A group of Catholic bishops will visit San Quentin Prison’s death row inmates on Tuesday as inmates await transfer to other facilities in light of California’s moratorium on executions.
The visit is “simply extending a pastoral presence to those whose lives are on the line and on a time clock,” Bishop Oscar Cantú of San Jose told CNA March 6.
Cantú is scheduled to visit the prison with Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento, and Bishop Michael Barber of Oakland. The California Catholic Conference organized the March 7 visit.
In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom imposed a moratorium on executions and ordered the closure of the execution chamber at San Quentin Prison, the Marin County facility near San Francisco that dates back to the 19th century.
Though the death row inmates have “committed some heinous crimes,” Cantú said, “we recognize that human dignity does not disappear when one commits a crime,” even if sometimes that dignity is “marred and scarred.”
“We know from our theology, our Catholic theology of grace, that God’s grace is available until the moment of death. We’re simply practicing and following up in a very practical way on that theology of grace,” the bishop said.
Full story at Catholic News Agency.
Bishop Cantù’s catty attack on Newsom is rich…
The death penalty is not the solution to alleviate the crime rate, wars, violence in society, and so on. It is not. Those who think that the death penalty is the solution to such things are very mistaken. Murders and violence in society are not stopped by killing another human being.
Two take-home quotes from the CNA article. The first is from Cordileone: “Capital punishment is not a cure for the suffering and turmoil inflicted by violent crime; the restorative healing of victims and their families to the extent possible is an essential part of justice.” How very true. Justice is not found in bloodlust nor vengeance. The death penalty becomes vengeance and bloodlust when a prisoner is execute while there are other ways to protect society short of killing him.
And so the second take-home quote is from Cantu: “In modern-day society we can protect ourselves from dangerous criminals, so the death penalty becomes unnecessary.” As John Paul II rightly judged, through achievements in the penal system, we can certainly protect ourselves today from criminals without having to execute them. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
Sure.
And we know how Newsom respects life.
“Justice is not found in bloodlust nor vengeance” As I have argued earlier, this has nothing to do with the traditional support of the death penalty for most of the Church’s existence. Can you imagine the Church basing its support of the death penalty on a desire for bloodlust and vengeance?
Wrong analysis from “Dan.” Who ever said that in the past “the Church based its support of the death penalty on a desire for bloodlust and vengeance?” That’s not the basis for the Church’s past support for the death penalty. Plus, nobody ever said that. This is a red-herring from “Dan.” The truth is that the death penalty, if used today, while there are other means to protect society short of killing the criminal, becomes bloodlust and vengeance.
Wouldn’t it be something if these same bishops gathered gathered outsid a leading Planed Parrenthood facility and pray for those unborn babies and their mothers? That would light a pro-life fire across the stat of California!
It is good that bishops and priests do this.
That said, there are some questions. Bishop Cantu said “Pope Francis just closed the door on it. In modern-day society we can protect ourselves from dangerous criminals, so the death penalty becomes unnecessary.” It is true that, in our country, we have a penal system that could incarcerate a dangerous person in a prison indefinitely with virtually no chance of escape and danger to the public.
That said, what is to be done when we have a judicial system that releases dangerous criminals back into society at large? That question was brought to the Vatican’s attention years ago. And, as I understand, to date, no answer has been given.
Also, what of some less developed nations and places without such secure prison facilities? (Think of Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan, for a few examples.).
Please do not misunderstand. I oppose the death penalty and have been criticized for that (as I have been for opposing abortion and so-called “gay marriage”).
Yet, those questions are legitimate.
Also, in this case, while I appreciate Bishop Cantu’s concern for victims as well as criminals, why did he appoint a president of the diocesan high school (Archbishop Mitty High School) who advocates for the killing of unborn babies and the violation of their mothers?
On the face of it, both issues raised (the judicial system and the prison systems in other parts of the world) do not seem strong nor legitimate. The solution to any deficient judicial system that doesn’t protect society is still the ballot box, not the death penalty. The electorate’s choice of judges, governors, president on Election Day reflect the society’s priorities and values. Elections have consequences, sadly. It is an illegitimate argument to say that because the people elected these judges and politicians who may or may not have weakened our judicial system, therefore we should bring back the death penalty.
Secondly, the main issue in the prison systems in countries such as Somalia and the Sudan is not principally prison security. The main difficulty they have is the abhorrent and inhumane conditions in their prisons. Lack of sanitary and medical assistance, overcrowding, and abuse are just some of the issues. Again, when the Church speaks out on the dignity of the life of the incarcerated, she is also calling the governments of these nations to do something about the living situation in its prisons. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
1) “It is an illegitimate argument to say that because the people elected these judges and politicians who may or may not have weakened our judicial system, therefore we should bring back the death penalty.”….then how does a society protect its members from dangerous criminals it releases?
2) “when the Church speaks out on the dignity of the life of the incarcerated, she is also calling the governments of these nations to do something about the living situation in its prisons.”….what “other ways” does the Church expect governments to implement that do not have “achievements in the penal system”?
Since you replied to me, I do respect life. And, the issues/questions raised are legitimate. jon, why can’t the Vatican respond to questions raised by bishops years ago? I see your response. I think the Vatican is capable of a response. Such a response would help us better explain our opposition to the death penalty in our homilies and teachings. Catholic lay faithful are not ignorant. People are looking for answers to questions. When asked about judicial systems that release dangerous criminals back into society, what am I supposed to say, “Twenty years ago the Vatican was asked about this and they’re still trying to figure out a reply?” Cardinal Avery Dulles raised several dubia/questions about this and been ignored. He died at the end of 2008 and is no longer awaiting an answer. I think he and other bishops who raise formal/official questions with the Vatican deserve to be addressed.
Again, we agree on our opposition to capital punishment. But, deficiencies in the thoroughness of previous thought/arguments/opinions/statements on the matter should be addressed.
Avery Dulles wrote in favor of the death penalty in 2001 stating then that it “does more harm than good.” Not all questions to the Holy See need to be addressed because not all questions to the Holy See are valid. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
jon, I actually expected more of you than your canned soundbite: “Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life..” If you read what I wrote, you know that I do. And, the bishop of Rome should answer his brother bishops when they (officially and respectfully) ask questions. What qualifies you to decide which questions from bishops are valid? Cardinals Dulles, Burke, and Meisner, among others, may actually know more about these matters than you or I do. Might I tell you, as you’ve told me, listen to the magisterium? The magisterium refers to those who exercise the Church’s teaching authority—in other words, to the pope and the bishops teaching in union with him. Collectively, they are referred to as the “Magisterium.” The magisterium includes the bishops. We’re not a monarchy, except for Christ the King.
Not quite sure what you are trying to say but Cardinal Dulles was not a bishop.
I stand corrected on that point. Thank you. Burke, Meisner and others, like almost all Cardinals, are bishops. Cardinal Newman and Cardinals Dulles, Cantalamessa and a few others are not bishops.
Both of you are misrepresenting and mischaracterizing what Cardinal Dulles wrote in 2001. He said:
“The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.”
I know of no instance where Cardinal Dulles raised questions and was ignored.
Just for the record: “Cardinal” actually quotes from Dulles what I had already quoted in my previous comment: namely that Dulles found the death penalty “does more harm than good,” thereby proving my point and thereby making “Cardinal’s” point that I had “misrepresented” Dulles false.
As for “anonymous'” point, if there were indeed such a question posed to the Holy See twenty years ago (the veracity of which has not been proven here by the way: we don’t even know what the exact question was or who posed it), it is likely the non-response is because the question was invalid or irrelevant. And frankly, reading “anonymous’” description of the alleged question, I can certainly understand why no response has been forthcoming. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
“jon” Respect other posters’ opinions. Leave the soliloquies to Shakespeare.
There’s nothing disrespectful about my posts. The editors are doing their job. I am sure that if there’s any disrespect in any posts here, the editors wouldn’t publish it. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
What?
Disrespectful comments are posted all the time.
“jon” – I note that other posters here have the humility to “stand corrected”, to respectfully disagree, and to refrain from pompous self-aggrandizement and denunciatory tones. Peace.
“It cannot be over emphasized that the right to life must be recognized in all its fullness…In this context I joyfully greet the initiative by which Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2005, and the recent measures adopted by some Mexican states to protect human life from its beginnings. These resolute moves in such a fundamental question should be an emblem of your homeland, one of which it can be justly proud”. (Pope Benedict XVI to the new Mexican ambassador to the Holy See on July 10, 2009). Listen to the living Magisterium! Respect life!
Jon’s posts are ok. Defending the Church’s teachings is much appreciated.
Your sentence may have read differently especially “then”. Was “then” in 2001 or was “then” later in the essay.
I also think that he opposed the use of the death penalty without denying the state’s right to use it.
“Saint John Paul II stated clearly and firmly that the death penalty is inadequate from a moral standpoint and no longer necessary from that of penal justice. There can be no stepping back from this position. Today we state clearly that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible’ and the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide.” (Pope Francis, Encyclical “Fratelli Tutti,” 263). Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
You have to do more than just listen.
Indeed you have to do more than just listen. You have to also do the second sentence: Respect life.
There is a lot more to being Catholic than just respecting life.
Like what?
Worshipping God, treating others how you want to be treated, helping the poor, burying the dead, feeding the hungry, praying for the living and the dead, overlooking wrongdoing, sheltering the homeless, forgiving injuries, loving enemies, adoring the Blessed Sacrament, staying married to your first spouse until death, educating your children in the faith, contributing to the Church, fasting on a few days a year, harboring the harborless…
There are big lists of things you cannot do too.
The majority of what you listed pertains to one’s relationship with one’s neighbor: respecting their human dignity. Rejection of the death penalty pertains to honoring the dignity of those in prison. Even worshipping God, which you list first is only acceptable to Him if one is in a right-relationship with one’s neighbor (Matthew 5:23), when one is respecting their human dignity. As your own list demonstrates, there is a lot to being Catholic that involves respecting life. Therefore, listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
I wonder why questions about the death penalty always seem to revolve around how to protect society from an escapee, yet never seems to address questions about how to protect the falsely accused who are put to death or incarcerated by a less than perfect judicial system. Seems to me there are more unjustly incarcerated individuals than escapees.
The other question never addressed is why do we spend so much time litigating death row cases that we have fewer resources to prosecute other criminals. This too creates harms for society that are never addressed by defenders of the death penalty.
The question of judges, bureaucrats and others releasing dangerous criminals back into society is a legitimate public safety concern.
The Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles just commuted the sentences of 44 murderers, making them eligible for earlier release.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/families-connecticut-victims-outraged-state-commutes-44-murder-sentences-outrageous
If you’re in favor of releasing murderers, I hope you’re also in favor of law-abiding citizens being able to own firearms to protect their families.
I oppose the death penalty, as does the Vatican. Would the Vatican approve of violent criminals being released in their city-state?
“I would like to emphasize the importance of reflecting on the need for a criminal justice system that is not exclusively punitive, but open to hope and the prospect of reintegrating the offender into society. In a special way, I submit for the consideration of the competent civil authorities of every country the possibility that, in this Holy Year of Mercy, an act of clemency be carried out for those prisoners who are held to be eligible to benefit from such a provision.” (Pope Francis, Angelus Message, Saint Peter’s Square, Sunday, 6 November 2016). Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life.
That article had very little information about the criminals. It was about how families feel about the commutations so it is very hard to evaluate.
Who among us is in favor of releasing murderers? The question as far as I can tell is whether the death penalty is just, not whether incarceration is just.
The number of people in jail for murder could indicate that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder.
Since very few people sentenced to death are actually killed, it might indicate society’s unwillingness to kill another person.
On the other hand …