By jon
Seraph is very wrong. The CDF’s Letter DOES NOT SAY that Catholics are “free” to dissent from this moral teaching of the Magisterium, or on any teaching. Faithful Catholics have NO right to dissent from the Magisterium’s teachings that touch upon faith and morals, which includes the teaching on the death penalty, an aspect of the Gospel of Life. Again, John Paul’s and Benedict’s Magisterial teachings on the abolition of the death penalty are NOT mere opinions. This is their judgment to which the entire Church is called to adhere to.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 3:27 PM By Angelo
Seraph, Let’s not forget that Our Lord Jesus Christ gave St. Peter and his successors the power to bind and to loose. Bl. John Paul ll was a successor to St. Peter. If he declared the end of the death penalty, then we are bound to obey by Heavens own command. Or we offend God. We must listen to Peter, “Where Peter is, there is the Church” We have absolutley no authority to declare or judge the Holy Father to be wrong on matters of Faith or Morals. As for Pope Benedict XVl successor to St. Peter, what Bl. John Paul ll stands as authorative.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 3:30 PM By Seraph
Pete, Catechisms are not infallible. They are not the Holy Bible. They are just books. What is infallible, is the doctrines and dogmas found inside the catechisms. It is up to the authors of catechisms to make sure there are correct doctrines or dogmas in them, or else you end up with something like the heretical Dutch catechism. These books are not automatically free of error. The U.S. catechism had to have its heretical teaching on Jews and salvation changed.
Pope John Paul’s opposition to the death penalty in The Catechism of the Catholic Church, is not part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church because ending the death penalty itself has never been part of the Magisterium. To be part of the Ordinary Magistrium a teaching must be held by tradition and the sacred deposit of faith always and everywhere. Ending the death penalty has never been held always and everywhere. The entire history of the Church contradicts it.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 3:37 PM By JLS
Angelo, that priest you describe preached a faulty and deceptive sermon. It is full of holes. It is full of assumptions and presumptions. The rich young man asked Jesus “who is my neighbor?” The priest neglected this crucial aspect of the question he spoke on. Not all communities put the dangerous members of their families before the good members of their communities. That would be contributing to hating one’s neighbor instead of loving them.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 3:40 PM By JLS
jon, there have always been non lethal ways to protect lives … but no one has ever used them, whether in history or today. You simply have to understand the nature of prophetic language, which the Church uses from time to time such as what these popes have used. If you do not, and I know you do not, jon, understand this, then study it. Don’t you know how to ask questions of yourself or others so as to gain knowledge?
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:35 PM By Steve Phoenix
I don’t think I will ever be able to communicate facts to JMJ and other associates that JP2′s statement of his opposition to capital punishment was not magisterial and that the CCC actually uses the norm “rare if not nearly nonexistent.” So, where we have had over 300,000 documented murders since the death penalty reinstatement in 1976 and by comparison 1300 or so lawful juridically guided executions, the US fulfills this norm of death penalty as a rare, last resort. But more importantly if for example you take a book like Austin Fagothey’s Right and Reason and see that the state must have just and serious punishments that “fit the crime”, to ban the death penalty is a cowardly refusal to defend innocents against the most heinous criminal perpetrators. I have often studied those who gladly wrap themselves in this mantle and have come to conclude their motivation is nothing less than self-adulation and self-gratification: “I am glad that I am not like the rest of men (Luke 18:9ff).” “Look at my truly fine ‘compassionate’ conscience, unlike the rest of you.” It begs the question: so, is it not also cruel and unusual punishment for incarceration for life, esp. at Folsom and San Quentin? Why punish at all, if we really don’t care for the lives of the victims who were obliterated? And for the many more that will be obliterated when the truly evil see that there is no retribution (which is a valid Catholic and juridical basis for punishment) for their act. Expect much more terrible heartlessly criminal acts (as we are already seeing), and I don’t expect the anti-capital punishment advocates to “own” these outcomes.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 5:56 PM By JLS
Blind jon, you still fail to realize that the papal statements that capital punishment is not necessary … now get the important connecting concept, jon … BECAUSE non lethal means are available. This is not a statement of present fact, but of prophetic hope. There are countless murders and other extremely violent crimes going on every moment around the world and so far the only way to keep the high levels from climbing is to kill the violent perpetrators. But I’ve suggested another way, anyway, and that is to send the violent ones to North Korea or China and let those nations decide how best to deal with them. It would save US taxpayers lots and put money in the hands of these other governments. A win win situation.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:00 PM By Angelo
JLS, That priest who wisely challenged us, Caused me to really look at things differently. Then with the teaching of Peter; aka Bl. John Paul ll, I must change my mind. This is going to be aweful JLS, but lets say your Mom and my Mom together robbed a Bank and shot and caused the death of one or more. Would you and I, demand that our Moms be put to death by lethal injection? This was, the not so faulty message of that priest. Lets heed it! The problem today is that we do not see Jesus in our neighbor anymore. Maybe we never did!
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:01 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
6:32 AM By JMJ
To you “only when it is necessary” means “never” to others it means until we can insure that the murderers cannot get out to kill (which has happened many times) again! BIG DIFFERENCE!
For your information, even a Pope cannot overturn Tradition, and that is why the last few Popes, who favored ending the Death Penalty, have not even tried to make opposition to the Death Penalty Dogma.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 7:26 PM By jon
False Seraph. What has always been the traditional teaching of the Church on this issue is articulated in 2267 of the Catechism, namely that the only instance the death penalty may be used is “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” The judgment of John Paul and Benedict is that in our time there is adequate non-lethal means to protect lives without recourse to the death penalty.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 7:51 PM By Catholic Lady
I cannot believe my Catholic eyes reading some of these comments. What? The Pope’s Encyclical where he condemns the death penalty is not Magisterial? That is too false to be true. The fact is that the Pope John Paul’s condemnation of the death penalty is Magisterial. I mean, an Encyclical is the highest, most important form of papal pronouncement, second only to a Decretal Letter. Catholic folks, the Pope’s condemnation of the use today of the death penalty is very much Magisterial.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 8:26 PM By Cody in Tucson
What Bishop Flores says is really NOT important. Since Barack Obama justified homosexual marriage today by using the “Golden Rule” section of the Sermon on the Mount, what is really important is what does Barack Obama think about the death penalty and what words of Jesus will he use to justify it. Obama has executed many to instant death, who cares about those 20+ years on death row, by his orders on killing many using instant lethal means (death by Navy Seal, death by drone, death by sniper, etc). So what does our president have to say? That is what is REALLY important!
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 8:44 PM By jon
I totally disagree with Cody. What is important is NOT what President Obama says, but what the Pope, the Successor of St. Peter, teaches! What is important is if you are going to adhere to the Pope’s teaching and be united with him, with the Vicar of Christ.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:46 PM By Steve Phoenix
Actually an encyclical is NOT anywhere near the highest Magisterial formulation—for example, a papal bull, such as the excommunication of Elizabeth I, “Regnans in Excelsis”, far outranks an encyclical as well as many other official pronouncements. More importantly, ‘Catholic Lady’ and other like-minded individuals, you will want to look at Francis A Sullivan’s comments (Theological Studies 9/95). Sullivan, a soundly orthodox Catholic theologian, analyses that the pope concluded passages in Evangelium Vitae with a reference to the “ordinary and universal magisterium” but excluded the death penalty specifically in this statement. As he said previously, JP2 said his position was his personal position, not a definition of the Catholic Church. You cannot turn on its head 2000 years of teaching, buttressed by Augustine, Suarez, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, or recent to our own times, Pius XII, for example, all of whom defended the justice of a death penalty to protect the common good. Can you have, even a pope, by his own personal position, cancel all prior teaching? No. We wouldnt be following Simon Peter but Simon Says. Most of the modern anti-death penalty ‘thinkers’ admit that ‘Catholic teaching has evolved (pay attention) on this issue.’ They don’t try to justify their position prior to the last decade or so. ‘The evolution of teaching’ is a textbook definition of modernism. Beware! A re-definition of marriage is around the corner by the same crowd. Hold to ‘what the Church has always taught at all times in all places’ (S Vincent of Lerins).
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:59 PM By Steve Phoenix
Oh. Another comment on Bp Cirilo Flores. He is a bright guy (prior to enrolling in the LA diocese for priestly studies, he got his law degree at Stanford U about 1970), but he had his theological studies @ St John’s in Camarillo, a once-proud institution, but in recent decades a theological and intellectual shipwreck. More is taught on gender equality and diversity than actual hard theological thinking. I wouldnt give a fig for his knowledge of historical Church teaching on the death penalty. And don’t overrate his knowledge of law, because when he practiced as a lawyer, it was in the field of business litigation, not criminal or constitutional law. Forget it.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:16 PM By JLS
Catholic Lady, you might actually try to read the words he wrote. Those words, according to the English translation, do not forbid the death penalty. Rather they condition it on the prophetic possibility that governments succeed in using non lethal methods to prevent violent crime. Now, when exactly has a government succeeded in stopping violent crime? Perhaps the government of Monte Carlo? Even the Vatican State a few years ago experienced a homicide. So, Catholic Lady, let us know which government has stopped violent crime.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:22 PM By JLS
Angelo, I oppose lethal injection. I advocate hanging in the public square. Why would you exalt a murderous mother over the well being of your neighbor? You have to love your neighbor as yourself. If you love yourself more than your neighbor, then you fail the Commandment, which btw is the greatest of the commandments. Jesus on the Cross did not agitate for the pardon of either good thief or bad thief to his sides. He exemplified the faith of the Roman Centurion whose daily grind was killing rebellious suppressed people and criminals. He granted Pilate the Roman authority to execute criminals. God ruled the death sentence to many categories of criminal prior to the Advent of Jesus; this means that govt execution of criminals is not intrinsically sinful.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:35 PM By JLS
The only proven way to keep violent criminals from killing and injuring people is to execute them sooner rather than later. Or to send them to North Korea for re-education.
Posted Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:38 PM By Seraph
Jon, the main purpose of the death penalty is retribution and not the protection of the soceity. Sure, it’s true that the use of the death helps protect soceity when the aggressor is killed, but that is not the main principle behind the death penalty. Neither is deterrence. Whether or not soceity is protected does not matter, because the death penalty is used as an act of pure justice and pure retribution. The aggressor is killed for the evil he committed. He forfeits his life to pay for his crime of murder. Justice demands his life for such a moral evil commited. The state is an agent of God. The state as God’s representative, takes the vengence of God upon the murderer, as punishment for his crime. He is not fit to live. A gulity life is taken for the innocent life and blood that was spilled. That is pure justice. The state has the authority from God to carry out justice.
Posted Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:39 AM By jon
What is glaringly false about Steve Phoenix’s comment is that he conveniently ignores what the Catechism teaches to be THE traditional teaching of the Church concerning the death penalty. Read again what 2267 of the Catechism says: the traditional teaching allows recourse to the death penalty “IF ONLY this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” How inconvenient for the pro-death folks that the Magisterial teaching of the Church expressed in the Catechism contradicts their personal opinions.
Posted Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:47 AM By jon
Additionally, Steve Phoenix’s point that John Paul had said that his position on the death penalty is “personal” is TOTALLY FALSE. NO WHERE did John Paul say ever that. The supporters of death have descended to mischaracterizing the Magisterial teachings of the late Holy Father. This is alarming. The fact is that John Paul’s Encyclical is DEFINITELY Magisterial teaching, that the Catechism is Magisterial, that his homilies and speeches are Magisterial teachings. And Lumen Gentium obliges all faithful Catholics to adhere to this, the judgment of the Pope on this teaching.
Posted Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:32 AM By JMJ
Cody, you are right but, strange as it may seem the body is dead no matter if it was killed or murdered. Poor Steve wants everybody to know that he is a high-brow, but, sadly he so keen on the letter of the law, that he can’t figure out just what the law is. If his (Steve’s) father told his mother, I want him home at ten”, but, doesn’t bother to put it into writing, does it make any difference? Thankfully, when I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior and Brother, just over 40 years ago, He should me the truth about the death-sentence, allowing abortions to protect the mother, etc.; all of which I stupidly believed and still called myself a ‘Catholic’. Cain was the first one to kill just because he was jealous, and it it not so nice to see that you want to keep his hate going, disguised as something good. If God wanted to keep the death penalty, then why didn’t He kill/murder all of those that killed/murdered His Son? Read John Grisham’s book “The Confession”, a novel for sure, but with a lot of truth and fact to it. For those of you that support killing someone, why not get a job at a prison near you, especially in Texas and you will have the thrill of your life, killing others, even though they might be innocent. +JMJ+
© California Catholic Daily 2012. All Rights Reserved.
In her March 11 “Where I Stand” piece regarding contraception, healthcare, and religion, Lora DiNardis offers a deeply flawed argument in objecting to the government mandate that employers, including Catholic-related universities, hospitals, and charities, provide health care coverage to employees and students that includes contraceptive materials.
In her opening lines, Ms. DiNardis suggests that those supporting the mandate are engaged in “attacks against the Catholic faith.” I yield to no one in my admiration and appreciation of both the history and human contributions of the Catholic Church, although I strongly support the government mandate as essential to the health and welfare of America’s women.
Next, she says that those favoring the mandate are in favor of “insurance coverage for contraceptives being paid for by Catholic employers.”
In response to complaints from both the Catholic bishops and from many Catholic laymen, the president adjusted the mandate so that those Catholic employers — that is, Catholic-related universities, hospitals, and charities — would not have to pay for the coverage, which would be paid for, instead, by the insurance companies.
The companies gladly complied because it is much less expensive for them to cover contraceptive materials then it would be to cover pregnancies.
Even though the surveys showing that most Catholics have practiced birth control have turned out to be rather flawed, judging from the size of most Catholic families these days, it appears fairly certain that most sexually active Catholic couples practice birth control.
In any event, I would not agree that “whether or not most Catholics practice birth control is not relevant to the issue.”
The reason is that Vatican II defined the church as “the people of God in communion, with hierarchy as a necessary institutional framework.”
So what people want in terms of their faith is, in fact, what the church wants.
Where we agree is in saying that “principles are at stake here.”
But requiring Catholic-related institutions to offer contraceptive coverage in their health insurance programs is not in any way judging the value of another’s beliefs.
The mandate neither judges nor challenges nor devalues Catholic teaching on contraception.
But when President Barack Obama met the concern of the Catholic bishops that their hospitals and schools should not have to pay employee health costs for contraceptives, they then doubled down and said that no one should have to pay for anything so evil as contraception.
That objection is not an argument for a “conscience exemption.” It is, rather, a way of imposing Catholic requirements on non-Catholics.
As the Catholic historian, Garry Wills wrote recently, “This is dictatorship, not religious freedom.”
Lastly, while it is admirable that Ms. DiNardis was not offended when she was denied access to cheeseburgers in the cafeteria of an Orthodox Jewish University, it is hardly the same as being denied access to health insurance that includes medication that could prevent the loss of an ovary to a 20-year-old Georgetown University female student.
As Justice Antonin Scalia, an observant Catholic, held in a 6-to-3 1990 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Employment Division vs. Smith, “laws that apply generally and do not single out religious groups may be upheld even if they intrude on religious practices.”
That a health plan includes coverage for contraceptive materials does not require any person, Catholic or otherwise, to use contraceptive materials.
That is freedom of conscience and freedom of action.
Stephan Lesher is a resident of Southbury.
What’s at stake for the GOP is, of course, political power: The alliance broadens its coalition of the embattled. What’s at stake for the Church is the nature and depth of its moral authority.
The GOP’s base consists of five key constituencies bound together by a sense of being under siege – culturally, economically, religiously or demographically.
The first is the “silent generation” of seniors who preceded the Baby Boomers. Within their adult lifetimes, they’ve witnessed transformations in gender and racial relations, in attitudes about homosexuality and abortion, and in many other realms of American life. They live in a different country than the one they were born into, and many of them long for the old one.
White males are the second key constituency. While they still hold a disproportionate share of power in the United States, their relative position has declined as women and people of color fill jobs and roles that were once off-limits. White males’ siege mentality is rooted in their loss of privilege and in the disappearance of many jobs that were once the foundation of America’s middle class.
Southerners and business interests are the third and fourth constituencies. An odd pairing, on the face of it; it’s a shared hostility to the intrusions of the federal government that makes them simpatico. For Southerners, the idea of mandates imposed by Washington, D.C., still hits a raw nerve for all kinds of historical reasons, and makes them receptive to business interests’ complaints about excessive taxation, overregulation and government gone wild.
The GOP has limited room for growth within these four constituencies, since their numbers are already so strong. Only the fifth group offers hope for expanding the base: the religiously devout.
The recent brouhaha over the Catholic Church and contraception healthcare coverage has solidified and dramatized one of the most important U.S. political developments of the last two decades: the alliance of evangelical Protestants and Catholics. It’s a startling turn of events, given that just a generation or two ago the Catholic Church was, in the minds of many evangelicals, the Whore of Babylon. The GOP’s recent rhetoric about religious liberty being under assault is aimed at this broad, relatively new alliance.
What’s at stake for the GOP is, of course, political power: The alliance broadens the Republican coalition of the embattled. What’s at stake for the Church is the nature and depth of its moral authority.
Economic justice can wait
In 1986, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a pastoral letter titled “Economic Justice For All,” in which it argued that the highest priority in any economic system must be human well-being rather than profits. “The life and dignity of millions of men, women and children hang in the balance,” it read. “Decisions must be judged in light of what they do for the poor, what they do to the poor, and what they enable the poor to do for themselves. The fundamental moral criterion for all economic decisions, policies and institutions is this: They must be at the service of all people, especially the poor.”
Within a few years of that document’s release, the USCCB’s emphasis on economic justice had been eclipsed by culture-war battles. Newly appointed bishops tended to be conservatives, and while the USCCB continued to issue statements and letters that addressed the question of economic justice, they were most vocal and energetic in their opposition to abortion and homosexuality. That trend has intensified over time. At their annual meeting in Baltimore last fall, the bishops focused on strategies for opposing gay rights and abortion and defending religious liberty – but couldn’t find any time to discuss economic justice, not to mention the priestly penchant for pedophilia. Also last fall, they established a new “committee for religious liberty” that is intended to “shape policy in the face of accelerating threats.” And in November, the Archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, made headlines by declaring that the nation has entered an era of unprecedented hostility toward religious belief. “It’s not a question of when or if it might happen,” he said. “It’s happening today.”
The near-disappearance of economic justice as a priority for American Catholic bishops is an aberration, both historically and in the current global context. Though rarely mentioned by current U.S. bishops, “Economic Justice For All” was very much in keeping with orthodox Catholic theology and practice, and leaders and laypeople were integral to the early progressive movement.
Most notably, the work of John Ryan – a Catholic theologian and activist of boundless energy – was instrumental in preparing the way for the New Deal reforms of the 1930s. In A Living Wage, Distributive Justice and many other works, Ryan argued for the critical role of labor unions and an activist state in relieving poverty.
Ryan’s bedrock belief that ethical theory and economic practice are inseparable is still honored and articulated by the Catholic hierarchy worldwide. In a document released just last fall, the Vatican argued that “to function correctly the economy needs ethics; and not just of any kind, but one that is people-centered.” It also called for an international institution invested with the authority to tame the excesses of capitalism.
The battle has been joined – and partly lost
Naturally, political conservatives dismissed the document as irrelevant. The curious thing is that U.S. bishops did the same – with their silence, at least – at a time when the Catholic Church in the United States is desperately seeking to re-establish its moral authority, and during the rise of the Occupy movement last fall.
Why have the bishops had so little to contribute to the movement, despite the abundant historical and theological resources they have at their disposal?
The Church is still preoccupied with resisting reforms that would acknowledge and respond to the cultural and social upheaval since the 1960s. Reproductive rights are one battle in that war. But the issue that’s most troubling for the leadership right now is gay rights. Abortion remains deeply divisive: Americans are about evenly split on the question. But there is no doubt that conservatives are being routed on the question of homosexuality. On that front, the culture war has been decisively lost.
That fact poses all kinds of headaches and legal challenges for the Church. State agencies and Catholic institutions have begun to part ways over the provision of foster care and adoption services, for example, since Catholic institutions refuse to place children with same-sex couples. Illinois is the most recent state to cut ties with the Church over the issue. Similar clashes in other states seem inevitable.
Their culture war obsessions make the Church’s leaders welcome, if odd, political bedfellows with the rest of the GOP’s embattled base. When Catholics talk about losing their religious liberty, they’re really talking about feeling alienated for adhering to beliefs that, just a generation ago, were perfectly within the mainstream.
For the Church, the alliance with the GOP creates a much-needed ally in the culture wars. For the GOP, the alliance has the potential of expanding its base to include more Catholics.
And the potential benefits are large, since Catholic voters are about evenly split and constitute a quarter of the electorate. Barack Obama won the Catholic vote by a margin of nine points in 2008; George W. Bush won it by a margin of five points in 2004; and Al Gore won it by three points in 2000. A shift of just a few points can swing a presidential election, and Catholics tend to be concentrated in electorally crucial states.
If there are large potential benefits to the alliance, though, there are even greater risks. The best-case scenario for both parties is that the Church’s moral authority will buttress the GOP’s political prospects, and vice versa. But moral authority is a nebulous and fleeting thing, and the U.S. bishops have been passive in the one area – economic justice – where they possess a deep wellspring of authority. Instead they seem prepared to go to the wall over sex, an area where the Church has lost all credibility over the past decade.
So it’s possible that the alliance will become less a virtuous cycle than a death spiral. The bishops continue to erode their moral authority with their silence on economic issues, while the GOP’s resistance to gay rights, in deference to its religiously devout voters, becomes an increasingly extreme stance. In other words, it might turn out to be a devil’s bargain. Made with good intentions, of course.
The bishops should know very well where that path leads.
God’s spirit is a better guide than the letter of the law.