Catholic Bishops Draw Distinction Between Abortion And Death Penalty
(Hat tip: Rick Lugari at De Civitate Dei)
Dealing a blow to the "seamless garment" Bernardinians in the Catholic Church, the U.S. Catholic Bishops yesterday adopted a statement that, while condemning the use of capital punishment in modern society, draws a sharp distinction between the Church's prudential stance on the death penalty and the Church's outright prohibition on the intrinsic evils of abortion and euthanasia:
WASHINGTON -- The US Conference of Catholic Bishops yesterday overwhelmingly approved a new statement of opposition to capital punishment, asserting that it contributes to a culture of death and violence in the United States.My Comments:
***
Citing John Paul's teachings, the bishops declared that ''the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, as is the taking of human life through abortion or euthanasia," but ''in contemporary society, where the state has other, nonlethal means to protect its citizens, the state should not use the death penalty."
***
The bishops drew a strong distinction between the church's stance on capital punishment and its absolute opposition to abortion and euthanasia, stating that the death penalty was an issue on which ''people of good will can disagree."
At a news conference following the passage of the statement, [Bishop Nicholas] DiMarzio said ''there would not even be a question of refusing Communion" to Catholic politicians who advocate or enforce the death penalty.
(emphasis added)
I think this is exactly the right position for the Catholic Bishops to take with regard to the death penalty. I applaud their action.
I have no problem with formal Church opposition to capital punishment, but I don't want to see pro-abort politicians use such opposition as political cover when running against anti-abortion but pro-death penalty opponents (like Governor-elect Tim Kaine recently did in Virginia).
By drawing the distinction between the Church's prudential opposition to the death penalty and its absolute moral opposition to abortion, the Bishops have denied the Kaines, Kerrys, Kennedys and Cuomos of the world that opportunity for political cover.
posted by Pro Ecclesia 11:10 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
But is this distinction in line with the spirit of the church and with Jesus' own teachings, and does this distinction imply that "people of good will can disagree" on one issue but not the other? The article cited does not explain this. Also, why would the church try to alienate its members who disagree on certain issues. If a sheep runs away too much, the shephard should follow that sheep, keep a close eye on it, and show it his love, so that it may return to the fold, and so that it will have refuge in a time of need. Why does the US council of bishops wish to draw a hard line on devicive issues so as to turn its faithful away from the most important sacrement, just to make a political statement?
"Why does the US council of bishops wish to draw a hard line on devicive issues so as to turn its faithful away from the most important sacrement, just to make a political statement?"
Yeah, you know, because the American episcopacy is just full of right wingers. /sarcasm
Please. The bishops came out with a STRONG statement AGAINST the death penalty. That's hardly going to ingratiate them to conservatives.
But in doing so, the Bishops also reaffirmed its constant teaching that the death penalty is different in degree and in kind from abortion and euthanasia. There's nothing new here except that the Bishops have decided to spell it out so that pro-abort politicians can't use their opposition to the death penalty as cover for their pro-abortion policies.
Finally, why don't you fill me in on "Jesus' own teachings" with respect to the death penalty. I can't find any reference to that anywhere in my Bible. And before you start in with that "cast the first stone" nonsense, don't bother. If you really think that Jesus was teaching about the death penalty when he said that, then you're reading the Bible with a political agenda.
Woah, ok, thats cool. I didn't mean to offend. With the teachings question, I was refering to differentiating between the two, Jesus doesn't address either, near as I can tell. He was killed by capital pubishment, and he seemed to be able to deal with it, so I agree that it is not necessary for him to have been completely against it. God's judgement is more important I suppose. My main question, though, was: whats with the whole refusing Communion kick? That doesn't really make sence to me. I know someone could later repent and be re-accepted, but it just seems extreme, when most Catholics I know wouldn't go to church at all if they were refused communion (especially if it were going to be in any way a pulic refusal, such as would be the case for those already in the public eye). Sure, communion is holy and should be respected more than it is, but people are holy, too, and their religious values, however confused, should be respected in as much as they are in line with church teaching, and gently corrected when not. Such denial seems to me to be hardly gentle.
Post a Comment
<< Home