The following comes from a September 20 statement by Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone in Catholic San Francisco:
Three years ago at this time I was part of a delegation of California bishops who paid a pastoral visit to San Quentin State Prison. While there, we had the opportunity to meet with a number of the inmates on death row, hearing their stories, learning of the misfortunes in their lives, and becoming sensitized to their deep spiritual yearnings and innate desire for God. The experience put a human face on a tragic human condition that we very comfortably can – and usually do – completely ignore.
This experience also highlights the challenge we as a society face in determining how we can foster peace in this increasingly violent and complicated world. The answer is certainly not by inflicting more violence. As we, the Catholic bishops of California, said in our statement reaffirming our opposition to the death penalty: “Our support to end the use of the death penalty is also rooted in our unshakable resolve to accompany and support all victims of crime…. As we pray with them and mourn with them we must also stress that the current use of the death penalty does not promote healing. It only brings more violence to a world that has too much violence already.”
As California citizens we have an opportunity to make our voices heard on behalf of the inviolability of human life and for rehabilitation over retribution. I ask you to join me in voting to end the death penalty in our state by voting Yes on Proposition 62, and voting No on 66. Doing so will put to end the myths of capital punishment – such as the assertion that it serves as a deterrent to violent crimes – and also to the flaws it perpetrates, such as its disproportionate use on the poor and minorities. Most tragic of all, though, is the finality of the sentence: no restitution is possible for a wrongful execution. Since 1973, 151 people have been released from death rows in the United States due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. How many were not so fortunate?
more news about Salvatore Cordileone
Sounds again more sympathy for the perpetrators than the victims , the “field Trip” photo of them smiling I find disgusting , did they pay a pastoral visit to the victims as well ?.How about the stories of the victims suffering ? this promotion of healing , what about the paying for your crime ?the death penalty is punishment for a crime , what do the victims say about healing ,closure etc, ? I give more credence to them than the bishops , also how do they reconcile their position from what has been said in scripture and from doctors of the church that supported the death penalty ?.
One important word is glaringly missing from Archbishop Cordelione’s statement: justice. He also fails to distinguish between moral violence and immoral violence, treating all violence as if it is intrinsically immoral.
I urge you to vote no on 62 and yes on 66.
Catholic faith does not require abolishing the death penalty (notice that no bishop ever says supporting abolition is obligatory — they merely “urge” or advocate that Catholics to do as they say), and clerics who advocate for the abolition of capital punishment may validly be criticized for making flawed prudential judgments, outside their area of competence.
States may legitimately have recourse to the death penalty as a means of carrying out justice and protecting…
FALSE! Catholic faith REQUIRES that the (prudential) judgments of the Pope be adhered to with religious submission of mind and will. This discipline is enshrined in Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25. This submission is required for Magisterial teachings and papal prudential judgments such as the death penalty.
States do not have a legitimate recourse to the death penalty when there are other practicable ways to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. This is articulated in Catechism 2267.
Sawyer has NO PROOF for his false dissemination of ideas CONTRARY to the teachings of the Magisterium. Even the 2004 CDF document “Worthiness To Receive” DOES NOT support his falsehood.
My fellow Californians,…
My fellow Californians, Vote Yes on 62; NO on 66. Respect life. Listen to the living Magisterium. Support our bishops!
One other thing—the Church’s teaching calling for the abolition of the death penalty is ALL ABOUT JUSTICE, justice for the imprisoned and the victims’ family. Let not these detractors of the teachings of Christ and His Church delude you.
You are the biggest detractor and troll (along with YFC) on this site…..
“. . . and clerics who advocate for the abolition of capital punishment may validly be criticized for making flawed prudential judgments, outside their area of competence.”
Uhm, I’m confused. What was their area of competence again?
Wrong Bohemond. A troll doesn’t not substantiate his/her point. Whereas I have provide able and substantial documentation, reasoning, and proof for the validity of the Magisterium’s teaching against the death penalty. Just check the two citations I gave above.
Thank you Archbishop Cordileone.
YFC will you support him for his opposition to abortion or just your liberal causes.
Bohemond, I am opposed to abortion.
but support sodomy???
Good man. Don’t agree with him on this.
FOR THE SAKE OF HIS SORROWFUL PASSION, FAITHFUL CATHOLICS URGE BISHOP CORDILEONE TO REMOVE THE SPIRITUAL DEATH PENALTY !
Dioceses and chanceries OVERFLOWING with dissenting professional Catholics
Seminaries controlled by homosexual bishops and clergy
Parishes controlled by openly dissenting pastors
Universities, Catholic grade schools, catechesis, controlled by “dissenters”
And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul:but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10:28 Douay-Rheims
It’s always about the gays, isn’t it Catherine?
I read the entire statement, not just the excerpts provided by CCD. At the end of the statement Cordileone cites Deuteronomy 30:19, “Choose life.” The citation is problematic for two reasons: 1) the admonition to choose life in that passage means choosing to obey God, as verse 20 makes clear, for obedience to God will mean life for Israel; 2) Deuteronomy 13:7-11 explicitly commands the death penalty for idolatry, making it even more clear that that book’s admonition to “choose life” does not entail abolishing the death penalty. Cordileone is referring to Scripture with the unsophistication of a high school freshman.
Second, Cordileone quotes a statement by Pope Francis:
“The death penalty is an offense to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person; it … does not render justice to victims, but instead fosters vengeance… the basic purpose of all punishment is the rehabilitation of the offender” (message to the 6th World Congress against the Death Penalty, June 2016).
Problematic in several ways: life is not inviolable, for there can be justifiable homicide; claims of DP fostering vengeance are unfounded; the primary purpose of punishment is justice, not rehabilitation, which is secondary. So the Pope has made several incorrect claims which, by relying on them, weaken Cordileone’s own argument.
Third, as I stated previously, Cordileone does not distinguish between moral and immoral violence. He lumps all violence together as bad: “how we can foster peace in this increasingly violent and complicated world. The answer is certainly not by inflicting more violence… the current use of the death penalty does not promote healing. It only brings more violence to a world that has too much violence already.”
Ignoring the fact that moral violence is sometimes an effective and useful means of justice and deterrence severely undermines his argument.
Fourth, and finally, he states toward the end, “Most tragic of all, though, is the finality of the sentence: no restitution is possible for a wrongful execution.” If no restitution is possible for a wrongful execution, then it follows that no restitution is possible for a murder either. If that’s true, then what’s the point of keeping some murderers alive? Arguing that restitution for a wrongful death isn’t possible actually supports the continued use of the death penalty rather than its abolition.
Cordileone has authored a terribly weak and flawed statement. Wise Catholics will understand that recent prudential statements coming from popes and bishops to abolish the death penalty have all been flawed.
Sawyer , great observations , thank you I, am looking forward to more of your posts.
If Sawyer can find fault with the Pope, he can find fault with any bisho and priest. And he calls himself Catholic? Sorry folks, but no other Christian community can fathom or even tolerate dissention of this kind. Why remain a Catholic when you can’t follow the anointed shepherds of the Church? To each of Saywer’s points:
1) To obey the Magisterium IS to obey God. Christ Himself taught this: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” (Lk 10:16). The words of God cannot be divorced from the ministry and the words of the Church’s teachings, including the Magisterium’s.
2) Human life is INDEED inviolate. This is a constant…
Your rebuttal 1) is patently idolatrous.
teaching of the Church and it is surprising why Sawyer would say otherwise. The Catechism 2258 teaches the inviolability and sacredness of human life “Human life is sacred.” Just war and self-defense as the Catechism teaches DOES NOT contradict the teaching that ALL human life is inviolate.
3) Saywer’s critique here is wobbly and weak. It is not mere “violence” such as a just war that the Archbishop is writing against here, but rather it is vengeance and retribution that he is writing about. Our Lord Himself taught: “You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other” (Matt. 5:38)…
Your rebuttal 2) is simply wrong: sacred is not the same as inviolable. Human life is sacred, but it is not inviolable. If it were inviolable then, as I mentioned, there would be no such thing as justifiable homicide. The fact that justifiable homicide is a valid moral concept means that under some circumstances life may be taken, therefore it is not inviolable; but it is still sacred.
Your rebuttal 3) fail to address my point and tries to change the topic from the legitimacy of moral violence to vengeance. Sorry: not going to fall for that. Cordileone fails to distinguish moral and immoral violence; he claims all violence is bad. I stand by that analysis.
The “violence” of a murdered is not to be reciprocated by the “violence” of the state by executing him.
4) Sawyer’s last point here is ridiculous. The fact that there have been people wrongly executed SUPPORTS the morality of abolishing the death penalty. If the state can make tremendous errors and mistakes in its policies (just look at the pathetic economy we are in), what makes Sawyer confident that the state can always be right in its judgment to execute a human being?? I can’t imagine why any freedom-loving American WOULD CONTINUE TO GIVE THE STATE–as high-handed and tyrannous as it can get— such unbounded power over the life and death of its citizens.
Sawyer here has penned a weak and wobby refutation of…
Cordileone’s writing. Prudent Catholics can rest assured that by adhering to the words of the Pope and the bishops, they are following Christ. Vote yes on 62, No on 66!
Your rebuttal 4) misses my point: Cordileone uses the impossibility of restitution for a wrongful death as a reason why the death penalty should be abolished. I point out that if it is true that no restitution can be made for wrongful death, then no restitution can be made for murder. In that case, then there is no prison term of any length nor fine that can make restitution. In that case, the only proximate restitution that can serve the interest of justice is for the murderer to forfeit his life just as he took the life of his victim. I’m not saying that’s my argument; I’m saying it’s logically entailed by Cordileone’s argument. He doesn’t realize he undermines his own argument.
Sawyer asks a very frightening question, “what’s the point of keeping some murderers alive?” and implies the answer that there is NO point in keeping murderers alive.
Sawyer completely turns inside out logic with this line of thought. The last purpose Archbishop Cordileone sites is keeping some murders alive because there can’t be absolute certainty that they ARE murderers. Besides, we happen to be a Church that believes that every life is sacred, worthy of dignity and respect, and open to the redemptive grace of God. If it takes a few more years to accomplish that conversion of heart, then it is worth keeping that murderer alive.
My question was framed within a conditional: “If that’s true, then what’s the point of keeping some murderers alive?” If I had flatly made the claim you would be right to criticize it, but you don’t do justice to my statement because you disregard that it occurs in the context of analyzing Cordileone’s claim that it is impossible to make restitution for a wrongful death. If THAT is true, then I ask what would be the point of keeping some murderers alive, for no matter how long they live they could not make restitution for murder. I am pointing out how Cordelione’s claim undermines his purpose.
As for conversion, the sacredness of life, and dignity of human beings, since when do those who argue for separation of Church and state have such an interest in the state being an instrument of the Church’s mercy and morality?
As for no certainty about guilt, then why have a criminal justice system at all? We can and do reach moral certainty about the guilt of criminals, including murderers.
As for extra time to repent, one could argue that foreknowledge of one’s imminent, just execution would more effectively focus the mind on sorrow for one’s evil acts and inspire getting right with God as a man prepares for his eternal judgment. Consciousness of mortality focuses the mind on the Four Last Things like no other.
Sorry Sawyer, but your refutation is inadequate:
1) God’s word to the world and His people can be heard through the words and ministry of the Magisterium. This is classic, traditional, solid Catholic teaching. This is not idolatrous at all. God’s present work in the world is inseparable to the ministry of the Church. You’re totally wrong on this.
2) There is no such thing as justifiable homicide. If not done for self-defense to kill another human being is wrong. It is doubly wrong if one takes another human life for the purpose of justice and protection WHEN THERE ARE OTHER MEANS OF ACHIEVING THOSE SAME PURPOSES! This is cruel and unnecessary, as St. John Paul II judged.
3) The Archbishop wrote what he wrote,…
and what he critiqued here is violence as a response to violence–an eye for an eye. Yet, even if we do adopt Sawyer’s interpretation of Cordileone’s words, administering violence when there are non-violent ways of achieving justice and peace DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! Violence as a response to violence: taking a human life unjustly as a response to the criminal taking of a human life is INSANE! The Archbishop here makes more logic than Sawyer.
4) Sawyer’s point here is sophistry and illogical. If society can avoid more needless and wrongful deaths by abolishing the death penalty, this is a movement in the right direction. That there is no restitution for the wrongful death of an innocent victim in the hands of a criminal,…
DOES NOT EXCUSE society from finding ways to make sure that no more unnecessary and unjust killing (even of those accused) occur.
People, honestly, if you stray away from the Magisterium which God has entrusted to deliver his words and teaching to us today you will avoid pitfalls in logic and morality as exhibited above by Sawyer. Vote yes on 62, no on 66!
1) jon is idolatrous. He claims that the words of God cannot be divorced from the ministry and words of the Church’s teachings. He equates every syllable from the Magisterium with God’s Revelation and will. The Church has never held such an idolatrous understanding of the Magisterium, which guards the Deposit of Faith instead of being identical with it.
2) There is justifiable homicide, and jon gave an example of it in the next sentence. Self defense is the classic example. If life were inviolable, self-defense would be immoral because it involves taking another life. Pope Francis erred in saying life is inviolable.
3) jon assumes without proof that non-violent means are adequate to achieve justice, which is the same prudential error that recent popes and all the CA bishops are making.
4) jon assumes without proof that executing certain grievous offenders, such as murderers, is unnecessary and unjust. The Church’s Tradition contains numerous examples of holding that execution can be justice for criminals, and that teaching cannot be reversed by any misguided pope or bishop.
Well you drew an invalid conclusion on your way to constructing the “conditional” . Maybe you don’t understand what restitution is? You wrote, “Cordileone uses the impossibility of restitution for a wrongful death as a reason why the death penalty should be abolished. I point out that if it is true that no restitution can be made for wrongful death, then no restitution can be made for murder.” One does NOT follow from the other. Murder is among the most grave sins (and violations of law) precisely because no restitution is possible for the victim, whether the murderer is in prison for life or is put to death. Restitution is the compensation given to a victim that in some way makes up for the crime. Restitution is not the same as…
In response to Sawyer:
1) Sorry Sawyer, but your ecclesiology is wholly deficient: the wealth of Catholic doctrine proves your error and affirms that the ministry of the Church IS INSEPARABLE to God’s work in the world. Just note: Our Lord Himself said in Lk 10:16 that whoever listens to the apostles, into whose offices the popes and the bishops have succeeded, listens to Him, to Christ, and to the One Who sent Our Lord, the Father. Catechism 776 teaches that “the Church is Christ’s instrument.” Catechism 875 further teaches that ministers of the Church act and speak in the name and person of Christ. Therefore these and more documents prove that the Church teaches that God’s work of teaching and sanctifying the world…
continues through the work of Christ’s Church!
2) Sorry again Sawyer but administering the death penalty in our time IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE! Francis made no error because administering this cruel and unnecessary punishment VIOLATES the sacredness of the life of the criminal and its inviolability and honor!
3) No justice is rendered by terminating the life of a criminal when other means are available to contain him. This not an assumption: this is fact as taught by ALL the spiritual leaders of the Church. As the US bishops taught: “Even when people deny the dignity of others, we must still recognize that their dignity is a gift from God and is not something that is earned or lost through their behavior. Respect for…
life applies to all, even the perpetrators of terrible acts. Punishment should be consistent with the demands of justice and with respect for human life and dignity. ” And this teaching echoes Our Lord’s teaching in the Gospel concerning abandoning “an eye for an eye” kind of “justice.”
4) The proof you’re looking for Sawyer is the existence in our time of other means of defending society without recourse to the death penalty. The proof you’re looking for is the metal bars, the concrete walls of a maximum security prison. The advancement in today’s penal system renders unnecessary and cruel the use of the death penalty.
My dear fellow Californians: don’t listen to Sawyer’s old and tired arguments which are a…
symptom of the passing culture of death! Support the Holy Father and your bishops! Vote YES on 62, NO on 66!
I oppose the Death Penalty – except to Save Human Life
Again – I ask the Arch Bishop and others about ‘rookie’ Williams, head of the notorious Crips Gang that Murdered untold numbers – at his orders, despite his being in Prison.
How do we Stop those who Order Killings from Within Prison Walls?
Show us the way, and Lead on this Vital Issue?
Please
I think poor Cordileone has simply grown weary of swimming against the tide. The old “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em,” eh Abp?
Several months ago, when Cordileone approved of a female teacher at Mercy High School being regarded as a man, it was clear that he no longer had his former zeal. As someone remarked about that event: it seems someone or something has gotten to the archbishop, and he’s guarded as a result.
Even in the face of that hearsay recounted by Sawyer, it doesn’t help matters for the Archbishop, folks, to be denouncing what is perfectly a solid support for the Church’s teaching on the cruelty and uselessness of the death penalty. So you knew “something has gotten to the archbish,” then you proceed to publicly tear down what he wrote in support of the Church’s teaching. You people are indeed merciless, illogical, and disobedient. God bless the Archbishop. Listen to the Magisterium. Vote Yes on 62, No on 66!
Jon , no we are not merciless , illogical , and disobedient , merciless no, merciless are the qualities of the people on death row and in prison .I save my mercy for the victims of crime , criminal acts affect family , loved ones and victims in ways that are not always visible that is where my mercy lies. Illogical , no we just disagree , I find Sawyers positions presented in a clear reasonable way , sometimes yours are presented in the same way , I find that you in, my opinion, are wrong, not illogical . Disobedient, no again we have a disagreement on how this policy should be interpreted , as presented there are scriptural and writings from the church and her saints that back up our position . You seem to rely on the magisterium…
cont.. on being a divine end of discussion authority on any matter , I do not I use reason, faith and, my experience to inform my decision . The magisterium has done great damage to itself and its moral authority from the sex scandals they are not perfect by any means , I use my God-given gift of reason to determine what my response should be and given the actions and errors of these men I question their motives ,judgement , and methods in light of what I know and have experienced.You are asking it seems for blind trust from men , good men for the most part, but with their own agendas and biases . I would not ascribe the negative qualities you stated to you , I disagree , I think you are wrong on some issues , fueled by emotion and…
A suggestion made in the spirit of charity as I do read your postings , argue without emotions , use the capslock button sparingly, do not use ad hominem attacks . Argue without reliance on canon law , the magisterium , etc, persuade us with reason , think of it as a challenge how can I persuade not using , or using sparingly these tools ?. Canon law and the magisterium are not always the first things that the laity considers , use it as a tool ,not a weapon to make your point . Like it or not the church has destroyed a lot of it’s moral authority because of the scandals , and it will take decades to heal, a spirit of humility and recognition of this would help this process. The actions of priests and bishops are being judged like any…
cont… like any laymen on their behaviour and character, to argue that because of position alone an almost blind loyalty should exist does not help to persuade or convert . Consider that when you interact on this open forum , how would a non-Catholic respond to my arguments ? would I use this style to convince my fellow or fallen brethren to this view ? .
Totally wrong is RickW.
1) No one believes, least of all me, that the private and personal words of the members of the Magisterium are “divine on any matter.” You’re wrong there. HOWEVER, the Magisteirum’s teachings on faith and morals (which touches upon topics like the death penalty) are preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. This is solid Catholic dogma.
2) The clergy’s mishandling of abuses pertain to the governance of the Church in which it can indeed err. However, the Magisterium cannot err on matters of faith and morals. Get that distinction clear in your thinking please.
3) Well, one can only hope that in addition to my intellect, faith, and rationality, my emotions are also involved in defending the…
teachings of the Church here. I am not a robot and my words betray my ZEAL and LOVE for the Church.
4) Your comments reveal that you haven’t been paying attention to the measures and policies enacted in dioceses and parishes SINCE the scandals broke. Zero-tolerance has been in effect for many years now, making the Church in the US one of the safest places for children. You bandy-about this “scandal card”, as hurtful as it is, in order to negate the moral authority of the Church. That’s WRONG!! Be reminded that the scandal emerged with help from the liberal media who are the enemies of the Church. Pathetically there are folks out there like you who are willing to cynically and wrongly use that scandal to continue to tear…
down the Church, not to build her up. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life. Californians, vote yes on 62, no on 66!
Related to abolishing the DP: if this misguided movement succeeds, you will see the next “evolution” in consciousness among the anti-DP crowd.
They will argue that life imprisonment is unjust, that it is a virtual death sentence because it robs the criminal of his freedom forever, that it is cruel and unusual to imprison someone for his whole life, that respect for the dignity of human life requires releasing criminals while they still have time to enjoy a free life.
The argument used to abolish the DP, that life imprisonment is a more just sentence, will quickly be forgotten. What was used as an example of a just sentence will soon be reframed as unjust, as the anti-life imprisonment cause is born.
Then they will go after…
By your logic, if the ballot measure fails, the next thing the pro-death penalty crowd will want is execution before even the trial. Why not just take the accused out behind the barn and shoot him right then and there?
The Church and Magisterium has always supported the death penalty throughout the centuries. A great article:
“Why The Church Cannot Reverse Past Teaching On Capital Punishment”:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4928/why_the_church_cannot_reverse_past_teaching_on_capital_punishment.aspx
Part 2:
“Why The Death Penalty Is Still Necessary”
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4939/Why_the_Death_Penalty_is_Still_Necessary.aspx
Yes, Edward Feser is a clear thinker and an able commentator on this topic. Thank you for making the board aware of those articles again.
The Church and Magisterium (and I would add Scripture) have indeed always upheld the validity of capital punishment in principle, therefore capital punishment can never be considered intrinsically immoral. As a result, efforts to abolish it are misguided.
Indeed, the death penalty is still necessary. As a result, efforts to abolish it are foolish.
WRONG! Sorry to burst your bubble, but Fesser and Bessette are NOT the Magisterium. They may be learned men, but they were not the ones the Holy Spirit has chosen to deliver God’s teaching FOR OUR TIME on this subject of the death penalty. They are right to cite past documents and teachings in support of capital punishment because in the past it WAS legitimate. Why? There was no other way to protect society then against an unjust aggressor. As judged by JP2, and reaffrimed by Benedict and Francis, NOW WE DO HAVE OTHER MEANS to protect society without recourse to killing the criminal.
Sawyer mentions Scripture. In ancient times capital punishment WAS LEGITIMATE. It was legitimate in the time of Aquinas even. But NOT IN…
But NOT IN OUR TIME as judged by the Magisterium! Vote Yes on 62, No on 66!
Okay, jon, let’s stroll down this path for a while. Suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that the DP in our time is always immoral even though it was moral in the past.
Assuming that, would you grant that circumstances could change in the future such that the DP could once again be necessary? As an extreme, let’s imagine a dystopian future in which Western civilization has collapsed, leaving barely functioning societies in the wake of their former nation states and a Wild West type of existence for many people, without benefit of reliable justice systems or prisons. In such a hypothetical future scenario, would you grant that the DP would be legitimate?
We’ve been here before Sawyer. I have addressed this more than once before. But in spite of the fact that you have not been paying attention and are obstinate, I will be merciful by directing you to the comment I made on August 25, 2016 at 7:18pm for the article “93 seminarians preparing” which appeared in August of this year in this here blog.
With that reply, jon, you confirm you are not here to pursue truth. You are here only to slam faithful Catholics. I invited you to dialogue in pursuit of truth, and you refused.
Yet you never direct your phony, arrogant Francismercy toward YFC’s unorthodox posts. Why not? Hmmm……
Your target is only and always faithful Catholics: Catholics who know the faith and uphold its traditional content.
On the contrary Sawyer, if you had read the comment to which I referred you, you will find that that previous comment directly answers your question. I have done the necessary legwork: all you’re being asked to do is to go back to the comment I had given which directly answered your query A WHILE BACK.
Now, about YFC, he has you folks to correct him. I am here to correct you folks.
My target is dissent and disobedience and irreverence, not faithful Catholics, for a true, traditional, and faithful Catholic is NOT dissentious, not disobedient, not irreverent.
Sawyer, it might be because I don’t post unorthodox things.
Jon,
The purpose of the death penalty is not the protection of society against an unjust aggressor. The purpose of the death penalty is pure retribution. A murderer who murders innocent human life deserves death. It is retribution. It is justice. To be killed for murder. Protecting society doesn’t matter when it comes to the death penalty. What matters is the punishment for the crime itself.
The nature of murder hasn’t changed. Our time is not any different from any other time when it comes to murder. The sin of murder is the same today as it was in the time of Cain, the time of Moses, the time of Augustine, and the time of Aquinas. Our time is no different. Murder is still murder.
Sorry Ashbury Fox but you’re totally WRONG! Read what St. John Paul II had to say about your very point:
“It is clear that, for the [purposes of punishment] to be achieved,the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and [the state] 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. —Evangelium Vitae 56.
I usually agree with everything said by Archbishop Cordileone, and I cannot say that about many other bishops in the States. However on this one I must respectfully disagree. I favor the death penalty, but not one that takes years, even decades to enforce. I favor a death penalty that is applied within six months after the close of trial – long enough for an automatic review by a court of appeals.
Even the martyrs didn’t demand the Romans give up the death penalty for being Christians.
Cardinal Ratzinger, letter on worthiness to receive communion:
“…it may still be permissible… to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about… applying the death penalty.”
It may be permissible means: it could be morally justified.
There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion means: Catholics can disagree with a pope’s or a bishop’s prudential judgment about the DP.
Notice that no bishop has said it is obligatory for Catholics to oppose the DP. That’s because it isn’t, although they would like you to believe it is.
They can urge and exhort abolition all they want, but they are advocating a foolish stance and are definitely not speaking the Word…
No maybes or diversity of opinion from Sts. Aquinas or Augustine on the Grand Prize.
WRONG! The use of the word “may” in CDF the document conveys the theoretical possibility, NOT PERMISSION! This is proven within the context of each of the sentences itself.
Look at the second sentence where “may” is used. If we adopt Sawyer’s flawed interpretation, it would mean that the CDF Letter means to give permission principally for non-Catholics and only as an afterthought “EVEN AMONG CATHOLICS”! TOTALLY WRONG!
Now look at the first sentence where “may” is used. “May still be permissible” indicates the possibility of permissibility contingent upon the existence of a “legitimate diversity of opinion”. The fact that the two sentences use the same verb shows their connection. Not all instances of war is…
permissible for instance (which is inferred by the phrase “repel an aggressor” and mentioned in the preceding clause) hence the use of the word “may.”
Folks, the position of the pro-death crowd literally hangs precariously on a weak thread, namely a flawed misinterpretation of the verb “may.” Vote yes on 62, NO on 66!
Abp Cordileone’s equivocation on the violence of murder and that of Capital Punishment reminds me of the old saw where one man pushes an old lady into the path of a bus and another man pushes an old lady out of the way of a bus. In anti-CP people’s world, both men are guilty of pushing old ladies around.
That is brilliant and funny!
Indeed. Was Bill Buckley’s take on CIA KGB moral equivalency.
Just wonderin’. When the bishops were becoming sensitized to the misfortunes in the lives of these deep spiritual yearners (while the rest of us were apparently comfortably and completely ignoring, well, everything), did the subject of the victims ever come up?
Hymie/Campion, haven’t you even read the bishops’ or the Holy Fathers’ statements supporting the abolition of the death penalty. It is precisely society and the victims’ and their kin who are also the concern of the Church. You must learn to think according to the mind of the Church, not against it.
They don’t care about the victims, Hymie. They pay lip service to victims in order to deflect criticism for the lack of prudence in their opposition to the death penalty. Concern for victims is on their lips but not in their hearts; if it were in their hearts they would not urge abolishing the death penalty.
How deluded you people are. The Church DOES NOT cater to people’s desire for revenge, retribution, vengeance and BLOODLUST! NEVER! Even in the most heinous of crimes the Church teaches mercy and a proportionate and just punishment which the death penalty in our time is not. And because the Church is leading people to these virtues, she most definitely CARES for the victims and their families more than these folks who are bent on bloodlust! How deluded to the ways of this world you people have become!
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/can-the-church-ban-capital-punishment
Yes on 66 for expedited justice.
No on 62 to affirm natural law and maintain a perennially valid instrument of administering justice.
And giving the CA Catholic bishops a loss on this for heir imprudent judgments would be icing on the cake.
Amazing how the same bishops who urge Catholics to vote to abolish capital punishment refuse to say that Catholics should not vote for pro-abortion, pro-SSM, pro-LGBTQWERTY Democrat politicians. Bizarro world.
FALSE! The death penalty is not a perennially valid instrument. This is not the traditional Catholic teaching on the death penalty. The traditional, perennial Catholic teaching is found in Catechism 2267: “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.”
Folks, the death penalty IS NOT the only way available today to defend society against an unjust aggressor. THerefore, in our time the death penalty is NOT valid. Vote YES on 62, NO on 66.