Not even Scalia should be sent away from the table

One of the things you do not take into account, however, is that as a member of the judicial branch, as opposed to the legislature, Scalia is not in a policy setting role. He himself has stated, for example, that he would decide as a matter of law that abortion should be illegal, he has simply stated -- contra Roe v. Wade -- that it should be up to the governments of the individual states whether to allow abortion or not. In the same way, it is up to the policy making branches of government (legislative and executive), not the judiciary to decide whether society has the means to render serious criminals harmless without the use of the death penalty.

Could you please describe one time when you, personally, have been sent away from the Lord's table for your views? I think you haven't, that no one you know has, and you simply raise this specter in order to dramatize your disagreement with Abr. Chaput and Justice Scalia. We can agree or disagree with Scalia's positions, but he's ruling on acts committed by people who have received many years of trials and appeals, have been found guilty by a number of peer juries, and have been sentenced by lower courts, not by the Supreme Court. John 8 portrays Jesus as sparing the life of a woman caught in adultery, but there is no evidence that he would have done the same if the crime had been murder-rape.

Jamie. Please consider the murder rate in prisons. The tell me again with a clear conscience that we can actually protect life in the AMerican prison system.

"But none of us pretends that our beliefs are justified by the teachings of the church."

And the purpose of this current article is what? To try to get people fighting against each other again? To break the church down into political parties?
You start with Scalia and then trod Bishop Chaput underfoot. Why did you leave out the president, for he also could have granted pardon to the inmate just murdered.
Do you do anything more than finger point? Along with Chaput, you should have also put Saint Paul who said that those who partake of the Eucharist unworthily do so at their own peril.
Did you think before you typed that sentence above, that the teachings of the church do not justify our beliefs? Do you believe that Christ is present in the communion bread alone? The church teaches that he is. But that would just be attacking another bishop, wouldn't it.

Let's hire teenagers to stand on street corners and give out Communion to anyone who walks by, because there are no criteria for receiving Communion. You don't have to belong to the Church, believe what it teaches, live by its precepts, or even refrain from mud-slinging for a living. So why confine it to churches on weekends. Let's send it out in the mail. Or better, yet, let's have a do-it-yourself Communion package we can sell on TV: just put it in the microwave for a minute and voila! What a great idea! I don't know why Paul emphasized receiving Communion worthily, when it's clearly just something everyone should have whenever they want it -- like tofu!!

The Church teaching against the Death Penalty is not the equivalent of its proscription of abortion. The Catholic Death Penalty position is such not that it is immoral, but that in this day and age, there is likely no reason why it would necessarily be required. That is a far cry from the "intrinsic evil" of abortion. Therefore it is conceivable, that there might be times when the death penalty is permissable (certainly rare and far between, especially at the state level).

To quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Death Penalty:
"2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

That is quite different from what the author of this piece seeks to portray.

Jamie:
Several points:
1. The Church has never issued an ex cathedra statement that the death penalty is always wrong. Individual Christians, including some Popes have expressed strong personal convictions, but not infallible statements condemning capital punishment.
2. Christ Himself expressed a condemnation of judging others, without exception.
3. The Church gives us general moral principles but God gave us the intelligence to apply those principles to specific situations.
4. Christ ate and drank with publicans and sinners, so why not with you and me and Anthony Scalia?
5. Is the excommunication issued by Bishop Chasput or Bishop Tobin or Bushop Olmstead any less grievious than the sentence of death issued by Judge Scalia?

I like your inclusiveness. I myself was excluded from my parish & allits services - includiong the Eucharist - a few years ago because te pastor decided I didn't give enough money. This happened te year I was in treatment for cancer. That was very inclusive!

Great article with good insights and questions. It's time for bishops to regain credibility by focusing on the gospels' messsage rather than quoting themselves or the popes who appointed them.

Double standards are the norm. A priest guilty of abusing a child can consecrate and receive. But, a gay person who is a great neighbor, friend, co-worker, etc. and a woman who had an abortion because it was the only means to preserve her own life are supposed to refrain. Why? Jesus didn't have those standards. He shared his final meal - the first communion - with Judas who had already betrayed him, setting his death sentence, and who had not repented and with Peter who Jesus knew would deny knowing and following him. Jesus knew that we all need his presence in our lives because not one of is is perfect. If only people without sin could receive, no on would be able to receive.

Hypocrisy has always been a loophole for verbal supporters of the dignity of human life, but often eludes them in practice. The talk rationalizes and justifies; the walk clearly identifies the true attitude.

"But when someone, who is pro-choice or wearing a gay pride ribbon comes to the table, they can be sent away empty-handed."
NOT ALWAYS, Jamie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrDbgjLKoxU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_FDl1XX7js
LITURGY (no matter what LANGUAGE it's in) MUST remain the ultimate COMMON GROUND:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD6vmtCNMlI&feature=related

Ms. Mansion is lucid, logical, and alive. Her arguments are cogent and complete. Unfortunately, those in power only hear their own voices and shelter their beliefs in their closed minds. Thus the hierarchs stand condemned by their own words. n

If only you understood the Church's teaching, but sadly, you do not. Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict have both taught against the death penalty, yes. But, neither Pope has taught definitively that the death penalty is immoral in every circumstance.

The death penalty is a matter of prudential judgment; every Catholic is obligated to seriously study the Church's teaching, Sacred Scripture, the writings of the saints and the Popes, and then prayerfully consider all of this, in light of facts of the particular situation, and then determine for themselves whether the death penalty is something that they can support, they must oppose, or they will support under certain circumstances only.

Despite the writings of both Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict, the death penalty remains a matter of prudential judgment. It has not passed into the realm of teaching that is definitive (the Church's opposition to abortion, on the other hand, is a definitive teaching that all Catholics are obligated to adhere to, so too is the Church's teaching on matters of homosexuality).

Mr. Justice Scalia is correct in his statement. Catholic doctrine does not hold that the death penalty is immoral; rather it teaches that the death penalty MAY be moral under certain circumstances. I know this is so very confusing for some folks who have their own agenda when it comes to Church teaching, and cannot understand how, or why, it is that something like homosexual unions can be definitively condemned but the death penalty is not.

Finally, the Troy Davis execution has been used to question the morality of the death penalty. Granted, there seemed to be evidence that Mr. Davis might have been innocent, and there seemed to be evidence pointing toward his guilt. Regardless, though, when the case made it to the Supreme Court, the Court had to rule on the law involved, not on personal feelings or attitudes. Evidently there was not sufficient reason to delay the execution.

"Like many Catholics in the US, I follow my conscience in my objections to church teachings banning the use of contraception, the ordination of women, and a woman's right to choose."

A woman’s right to choose what? I understood: “banning the use of contraception and ordination of women,” but you didn’t finish the third. Do you support a woman’s right to choose to terminate the life of her baby while the baby is still in her womb? Then, why don’t you say that? You could call her baby a fetus. You could call her baby “it.”

I’ve never heard an expectant mother refer to the life in her womb as “my fetus.” I’ve never heard an expectant mother say,
“I just found out that my fetus is a boy.” I’ve never heard an expectant mother say, “My fetus is due on June fourth.” I understand why it’s difficult to finish the third. I just wish it were difficult to support the ending of an unborn baby’s life.

The author obviously doesn't understand some of the important distinctions that need to be made, perhaps honestly, perhaps to give cover to his own public dissent (for which he should be reconciled with the Church before going to Communion), perhaps to do his job to provoke controversy.

I will repeat what others say. This is a sensitive and intelligent discussion of this double standard within the church.

And what should it really bring us to discusss?

Maybe an acknowledgement of the limits of religion, faith and human beings. I know that I cringe when one parish members, who for some reason has been given a column in the local paper, extolls the virtue of tea partiers, treating illegal immigrants marginally and cutting programs that he himself benefits from (as a retired person).

It's a powerful reminder that no matter what we do, we testify to our faith.

I first try to reach deep down and acknowledge, as Jamie does here, the points at which my beliefs conflict with the church (and they are carbon copies). And then...what? Should I say something to the man? I don't really know him well enough to do so. Should I write him a note? Is there anything I can say that would matter a bit?

And do I think our local parish priest should deny communion to him? Absolutely not. And my priest, to my knowledge, does not engage in that with anyone. I myself belong to the camp that says the host is NOT a bargaining chip.

From good old sociology 101, I know that societies keep people in line with marginalization and ostracism. And I am not talking about the kind of ostracism that involves wearing Scarlet Letters on your chest. I guess I think we have to use our mouths and our pens to disagree respectfully.

And when Manson points out Bishop Chaput's inconsistency--as she does politely and cogently--she does exactly that. And she leads us to ask:

WHY is there a difference in the treatment of the two dissents from the faith?

WHO decides what is an acceptable dissent?

HOW did Jesus treat dissenters? (Hint: he wasn't big on exclusion.)

while you invite scalia inside to sit at the head table, forgive me for staying outside on the steps with Lazarus and all us holy criminals . . .

uninvited . . .
sent away . . .
forgotten . . .
reviled . . .
ignored . . .

singing,
for Love.

Wow! Jamie Manson does a great job of destroying logic and conscience as she dances through her version of theology, reciting the Catechism when it supports her argument, putting down everyone who disagrees with her or cardinal-to-be Archbishop Charles Chaput. Manson puts down all those who are not convinced by John Paul II, his Catechism, Benedict, Chaput, or herself with Chaput's nasty name calling as "cafeteria Catholics," in reality, not Catholics. Fine if you're not a Catholic as long as you are familiar with the Gospel and hold its Jesus as your "model of the holy." John Paul II, the Catechism, Benedict, Chaput and other "hard-liner bishops" are exactly what's wrong with today's Catholic Church and an awful contradiction of the "fresh air" and "aggiornamento" sought by Good John XXIII. Manson and that coterie must be reminded again and again and again, as often as Benedict or anyone else who attempts to throw away those who do not grovel in submission to them, that their rejection is a contradiction of "communion," most terribly, a rejection of the "Holy Communion." Chaput dares to define everyone's conscience for them, ostracize them, excommunicate them, stop feeding them the "Bread of life." I in no way defend Antonin Scalia. For all kinds of reasons that to not interface with religion, especially his interpretation of Catholic theology, I think he has always shown himself to be a misfit for the highest court. Manson ought to study the declarations of Vatican II about respect for conscience--so should Benedict, Chaput, and Scalia. The style in which Manson presumes that her theology is the only right theology is no different than that of her heroes. She dares to claim there is a "loophole" in the Catechism about killing, and she dares to know that it would never have applied to Troy Davis. There has never been a time--ask the Catholic Church--when there were not ways of protecting society against those who kill or otherwise harm. The church did plenty enough killing of its own, so much that it should be embarrassed to discuss the issue. And our only safety against that threat to society now is the separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment to our Constitution. Separation keeps the church safe, and it keeps the state safe, both safe from each other. If, as Manson clearly demands, Scalia should consult the Catechism and not our Constitution and its history before making decisions, then he and all the other Catholic judges ought to seek jobs as canon lawyers for various bishops and their dioceses, perhaps for the curia in the Vatican. We lost out in a way that appears irretrievable when Good John XXIII did not live long enough to keep the windows open wide enough and long enough for sufficient fresh air to blow in and clean out the musty, old church for good. The real Holy Spirit missed enough time to effectively retrofit that could not be undone by his successors and those who prefer magic to religion, whose religion is so unsubstantial that it requires never-changing outward signs that have never represented anything that deserved to be considered genuinely spiritual, only ghostly.

An acquaintance once told me thatas he lines up for Communion he reflects on the urge he has to smoke cigarettes. He can hardly wait to get Mass over so he han full again. But as the line slowly shifts forward the thinks of the command, 'Thou shalt not kil.' And yet he's slowly killing himself, he knows, he told me. (And last week he died of a heart failure.) So he thinks, he said, 'I should exclude myself from Communion because I am about to violate a sacred command.' i told him that no, the next cigarette will not kill him, but smoking might, so he should implore God for the strength to cut down and eventually give up smoking. Communion is FOR us broken, sick sinners, and for that reason he had a right and moreover an obligation to receive Jesus' body and blood. Would that reasoning apply to Scalia? And to everyone of us? 'Take, drink, ALL of you,' Jesus repeats in every Mass. B.

Capital Punishment (CP) is not one of the "non-negotiables" of the Catholic Church. Avery Cardinal Dulles, no supporter of CP, acknowledged that CP is supported in Scriptures (OT & NT) and throughout Church history (including Augustine and Aquinas). For the gravest evil is the most severe punishment. Is it right and just to tell a murderer that no matter how many people you have murdered, we will let you live? Is it fair that the person who has murdered others and stolen their lives is still allowed to live? CP shows great mercy to the murderer in that he knows the date and time of his death, something his victims did not know. The murderer has time to ask forgiveness from God and truly repent. Murder is a crime where the victim can not be compensated and is unable to forgive the one who took his or her life.

Scalia, more than anyone else, should be sent away from the table of the common union. He proposes the "end of the Rule of Law in America". He also proposes the "end of democracy in America". Why?

Scalia works for these two popes, the Koch bros and the GOP. He and they, already have ended democracy in America in favor of what is Theo-Fascist secular BIG corporatism.

It very much is they who are doing all of the killing for corporations, profits, oil, American Exceptionalism and what they all call Christian theology.

THEN, they scream, cry and whine about the dignity of life, even as they torture, degrade and war/kill/death everywhere(Africa, the ME and the Latin nations) in the world!!! But we understand that that is all quite acceptable, just as long as the give phony lip service to Pro-life and Family Values.

I tend to look at this mess from a psychological and sociological pov. So, given that We cannot stop them, I hope they do what they want. The rest of us can then all sit back and just watch how that works out for them. Me-thinks it will prove to be a huge disaster. WHY? Because they have NOT won hearts and minds. They will destroy America and very likely a large portion of the rest of the world. And, they STILL will not have won hearts and minds, but death and degradation will be everywhere.

Then their true agenda will finally be revealed!!!

We see that agenda right now, all over the Latin nations.

Capital punishment graphically illustrates the ultimate power of the state over its citizens as individuals. Conservatives of all stripes tend to support the state's power over its subjects' lives, despite the post-World War II trend to abolish the death penalty.

Both Justice Scalia and Archbishop Chaput root their support of capital punishment in their belief, shared by the current pope, that the death penalty is "not intrinsically evil." Archbishop Chaput's support of the death penalty appears to be more nuanced and much narrower than Justice Scalia's, and generally tracks the opposition of US bishops to capital punishment, based heavily on "improvements in the penal system," which in turn tracks JPII's encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Despite their differences, these powerful persons are not likely to reproach each other, especially in public.

The "morality" of the death penalty lies in the integrity and honesty of the entire justice system that chooses to impose it. When the justice system itself is tried and found wanting (as in Illinois under the governorship of George Ryan), the death penalty must die. It remains a matter of deepest concern that law cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (in which Justice Scalia and four others formed a bare majority to support unlimited political cash contributions by corporations) are even now undermining the integrity and fairness of American justice, both civil and criminal. It's all about the state's power, and those who wield it. Why slould the individual or the "little guy" matter to the rich and the powerful anymore, whether they're archbishops, supreme court justices, or corporations intent on amassing more riches and more power, all at our expense?

The Church is out in left field on this issue. We can sacrifice 58,000 young Americans (mostly between 17 and 24 years old) in the Vietnam War and thousands in American conflicts since then, and pass it off with the dismissive words, "They died for their country," or they died to keep us free," and move on with nary a look backward, except for one day a year when we attempt to remember, but often forget their names and faces and the wonderful futures they would have had if they had lived. We can forget them in the blink of an eye, but we will scream our heads of to save some degenerate who has raped and murdered a child or young woman.

But the Church rolls on in proclaiming all executions are wrong. So, what has changed in the last 100 years, 500, or 1,000 years that now makes this unacceptable to the Church? I don't accept this teaching even if it is the "present" teaching of the Church. Caesar (the State) has always had the authority to exercise this right. Isn't this still in the realm of Caesar's authority? Then why is the Church taking up this when there is ample proof in scripture that it has been acceptable since the beginning of time.

Someone pointed out that sometimes innocent people are wrongly executed. True, but this is rare. Anything man touches in this life is imperfect, but that doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. There will always be that rare exception. Someone else mentioned that prisons are now so up to the "state of the art" for keeping people locked away that they pose no threat. That’s poppycock! Some prisons barely function because of inadequate funding, and there are prisons in this world so corrupt that one can buy his way out. The Church is expressing this teaching as part of the magisterium of the Church, but the magisterium is wrong on this issue, as was their teaching on slavery, witchcraft, the Inquisition, birth control, and other teachings down through the centuries “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.” This is not a moral issue.

Thanks for sharing Interesting post. Thanks for taking this opportunity to discuss this, I appreciate with this and I like learning about this subject. If possible, as you gain information, please update this blog with more information. I have found it really useful.