Oregon unborn victims bill loses Church backing over death penalty

[stumbler]

PORTLAND, Ore. (CNS) – Concerned about a possible expansion of the death penalty, Catholic leaders in Oregon have withdrawn their support for an unborn victims of violence bill in the state Legislature. In February, the Oregon Catholic Conference voiced conditional backing for the legislation, which would create separate criminal charges when an unborn child is killed or injured in crimes carried out against the mother. The support was contingent on an amendment which would ensure that the measure would not make the death penalty a more frequent sentencing option. But the conference withdrew its support after a House panel May 2 took up the unamended version. On May 12, the Oregon House of Representatives passed the legislation without the amendment. “The Oregon Catholic Conference must advise the House Judiciary Committee that it cannot support H.B. 2020 … with the inclusion of the death penalty as a sentencing option,” said a May 2 letter from conference director Bob Castagna to the House Judiciary Committee chairman.

---

Brief

 

[Richardols]

stumbler:

PORTLAND, Ore. (CNS) – Concerned about a possible expansion of the death penalty, Catholic leaders in Oregon have withdrawn their support for an unborn victims of violence bill in the state Legislature. In February, the Oregon Catholic Conference voiced conditional backing for the legislation, which would create separate criminal charges when an unborn child is killed or injured in crimes carried out against the mother. The support was contingent on an amendment which would ensure that the measure would not make the death penalty a more frequent sentencing option. But the conference withdrew its support after a House panel May 2 took up the unamended version. On May 12, the Oregon House of Representatives passed the legislation without the amendment. “The Oregon Catholic Conference must advise the House Judiciary Committee that it cannot support H.B. 2020 … with the inclusion of the death penalty as a sentencing option,” said a May 2 letter from conference director Bob Castagna to the House Judiciary Committee chairman.

Good. Going along with the added death penalty option would be giving support to the Culture of Death.

 

[jlw]

Hmmmm. Maybe.

I just think that the death penalty is penuts compared to 4000 dead babies a day. The Unborn Victims of Violence is a MAJOR step in getting people to view the unborn as persons.

If it means that the amendment regarding the death penaly nees to be dropped, so be it. This UVOV Bill must pass!!

 

[Lisa_N]

Richardols:

Good. Going along with the added death penalty option would be giving support to the Culture of Death.

Yeah sure would. Heck in the last TWENTY YEARS we’ve executed exactly ONE convict because HE requested no further appeal. But in the meantime in the state of Oregon the NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH IS ABORTION…who cares about that, right? We’ll keep killers from even the threat of execution while ignoring the deaths of innocents.

Lisa N (call me beyond disgusted)

 

[jlw]

Lisa N:

Yeah sure would. Heck in the last TWENTY YEARS we’ve executed exactly ONE convict because HE requested no further appeal. But in the meantime in the state of Oregon the NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH IS ABORTION…who cares about that, right? We’ll keep killers from even the threat of execution while ignoring the deaths of innocents.

Lisa N (call me beyond disgusted)

I second that emotion.

 

[jimmy]

Lisa N:

Yeah sure would. Heck in the last TWENTY YEARS we’ve executed exactly ONE convict because HE requested no further appeal. But in the meantime in the state of Oregon the NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH IS ABORTION…who cares about that, right? We’ll keep killers from even the threat of execution while ignoring the deaths of innocents.

Lisa N (call me beyond disgusted)

I third

 

[mikworld]

I cannot agree witht the above statements…pretty much because Catholic beliefs don’t agree. Evil begotten by evil is evil, not good. The church isn’t about to support giving someone the death penalty for killing a pregnant mother, no matter how evil it is. The culture of life will not compromise itself.
The Oregon Church isn’t ignoring the thousands of unborn dead babies, it is honoring them by respecting all of the culture of life, including the lives of those who commit heinous crimes.
God Bless,

Justin

 

[edmundkarol]

mikworld:

The culture of life will not compromise itself.
The Oregon Church isn’t ignoring the thousands of unborn dead babies, it is honoring them by respecting all of the culture of life, including the lives of those who commit heinous crimes.

I agree. The Pro-Life culture simply cannot compromise with the Culture of Death by tolerating the death penalty. Even though the Pope allowed that the death penalty under narrow, narrow circumstances is still tolerable today, his message was that it should not be used except under those circumstances.

Allowing the death penalty in the case of fetal homicide would not be one of those narrow circumstances.

I think the Conference was absolutely correct in its decision.

 

[Lisa_N]

edmundkarol:

I agree. The Pro-Life culture simply cannot compromise with the Culture of Death by tolerating the death penalty. Even though the Pope allowed that the death penalty under narrow, narrow circumstances is still tolerable today, his message was that it should not be used except under those circumstances.

Allowing the death penalty in the case of fetal homicide would not be one of those narrow circumstances.

I think the Conference was absolutely correct in its decision.

So while in reality the death penalty is NOT used in this state, it is more important to prevent the POSSIBILITY of its use in the case of unborn babies, while simultaneously ignoring what IS happening (no possiblities it IS happening) that Oregon’s pro death agenda has made unborn babies dispensible via abortion. Were this law passed, the recognition of unborn babies as HUMAN might work to restrict abortion. But gosh we can’t compromise on what never happens anyway.

I love theory overcoming fact but we can remain smug in our adherence to policy while thousands die. Sheesh.

OK I see your priorities.

Lisa N

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Gnats and *Camels *come to mind.

 

[Fitz]

jlw:

Hmmmm. Maybe.

I just think that the death penalty is penuts compared to 4000 dead babies a day. The Unborn Victims of Violence is a MAJOR step in getting people to view the unborn as persons.

If it means that the amendment regarding the death penaly nees to be dropped, so be it. This UVOV Bill must pass!!

I think you are right. I wonder what they could have been thinking. It is all liberal nonsense.

 

[otm]

Lisa N:

So while in reality the death penalty is NOT used in this state, it is more important to prevent the POSSIBILITY of its use in the case of unborn babies, while simultaneously ignoring what IS happening (no possiblities it IS happening) that Oregon’s pro death agenda has made unborn babies dispensible via abortion. Were this law passed, the recognition of unborn babies as HUMAN might work to restrict abortion. But gosh we can’t compromise on what never happens anyway.

I love theory overcoming fact but we can remain smug in our adherence to policy while thousands die. Sheesh.

OK I see your priorities.

Lisa N

If you think the death penalty is not in use in this state, you might trot yourself down to OSP and take a gander at the death penalty inmates; you might chat with them and tell them how the death penalty is not in use here. I am sure they would like your kind analysis of the state of the law in Oregon, as they await their sentance and sweat out the appeals process.

Amazingly, the judges, attorneys, guards, prison warden, and even the Governor himself seem to think it is very much in use.

You are also mixing your issues. The sole issue with this bill was creating a crime (and therefore a penalty) for causing the death of a child in the womb by means other than a direct clinical abortion. While the legal recognition of rights of the child in the womb would most likely eventually lead to other legislation related to abortions, it would have no immediate legal impact on abortions. Failure to understand that leads to frustration by those who see it as ignoring the abortions that go on; a position that has no logical connection. If you think that Castgna or Archbishop Vlazny are ignoring abortions, you would appear to not be reading the Sentinal, which has had numerous articles on their positions and activities in the pro-life area. I am sure they would invite at least a letter, or an email inquiring as to why they have taken the position on the bill with a death penalty provision.

Your reaction shows no logical connection between the bill and abortions in general; it is an emotional reaction showing little or no understanding of the legal realities of abortion laws, flies in the face of repeated evidence of the positions by both Castagna and Vlazny, and shows little appreciation for what would happen should the Church back the bill - they would immediately be called two-faced about life issues. Expediency is a poor means of living out the call of the Gospel to respect life. Their withdrawl or support is consistent with the Gospels, with the legacy of John Paul 2 and with the pro-life movement.

 

[otm]

Gnats and *Camels *come to mind.

Nice try. Stop and think what the press would do to the Church for backing a death penalty bill; they would have a field day. And given that most of the reporters tend toward agnosticism, and are so uneducated about the Church that they almost never get it right, and given the venom that they are capable of, I think that consistency in ethics is to be followed.

In fact, I think consistency in ethics is to be followed even if the press were more pro - Catholic than, say, the National Catholic Register. We are called to a consistent ethic of life; what you seem to propose borders on situational ethics. We have had enough of that with dissident Catholics; we don’t need further infection of it.

 

[otm]

Fitz:

I think you are right. I wonder what they could have been thinking. It is all liberal nonsense.

Right. And John Paul 2 was a nonsensical liberal.

 

[otm]

Some of you seem to feel that you are very well educated about morality. The comments in this thread would indicate you all need to go back and take Introduction to Ethics - preferrably a course that is taught with due deference to the Magisterium.

What is being proposed can be put in simple terms. You are saying the end justifies the means.

Nice try, but you get an “F” on this test.

 

[Lisa_N]

otm:

Some of you seem to feel that you are very well educated about morality. The comments in this thread would indicate you all need to go back and take Introduction to Ethics - preferrably a course that is taught with due deference to the Magisterium.

What is being proposed can be put in simple terms. You are saying the end justifies the means.

Nice try, but you get an “F” on this test.

My heavens, I just read your series of posts. I guess all of us dumb schmucks have been put in our place.

Lisa N

 

[mikworld]

Whoa there my fellow board members. Let us remember charity, as nasty posts back and forth don’t do much good.
If we keep this at a conversation, and not a shouting match, then perhaps the board administrators will keep this post open for discussion…
We can disagree, but lets do it in a respectable fashion.
God Bless,

Justin

 

[David_Paul]

otm:

what would happen should the Church back the bill - they would immediately be called two-faced about life issues.

Would be called? When is the Church not called two-faced on those issues?

What this means is Catholics can never support any bill which may result in a death penalty.

Great way to eliminate a bothersome, to some, group of people from the political process.

 

[Lisa_N]

otm:

If you think the death penalty is not in use in this state, you might trot yourself down to OSP and take a gander at the death penalty inmates; you might chat with them and tell them how the death penalty is not in use here. I am sure they would like your kind analysis of the state of the law in Oregon, as they await their sentance and sweat out the appeals process.

Amazingly, the judges, attorneys, guards, prison warden, and even the Governor himself seem to think it is very much in use…

There is a big difference between a law on the books and a law actually carried out. Again, we’ve had the death penalty for some twenty years after a hiatus where it had been abolished but only one convict has been executed and he demanded it, refusing to cooperate with his appeals. Had he not demanded the sentence be carried out (and that was after decades on death row) he would be alive today.

I appreciate your desire to make us sympathize with the poor convicts who have to assist their free attorneys try to save their lives but frankly I don’t think their hardship is unwarrented vis a vis their crimes.

otm:

You are also mixing your issues. The sole issue with this bill was creating a crime (and therefore a penalty) for causing the death of a child in the womb by means other than a direct clinical abortion…

So you think it preferable that a person who kills an unborn child not be charged with a crime? I think that killing a child in the womb is killing a person. However our current law does not deem it such. So presumably a man beats up a pregnant woman, causing the death of the unborn baby. That he is not charged with murder is more of a ‘pro life’ answer than the remote possibility of a future death sentence with an even more remote possibility of such sentence being carried out?

otm:

While the legal recognition of rights of the child in the womb would most likely eventually lead to other legislation related to abortions, it would have no immediate legal impact on abortions. Failure to understand that leads to frustration by those who see it as ignoring the abortions that go on; a position that has no logical connection. If you think that Castgna or Archbishop Vlazny are ignoring abortions, you would appear to not be reading the Sentinal, which has had numerous articles on their positions and activities in the pro-life area. I am sure they would invite at least a letter, or an email inquiring as to why they have taken the position on the bill with a death penalty provision…

Well actually I do read the Sentinel and quite honestly there is very little about prolife activities. That is frankly one of the great frustrations of local parishes with a respect life committee. At one point a priest was charged with organizing and supporting parish prolife work but he was moved to Medford I believe and has not been replaced.

While I have no doubt of the Bishop’s position on prolife causes, I don’t see much ACTION, nor much speaking out on this issue. Admittedly with the abuse scandal and the bankruptcy, they have a lot on their plate.

otm:

Your reaction shows no logical connection between the bill and abortions in general; it is an emotional reaction showing little or no understanding of the legal realities of abortion laws, flies in the face of repeated evidence of the positions by both Castagna and Vlazny, and shows little appreciation for what would happen should the Church back the bill - they would immediately be called two-faced about life issues. Expediency is a poor means of living out the call of the Gospel to respect life. Their withdrawl or support is consistent with the Gospels, with the legacy of John Paul 2 and with the pro-life movement.

Actually I DO understand the legislation and that’s why it’s obvious that it was a no win situation. They could not enact a law to call the killing of unborn babies murder, and simultaneously say that in the case of THIS murder, the death penalty would not apply. That law could be overturned easily as unconstitutional. The reality is that if killing an unborn child is murder, then the penalty for that murder must mirror the penalty for any other murder.

In effect by opposing this legislation they are also being two faced. Killing the unborn is murder. But their position seems to indicate they do not believe it is murder. How can that be?

Lisa N

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Lisa N:

In effect by opposing this legislation they are also being two faced. Killing the unborn is murder. But their position seems to indicate they do not believe it is murder. How can that be?

Sorry, but wait. Can’t that be turned? Killing secured prisoners without compulsion is murder, even if the state does it… but your position seems to indicate that *you *do not believe it is murder?

Archbishop Vlazny is unequivocal in his stand against abortion. You could walk in his office and kill both him and fifteen pregnant women and their unborn children, though, and he would say it is unethical to impose the death penalty. When he supports the Church’s stand on the death penalty, he means it.

It is no good to support putting a law on the books and say, “Oh, yeah, but they’ll never enforce it.” Maybe not, but no thanks to you! If it is an immoral law, a Catholic shouldn’t back it, even if it serves as the means to further a critically important moral end.

The Oregon Catholic Conference is not saying they won’t support the bill. They’re saying they won’t support it in its present form, they are very specific as to why they won’t support it, and their reasons are based on serious moral teachings of the Church. They are doing the right thing.