California bishops call for end of use of death penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter yosephdaviyd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

yosephdaviyd

Guest
California bishops call for end of use of death penalty
September 29, 2010

A day before the scheduled execution of Albert Greenwood Brown for a 1980 murder, the bishops of California called for an end to the use of the death penalty in the state.

“We recognize that human beings can and do commit grievous crimes, but we reject the use of the death penalty-- especially when we can protect society with an alternate penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole,” the bishops said. “In addition, of particular concern to us is the fact that the application of the death penalty is deeply flawed-- with those who are poor or from racial minorities most often its subjects.”

businesswire.com/news/home/20100928007180/en/California-Catholic-Conference-Statement-Death-Penalty-California

**Here is an article that I wrote a few weeks about the Death Penalty and I reject it’s use from a Christ-centered perspective:
associatedcontent.com/article/5786442/three_reasons_why_capital_punishment.html?cat=34
**
 
"The Catholic bishops of California, just two days prior to a scheduled execution at San Quentin State Prison, this week called for a moratorium on use of the death penalty in the state in order to evaluate whether its use “serves the common good and safeguards the dignity of human life.”

The bishops said they are convinced it does not, and in a statement they implored all Californians “to ask themselves what good comes of state-sanctioned killing.”

The bishops spoke as the California Catholic Conference, representing the state’s 12 dioceses and 11 million Catholic faithful, reaffirmed its opposition to the death penalty and asked for clemency for any individual on death row.

The statement by Bishop Gerald Wilkerson, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and CCC president, was issued as lawyers for the state and condemned killer Albert Greenwood Brown sought eleventh-hour court orders that would either allow or postpone Brown’s scheduled execution Thursday at 9 p.m."

catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=22&id=57669
 
Would the bishops authorize an election rally at their local cathedral for rabid pro-capital punishment politicians running for re-election ? I think we should ask them.

Ishii
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
"The Catholic bishops of California, just two days prior to a scheduled execution at San Quentin State Prison, this week called for a moratorium on use of the death penalty in the state in order to evaluate whether its use “serves the common good and safeguards the dignity of human life.”
Click to expand...
What an astonishing admission: the bishops want a moratorium on the use of capital punishment while they study the Church’s teaching on human dignity. Are they so unfamiliar with what the Church teaches they believe the State should cease its business in this area while they bring themselves up to speed?

This comment was included in the article you cited:

“The Catholic Church believes, however, that capital punishment not only diminishes respect for human life but is unnecessary while there is the alternative penalty of life imprisonment without parole.”

This I believe was JPII’s opinion when he wrote in Evangelium Vitae what would eventually become CCC 2267: capital punishment diminishes *respect *for human life. It is important to note that this is not at all the same as claiming that capital punishment diminishes the *value *of human life, only that it affects others perceptions of it. If he is right then one could validly argue that a lot of the problem lies with the Church for failing to clarify her teaching on punishment in general and capital punishment in particular.

Nor is it correct to claim that this is what the Church believes. It was certainly what JPII believed, and while that opinion may have been shared by the Magisterium, it is assuredly not Church doctrine. It is a comment on current society.

Ender
 
September 28, 2010 03:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
**California Catholic Conference Statement on Ending the Use of the Death Penalty in California **

SAN FRANCISCO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Most Reverend Gerald Wilkerson, Auxiliary Bishop for the San Fernando Pastoral Region of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and President of the California Catholic Conference, released the following statement today expressing strong support for an end to the use of the death penalty in California and asking for clemency for any individual scheduled for execution.

The California Catholic Conference strongly supports an end to use of the death penalty and affirms the 2005 statement from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, which launched the U.S. Bishops Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty.

In light of the fact that California has scheduled the September 29, 2010 execution of Albert Greenwood Brown for the rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl, Susan Jordan, in 1980, we implore all Californians to ask themselves what good comes of state-sanctioned killing. We recognize the profound pain of those who lost a loved one to violence and offer them our prayers and our consolation. However, nothing can undo what was done — even taking the life of the convicted killer. The infliction of the death penalty does not make for a more just society.

As Catholic bishops, we teach and preach the Gospel vision of a “culture of life.” We believe that each human person is created in God’s image. We are compelled to teach a consistent ethic of life and to speak publicly that the use of the death penalty does not protect human life, does not promote human dignity, and does not reduce violence in our society.

We recognize that human beings can and do commit grievous crimes, but we reject the use of the death penalty — especially when we can protect society with an alternate penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In addition, of particular concern to us is the fact that the application of the death penalty is deeply flawed — with those who are poor or from racial minorities most often its subjects.

At this moment in time, we entreat Californians to ponder carefully whether the use of the death penalty makes our society safer. A moratorium is needed to evaluate whether the death penalty serves the common good and safeguards the dignity of human life. We are convinced that it does not.
 
An abortion is a legal execution of a baby.

What are the bishops prepared to do to halt abortions immediately?
 
Opposition to capital punishment is not mandated by Catholic doctrine. Personally, I oppose it, but only because Pope JPII was pretty clear in his opposition to it, so I oppose it out of respect for him, and for that reason alone. But there is a problem with all of this opposition. It has always been the teaching of the Church (and JPII recognizes it) that capital punishment may be justified if it’s the only way to protect the innocent. JPII felt that today the innocent could be protected adequately with, e.g., imprisonment.

But we also know that killers kill again in prison. Some can order executions on the outside as well, and they’re carried out. So, can the innocent really be protected by imprisonment of the killers? It doesn’t seem so unless, say, all prisons were “supermax” type prisons, which would require a lot more investment in the prison system than this society seems willing or able to provide.

So what’s the answer? Is it to politically support spending more resources on prisons, to bring them up to the “supermax” level of effectiveness? It seems so, and it might be the case in some countries. After all, the Pope wasn’t directing his comment at the U.S. specifically. But one has to accept it that there really isn’t much of a political will, let alone “movement” to improve prison security. Failing that, it sometimes does not seem there is any truly effective way to keep the killers from killing for sure except to execute them.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
An abortion is a legal execution of a baby.

What are the bishops prepared to do to halt abortions immediately?
Click to expand...
Prepared to do? The bishops gave a platform to none other Barbara “partial birth abortion” Boxer on the grounds of the L.A. cathedral, along with other abortion rights Democrats. I don’t take the bishops in L.A. or Seattle seriously at all.

Ishii
 
I think folks here should stick with the issue of the bishops coming out against an execution. If you want to discuss the oft-mentioned topic of abortion, start a thread.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It has always been the teaching of the Church (and JPII recognizes it) that capital punishment may be justified if it’s the only way to protect the innocent.
Click to expand...
I understand that this is what 2267 says but the problem is that it isn’t true; it has never been Church teaching that capital punishment is justified by its need to protect society. Although the Church recognizes that punishment has four aims, it is the primary objective that justifies the punishment chosen - and the protection of society is a secondary objective. The primary objective is retributive justice. A punishment doesn’t always need to protect but it does always need to be just.

Ender
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
I think folks here should stick with the issue of the bishops coming out against an execution. If you want to discuss the oft-mentioned topic of abortion, start a thread.
Click to expand...
The two issues are related. I am merely showing that you can’t take these particular bishops seriously on the issue of the sanctity of life. They talk big when it comes to the sanctity of life as it relates to capital punishment, but when it comes to sponsoring rallies for pro-abortion rights people like Boxer, they throw out the welcome mat. I don’t take them seriously.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
The two issues are related. I am merely showing that you can’t take these particular bishops seriously on the issue of the sanctity of life.
Click to expand...
**
Nonsense.** Just state if they are correct as to state-sponsored killing of convicts. After that one can bring up any subject one desires.

As any philosopher will tell you, the truth is the truth no matter who speaks it. So first one must deal with the accuracy of what the bishops say. Then you can riff on Barbara Boxer or whomever.
 
ishii said:
I don’t take the bishops in L.A. or Seattle seriously at all.
Click to expand...
We have a new archbishop here in Seattle:

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012914184_archbishop17m.html

We were all praying for an orthodox Bishop who would take abortion, gay marriage, and other important issues seriously. I haven’t had too much time to dig deeply, but so far Bishop Peter Sartain looks reasonable. He has some good press from the pro-life movement.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012911.html
prolifeaction.org/hotline/2010/sartain/#more-9223
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10091610.html

And I’m sure Beau gets a kick out of it, since he came from the Chicago area. No doubt he met him. So Beau can add to this. Is he a strongly against abortion and gay marriage? Or is he as wishy-washy as our past bishop?

We pray that he is not.
 
Suudy said:
And I’m sure Beau gets a kick out of it, since he came from the Chicago area. No doubt he met him. So Beau can add to this. Is he a strongly against abortion and gay marriage? Or is he as wishy-washy as our past bishop?
Click to expand...
Bishops I’ve known in Chicago have gone on to head the Atlanta diocese, one (who led my college Newman Center) was in hot water leading a diocese outside of St. Louis and one is still head of a legal clinic that does a lot of divorces. So, no, I’m not familiar with any one posted to Seattle. I wish him well.
 
Ender said:
Nor is it correct to claim that this is what the Church believes. It was certainly what JPII believed, and while that opinion may have been shared by the Magisterium, it is assuredly not Church doctrine. It is a comment on current society.
Click to expand...
If it makes it into the Catechism, is part of Magisterial teaching, and has been declared by the Pope, I think that’s good enough endorsement to consider it Church teaching.

Yes, you are correct to say that it is not Catholic Church Doctrine because we are all aware of the Church’s acceptance of capital punishment under extreme and limited circumstances. It, however, is not the exception to the rule that is the rule.
 
Suudy said:
We have a new archbishop here in Seattle:

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012914184_archbishop17m.html

We were all praying for an orthodox Bishop who would take abortion, gay marriage, and other important issues seriously. I haven’t had too much time to dig deeply, but so far Bishop Peter Sartain looks reasonable. He has some good press from the pro-life movement.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012911.html
prolifeaction.org/hotline/2010/sartain/#more-9223
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10091610.html

And I’m sure Beau gets a kick out of it, since he came from the Chicago area. No doubt he met him. So Beau can add to this. Is he a strongly against abortion and gay marriage? Or is he as wishy-washy as our past bishop?

We pray that he is not.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have hope that things will change with the new archbishop in Seattle. When the Seattle Archdiocese invited a “catholic” Democrat Abortion rights governor to a conference, I wrote to the archdiocese to protest. The reply I received was, “the conference isn’t about abortion, Gov. Gregoire is an expert on these issues, blah blah blah”. I then wrote the archbishop, and he replied: the governor is an expert, blah blah blah. I didn’t take the time to write the bishops in L.A. because the answer would be, “Boxer stands up for the poor, blah blah blah” Now the bishops in L.A. are speaking out against capital punishment - in favor of protecting the life of serial killers. Yet they give a platform to those who advocate legalized infanticide (Boxer). So, I don’t take them seriously on the issue of the sanctity of life. And that is a point that is appropriate to bring up on this thread, contrary to those who would rather limit all thread comments to strictly the capital punishment issue.

Ishii
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
**
Nonsense.** Just state if they are correct as to state-sponsored killing of convicts. After that one can bring up any subject one desires.

As any philosopher will tell you, the truth is the truth no matter who speaks it. So first one must deal with the accuracy of what the bishops say. Then you can riff on Barbara Boxer or whomever.
Click to expand...
So … which crime(s) have babies-in-the-womb been convicted of that makes them frequent victims of capital punishment?

Or … how about this: from now on, any woman desiring to carry out the execution of her baby and/or any doctor seeking to carry out the execution of a baby, MUST bring criminal charges against the baby AND become the plaintiff/prosecutor in a trial by jury. If the baby is found guilty and judged to be a convict, then the baby could be executed.

At that point, the baby convict would constitute a victim class and be subject to the various interested parties protesting the legally mandated execution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top