Oregon unborn victims bill loses Church backing over death penalty

[Lisa_N]

BLB_Oregon:

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?.

The Church does not completely disavow the death penalty does it? It is indeed limited to certain very narrow circumstances. However this is not an intrinsic evil like abortion. So killing secured prisoners is not always murder even under the Church’s limited guidelines.

FWIW I don’t believe in the death penalty.

BLB_Oregon:

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…

I did not deny that Archbishop Vlazny is against abortion. However you cannot equate abortion, an intrisic evil, and the death penalty that even the late Pope John Paul II supported in some very limited cases.

BLB_Oregon:

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…

I expect people to live in the real world even if churchmen. The real world now is that if a man batters a woman and kills her unborn baby, that crime will go unpunished. Is that not immoral as well? An unborn child has no standing under our current laws and that is completely against church teaching. Unfortunately this is one of those ‘rock and a hard place’ situations where there is no good answer.

BLB_Oregon:

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.

Another rock and a hard place situation though. They can’t support it in its current form but if the bill were changed to suit the OCC, and provide that the Unborn Victims’ murder will never result in the death penalty it would not stand at ALL.

I see this as the death penalty being equated with the murder of innocents and I see the Bishops taking the part of protecting the guilty and allowing the innocents’ murder to go unpunished. They may be unable to do otherwise but it is a very unfortunate position to take.

Lisa N

 

[Fitz]

otm:

Right. And John Paul 2 was a nonsensical liberal.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I respected and loved Pope John Paul II. I don’t think we can put abortion and the death penalty into the same bill. I think we always need to keep the option of the death penalty for sometimes it is necessary. I don’t think it should be rampant, but it needs to remain an option.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Lisa N:

The Church does not completely disavow the death penalty does it? It is indeed limited to certain very narrow circumstances. …
I see this as the death penalty being equated with the murder of innocents and I see the Bishops taking the part of protecting the guilty and allowing the innocents’ murder to go unpunished. They may be unable to do otherwise but it is a very unfortunate position to take.

Under the current and foreseeable circumstances in our state, this bill does not meet those narrow circumstances–that is, we can secure prisoners so as to prevent further murders. So yes, the Church disavows the death penalty in our case.

The Church is not willing to take an immoral stand in order to achieve a moral one. Besides, this bill does not prevent abortion. You can’t attack a woman and in the process kill her unborn child in the state of Oregon without committing a crime. This bill adds to the definition of the crime (assault) in order to justly recognize the greater crime committed when an unborn child is killed. As a by-product, the bill lays down what may prove to be the philosophical underpinnings of a future law banning abortion*.*

By my understanding, this bill not only does not ban abortion, but instead explicitly recognizes abortion as a legal action. It is explicitly pro-choice. It also allows the death penalty under circumstances the Church does not allow. The benefit of adding to the sentence of those guilty of assault or murder on an unborn child does not outweigh the evil of collaboration with improper use of the death penalty for the convicted.

 

[David_Paul]

BLB_Oregon:

By my understanding, this bill not only does not ban abortion, but instead explicitly recognizes abortion as a legal action. It is explicitly pro-choice.

I recognize abortion as legal and I’m not pro-choice.

A state bill mentioning that abortion is legal (or not) is meaningless. The Supremacy Clause and Roe v Wade hold.

 

[Lisa_N]

BLB_Oregon:

By my understanding, this bill not only does not ban abortion, but instead explicitly recognizes abortion as a legal action. It is explicitly pro-choice. It also allows the death penalty under circumstances the Church does not allow. The benefit of adding to the sentence of those guilty of assault or murder on an unborn child does not outweigh the evil of collaboration with improper use of the death penalty for the convicted.

Unfortunately although you can see the subtle differences, this will be played out as “EVEN CATHOLICS DON’T SUPPORT IT!!!” making it even less likely to pass. No one in the MSM or on the street is going to care that the Bishop was involved in theological hairsplitting. They are going to see a potential inroad to limiting abortion effectively closed down and the result will be people killing unborn babies who will suffer ZERO consequences for doing so.

I am curious if the Bishops in California weighed in on their Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This is the only reason that Connor Peterson was even a part of the case. Oh and FWIW Scott was not convicted of first degree murder on that portion of the case. The death penalty resulted from killing his wife. So the fears that this bill would result in more death penalties is not upheld by the Peterson case. Still it would be interesting to know if this position is universal among Catholic bishops.

Lisa N

 

[David_Paul]

Not doubting the sincerity of the Bishops or anyone here.
But the MSM and the pro-choice movement are taking a page from Saul Alinksy’s “Rules for Radicals” in dealing with Catholic pro-lifers: “Use your opponents standards against them as they can never live up to them.”

They will (and are) demanding absolute consistency even when it is not required. The Catholic pro-life vote in the last election shook the liberal establishment. The death penalty and pacifism will be the tools used to get Catholics to once again cast a majority vote for pro-choice candidates.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

David_Paul:

I recognize abortion as legal and I’m not pro-choice.
A state bill mentioning that abortion is legal (or not) is meaningless. The Supremacy Clause and Roe v Wade hold.

Fair enough…I stand corrected. Besides, a law that does not recognize federal law might even be stricken down, and what use is that?

David_Paul:

They will (and are) demanding absolute consistency even when it is not required. The Catholic pro-life vote in the last election shook the liberal establishment. The death penalty and pacifism will be the tools used to get Catholics to once again cast a majority vote for pro-choice candidates.

The Church is consistent, but not for political reasons, nor should she become inconsistent for political reasons. We obviously have to cede the Machiavellians some advantage, lest we lose our souls. Were the Holy Spirit not on our side, we would be overcome. As it is, we remain faithful with all hope, even if other avenues for “success” tempt us to do otherwise.

I trust that you are not saying that we should do anything of the sort, only that we must be mindful of their tactics and not silently let them do their damage. That is well said.

 

[David_Paul]

BLB_Oregon…yes

I’m not Catholic so I try to be careful not to suggest what Catholics should do. But I’m very familiar with the tactics of secular anti-Catholics. My comments are friendly warnings (which you probably know already).

Slightly off topic but ever read Bella Dodd’s “The School of Darkness?” She was a cradle Catholic who rose to power in the Communist Party USA.

It almost killed her. In this chapter she tells how Monsignor Sheen saved her. Powerful reading.

In the earlier chapters she descibes in detail the mind rot used to attack the Church and its faithful. The moral teachings she learned as a child (and still believed in ) were used against her and her faith.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Bottom line:

They are accepting an intrinsic evil - killing of the innocent - to protest a judgment call - Death Penalty.

We had a similar problem here in California where several bishops opposed, and many maintained silence, when we attempted to define marriage in the Constitution. They feared it might be seen as anti-homosexual.

 

[tuopaolo]

Pope Benedict XVI taught (as Cardinal Ratzinger):

"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

defide.com/documentation.html

 

[otm]

David_Paul:

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

When it is consistent. I did not state the Church doesn’t take flack for anyhting else, or for its positions. But being charged with expediency, or more directly, with using an “end justifies the means” approach is an attack on our integrity that would be true.

David_Paul:

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

Having watched the debate among people who consider themselves true to the Magisterium, I have been amazed and bemused by the rapidity with which many conservative Catholics have simply dismissed the teaching of John Paul 2 on the death penalty. If you read what he had said (and said repeatedly), then you might find that you are fairly well drawn to that conclusion. It is technically possible for the United States, without major expense or massive changes to the prison system, to keep these individuals for the rest of their natural life. It shows a respect for life, and for their life, which many people who call themselves deeply committed to Christ and His teachings do not have and are not willing to work on, from their statements.

John Paul 2 had an extremely consistent ethic of life. Most of us don’t, and many of us are not willing to do the hard work to get there.

David_Paul:

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

I fail to see your point; perhaps you can elucidate. Archbishop Vlazny and Mr. Castagna were directly involved in the political process on behalf of the Church and in particualr the Church in Oregon. I don’t see that anyone was, or has been eliminated; in fact by withdrawing their support for the bill, they are still involved in the process as they are attempting to bring some pressure to bear to get the bill modified still.

 

[otm]

Lisa N:

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.

John Paul 2 felt it was warranted. I guess you disagree with him

Frankly, I consider him to have a clearer view and vision of the Gospel mandate to “love one another” than I do, and I am willing to follw his lead - as is both the Archbishop and Mr. Castagna.
Lisa N:

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?

Either you did not understand what the Archbishop said, or you are purposely confusing the issue. I never said that I (or he) opposed a law which would convict an indvidual of wrongful homicide for causing the death of a child in the womb.

What the Archbishop said was that he backed such legislation, as long as it did not include the death penalty.

There is a difference, but you seem to equate not backing the death penalty with capitualtion to the abortion forces. How you reach that conclusion I cannot understand, since that is not what is happening.

In ethics, the fact that an event is remote or infrequent is not justification for agreeing to that event if the event is judged immoral.

The fact that there have been no executions in Oregon is simply a matter of time, as the appeal process takes many years.
Lisa N:

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.

Maybe I am more sensitive to the frequency, or you are looking for different information (i.e. parish involvement). I was referring specifically to the reporting of the Archbishop’s direct activities and his frequent statements about the value of all lives - including the unborn.
Lisa N:

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.

You don’t know much law; not all murders now are death penalty cases; only some are. In fact, requiring all murder cases to be death penalty cases would be unconstitutional. And that is what the Archbishop was trying to accomplish - backing a bill that would make this crime mirror others.
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?

Lisa N

Their position in no way indicates that they think it is not murder; why do you think they gave support to the bill in the first place?

You are confusing two things: backing a bill which declares an act to be murder is a sparate issue from what the punishment should be. One can back one without the other, and can refuse to back one when the other is included and be ethically consistent.

The consistency is the ethic of life: it is a gift from God and is not ours to take. Therefore, it should be a crime for someone to take that life, and by the same ethical standard, the punishment should not be the taking of the life of the perpetrator.

 

[otm]

Joe Kelley:

Bottom line:

They are accepting an intrinsic evil - killing of the innocent - to protest a judgment call - Death Penalty.

We had a similar problem here in California where several bishops opposed, and many maintained silence, when we attempted to define marriage in the Constitution. They feared it might be seen as anti-homosexual.

Nobody is accepting an intrinsic evil. They are supporting the bill. You are confusing supporting a law that would declare this to be a wrongful homicide with another part of the bill which decides punishment.

 

[Lisa_N]

otm:

John Paul 2 felt it was warranted. I guess you disagree with him.

The hardship I referred to was the convicts’ having to cooperate with their appeals. Frankly I don’t consider that much of a hardship and do not know the late John Paul II’s position on whether it is unreasonable to expect a convict on death row to assist in his defense given that the legal help is free. Maybe you consider that a hardship?

otm:

Frankly, I consider him to have a clearer view and vision of the Gospel mandate to “love one another” than I do, and I am willing to follw his lead - as is both the Archbishop and Mr. Castagna…

They are better men than I. Certainly I find it difficult to love baby murderers. I also find it difficult to accept that an unborn baby can be killed with no potential for consequences to the killer.

otm:

Either you did not understand what the Archbishop said, or you are purposely confusing the issue. I never said that I (or he) opposed a law which would convict an indvidual of wrongful homicide for causing the death of a child in the womb…

I didn’t say that either. What I did say is that it’s hard to understand that they would reject this law for fear it will “expand the death penalty.” Had they rejected it because it specifically allowed for abortion to take place without punishment, that would have been understandable. Abortion is always evil and any law that carves out protection for this act certainly IS against everything the Church stands for. OTOH as several have pointed out, there is not the same amount of clarity with respect to the death penalty.

otm:

What the Archbishop said was that he backed such legislation, as long as it did not include the death penalty…

And if it did not make this type of murder on par with every other type of murder, the law would have been overturned as unconstitutional. That killing unborn babies is considered murder under this bill simply means that this murder is treated the same as other murders, not ignored as it is now.

otm:

There is a difference, but you seem to equate not backing the death penalty with capitualtion to the abortion forces. How you reach that conclusion I cannot understand, since that is not what is happening…

Didn’t say that either. I said that we have a very untenable situation where someone could kill an unborn baby and there are ZERO consequences because an unborn baby is not given the same human rights we give convicted killers. Strange isn’t it? How do we reconcile one kind of human (someone convicted of a heinous crime) gets full rights and protection and the blessing of the Catholic church while another kind of human (unborn) can be killed with impunity because we wouldn’t want to trample on the rights of convicts. Sheesh. Tell me why that makes sense?

otm:

In ethics, the fact that an event is remote or infrequent is not justification for agreeing to that event if the event is judged immoral.

The fact that there have been no executions in Oregon is simply a matter of time, as the appeal process takes many years…

No one will ever be executed in this state UNLESS he or she basically volunteers for the job. There are virtually endless appeals and the bleeding hearts on our state and federal courts will never allow it. I’d bet money on it otm. How about you? Now if this were Texas, well I’d have a different opinon.

Still it gets down to basic human rights. Do those on death row have more rights than unborn babies? Apparently.

otm:

Maybe I am more sensitive to the frequency, or you are looking for different information (i.e. parish involvement). I was referring specifically to the reporting of the Archbishop’s direct activities and his frequent statements about the value of all lives - including the unborn…

Talk is cheap.

otm:

You don’t know much law; not all murders now are death penalty cases; only some are…

Hello??? When did I say all murders are death penalty cases? I said specifically that these cases have very special and restricted requirements before the death penalty can be considered much less meted out. It is frankly hard to TRY a death penalty case which is the reason we have such prize human specimens as the Green River Killer (what did he murder 75 women?) and our local hero Ward whatever? who raped and murdered two young girls and buried them in his back yard—these special guys have life in prison. Again, to try and to win a death penalty case is difficult and many don’t bother.

otm:

In fact, requiring all murder cases to be death penalty cases would be unconstitutional. And that is what the Archbishop was trying to accomplish - backing a bill that would make this crime mirror others…

Does the bill require the death penalty? I never heard that.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

cont…

otm:

Their position in no way indicates that they think it is not murder; why do you think they gave support to the bill in the first place?.

They were thinking straight at the time? I don’t know why DID they back it and then withdraw?

otm:

You are confusing two things: backing a bill which declares an act to be murder is a sparate issue from what the punishment should be. One can back one without the other, and can refuse to back one when the other is included and be ethically consistent.

The consistency is the ethic of life: it is a gift from God and is not ours to take. Therefore, it should be a crime for someone to take that life, and by the same ethical standard, the punishment should not be the taking of the life of the perpetrator.

Look you don’t have to sell removing the death penalty to me. I think things would be much easier if it were off the books completely. But how we can support allowing someone to kill an innocent unborn baby without fear of punishment for that crime on the extremely remote chance that some teeny fraction of these cases might result in the death penalty that won’t be carried out anyway?

Had they backed off the bill because of the abortion provision, I would have understood. But they chose to focus on something that is not so easily explained. Look they are great theologians. I am not going to pretend I have a fraction of their knowledge. But this decision frankly makes no sense to someone out in the cheap seats who thinks ALL life should have protection of the laws, not just the ones that get out of the womb alive.
Lisa N

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

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)

Amen. The devil is in the Church, that’s for sure. The death penalty is nothing compared to the evil of abortion.

LORD, I BEG YOU, SEND US FAITHFUL CHURCH LEADERS WHO WILL SEEK TO SERVE YOU RATHER THAN THE WORLD! HOLY MARY, PRAY FOR THE CHURCH!