Can Scalia be denied communion now?

I oppose the death penalty, but the fact is that the Catechism allows for it, we are allowed to disagree with the priests, bishops and even the Pope on particular cases. Like it or not this is not clear cut like the abortion issue.

Yes, Scalia is your quintessential cafeteria Catholic. Yes, he should be excommunicated for he has already cut himself off from communion with the People of God. Yes, he should quit the court.

I thought you were in favor of individual conscience? Is it your position that Scalia has no right to his conscience?

You won't hear nuthing from Cardinal Chaput. The Catholic righwing is just about as cafeteria as they get plus a whole lot of hyprocrisy thrown in (as wealthy rightwing Catholics use contraception, abortion and divorce as they please).

SCALIA,CHAPUT,ET AL..........Thanks, Jamie, for your typically brave and perceptive insights. Please don't hold your breath waiting for a prophetic bishop to speak out against Scalia. Firstly, these days it is easier to find a female Catholic bishop than a prophetic one. Secondly, U.S. Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts (at least) appear to be truly restorationist Catholics. They matured in the earlier stages of the current US Bishops/conservative politicians' alliance. The Bishops support the conservatives on most matters and the conservatives keep taxes low on the Bishops' large contributors, such as members of the Knights of Malta and FADICA, etc. Very cozy! Of course, Scalia gave this talk at Duquesne Law where Nicholas Cafardi is the former dean, present professor and long time advisor to the US Bishops on child abuse matters. After serving in the early '80's as a lawyer in the Pittsburg diocese for Bevilaqua of more recent Philly infamy, Cafardi appears to have become a "born again" vocal opponent of the cover-up of clerical child abuse. Perhaps too little too late. It may not be accidental that the Center for Constitutional Reform lawyers filed their complaint against the Roman clique in the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Any legal action against the Roman clique in a U.S. court could have ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court where the present majority appears to be decidely pro-Bishops. So John Allen may be right in his new view that it may be a "blessing in disguise" that the complaint was filed with the International Criminal Court as described in the comment to John Allen's recent NCR article entitled "POPE IN HANDCUFFS?", accessible at http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/blessing-vatican-really-d... The Spirit moves in strange ways. but the Good News is he/she is still moving.

CCC 2267 clearly identifies that the Church's opposition to the death penalty is conditional. "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor." The Church's teaching against abortion is not conditional. The Church has never taught abortion was ever permitted, and the Church has never taught that that the death penalty is never permitted.

I disagree with Cardinal George, Archbishop Chaput and the many other right wing hierarchs who demand absolute assent and obedience to their opinions. I also oppose the death penalty philosophically not because the church spokesmen (but not the Church) oppose it.
The Church's charism of infallibility does not belong to any one bishop or cardinal or curial flunkie and in the final analysis each one of us must make our own moral decisions. Neither has any priest or bishop the authority to send us to hell, to tell us we are damned or even sinners. That is between us and God. So they have no right to excommunicate us.

he should have been deined communion immediately after judging lethal injection NOT cruel and unusual punishment (dudes, it KILLS people, ok?) the day Ratzinger was munching birthday cake inside the Rose Garden with Baby Bush.

He should have been denied communion the day he threw his dynastic owners the 2000 election, quid pro quo for his appointment to the Court.

There is not one Scalia decision which represents Roman Catholic moral theology, decency or justice. He should have been tossed long long ago.

From both court and from Church.
Thomas too, and Roberts and Alito.
And sometimes, most times now, Kennedy . . .

Why do you write about what you don't know about? The church allows a state to have a death penalty. It questions deeply whether it should use it? Only public sinners are denied communion.

Thank you, Jaime. You perceptively point out a major inconsistency among some of the more conservative/reactionary hierarchs of the US RC church. They are willing to point out the "splinter" in the eyes of those with whom they disagree (e.g., people who suggest we need to talk about women's ordination or construct a new theology of human sexuality), but would never consider mentioning to their friends that they have a "splinter" problem as well. And certainly these bishops, archbishops, and cardinals do not think they have any "logs" in their own eyes to which they may need to attend first before they go around pointing out other people's failings.

Well done, Jamie. Thanks!!!!!!

From a reading of the catechism (2267) it is plain that the death penalty, as administered in the US, is immoral. What puzzles me is why Justice Scalia said he would choose to resign from the Supreme Court if the death penalty is immoral instead of use his position to overturn an immoral injustice. That position is indefensible.

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.

Since Scalia is acting in response to his conscience, your point is mute. Chaput will have to exercise his conscience in determining who he denies communion. Move on.

Jamie, here you are the left aping the right. There are no moral "doctrines" in the Catholic Church. The doctrines are contained in the Creed and in a very few infallible conciliar and papal pronouncements. The rest is theological opinion (however "magisterial" -- whatever that means) and Justice Scalia has as much right to dissent as those on the left.

Jamie, Jamie, Jamie. Open your Catechism (I presume you have one) go to paragraph 2267:

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 are 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 non-existent."

The key phrase here is this: "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." Do you realize what the murder rate in PRISONS is? It is off the charts. Every year, many many people die in Prisons at the hands of their fellow inmates. Now, yes, we could just toss everyone into solitary for the rest of their lives without allowing them to leave again, but then is that not cruel and unusual?

Not all killing is sinful. War, for example, can be, IN VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, permissible. Just like the death penalty. And in this country, we do not have a penitentiary system that effectively protects other human life. I pray for the day that we do so that we can stop using the death penalty.

In light of the CCC, it is obvious that there are NO GROUNDS for an auto excommunication of Mr Scalia, since he has obviously done nothing publicly sinful or of scandal.

Speaking truth to power, Jamie. Minnesota loves you for it.

Boom, roasted! Concise and precise. Solid argument, and SO needed!

You pose a most interesting question. It calls for a second question: who will ask ... in public ... Archbishop Chaput whether he will deny Scalia et al Communion?

This is a fine blog, but I doubt Chaput reads it and I am certain he will never reply to you here. Who can bring this to his attention?

From the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (a book of official doctrine if ever there was one):

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 with 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 definitively 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 non-existent.

**************************************************

It is quite apparent that in the United States of America today, there is no justifiable reason for imposition of the death penalty.

Such being the case, what part of Catholic doctrine does Justice Scalia not understand???

Ms. Manson, thank you for pointing out the apparent hypocrisy of too many of our Catholic hierarchs. It's little wonder they have any credibility left --- assuming, of course, they have any remaining credibility at all!!!

This is the year of Matthew in our Liturgical Cycle. He was an appointed and recognized tax collector. Today, his tract, his area of taxation, would include a territory comparable to the span from Ophir to Langlois in Oregon. The tract Matthew left us, his recorded and transmitted Gospel, reminds us of the words of Jesus when he was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane: “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Mt. 52:52)
Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus is factual with little drama or dramatic detail. The climax is “But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.” (Mt. 27:50) The fulfillment is “And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom... The centurion and the men with him who were keeping watch over Jesus feared greatly when they saw the earthquake and all that was happening, and they said, “Truly, this was the Son of God!”
Justice Scalia states (because that is what justices do when they know their words will be recorded and remembered, or at least referenced) that “If I thought that Catholic doctrine held the death penalty to be immoral, I would resign. I could not be a part of a system that imposes it.” Bishop Chaput says, “If they don’t believe what the Church teaches, they are not really Catholic.” It is statements like these that remind me that I was baptized in the Catholic church, Our Lady of Perpetual Help in San Antonio, Texas, to be specific, but I am Christian.
Jesus Christ condemned no one, even though as the Son of God he had the power and authority to do so. With the Father, Creator of heaven and earth, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Jesus reconciled our human family with God and welcomed us all to our heavenly home. God and God alone has the power over life and death. God and God alone can condemn us because God and God alone can restore our life if God and God alone decides to do so. We as human beings can condemn and execute. But we, who are only human, cannot restore life. No one, not even God, can morally take away that which cannot be restored... wholly and entirely. God can do this. We can not.
And now about “the Red Mass, a liturgy traditionally dedicated to jurists and lawyers traditionally held at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle on the first Sunday of October". What is the significance of the Penetential Rite, the Kiss of Peace and the Communion Rite at this Eucharistic celebration?
Life is sacred from conception to birth through maturity to natural death. As a baptized son of God, brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, temple of the Holy Spirit, heir of the kingdom of heaven, and “keeper of my sisters and brothers”, I cannot condone abortion, euthanasia, disregard or disrespect of human dignity, war that is never just, and, faithful to my Christian baptism and belief, the death penalty under any circumstance nor in any situation. I am only trying to follow the example of the Son of God who said from the Cross, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” (Lk. 23:34), and with him to pray, “Father, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Paz y Bien, Rolando, SFO.

You have CHAPUT confused with BERNARDIN. The former -like most of the GOP audience members during recent GOP debates- has NO "seamless garment of life."
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/gop-debate-audience-cheers-per...
And while we're at it, CHAPUT ain't doin' much to improve his church's delivery of effective SEX EDUCATION to prevent abortions in the first place.
http://theworthyadversary.com/230-a-rigali-in-chaput%E2%80%99s-clothing

Scalia may in conscience support the death penalty, and Chaput may in conscience look the other way rather than condemning him, but then they would both be (horror of horrors!) in opposition to the Pope And to Church teachings: Cafeteria Catholics!

Be fair to Archbishop Chaput. Actually, he has been consistent on this point.

Here's what he said in an April 5, 2002 address to the Institute of Religious Life in Mundelein, Ill., according to Catholic News Service:

"When Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly disputes church teaching on the death penalty, the message he sends is not all that different from Frances Kissling [former head of the pro-abortion group Catholics for Free Choice] disputing what the church teaches about abortion."

"If we say we're Catholic, we need to act like it," Chaput told the group. Although abortion and the death penalty "don't have equivalent moral gravity," he went on to say, "the impulse to pick and choose what we're going to accept is exactly the same kind of 'cafeteria Catholicism' in both cases."

Chaput was referring to a Jan. 25, 2002 talk in Chicago by Scalia in which he rejected the position of the revised Catholic Catechism on the death penalty.

I don't see why anyone should be denied communion.

The idea that execution goes against God's word is an absolute absurdity, unless we are to jettison the Old Testament laws and the fact that Christ said He is not here to do away with the old laws, but fulfill them. It is God's Word that is absolute, not Catholic Doctrine.

The Catholic Church does not condemn the death penalty. What we have now is the phenomenon of the Vatican II church with its emphasis on mercy while neglecting Our Lord's teaching on justice. Justice Scalia is correct. Here is what Pope Pius XII said in 1952 regarding the death penalty. Which Church is right??? The one before VII or the one after???? "Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life." Pope Pius XII Sept 14, 1952

wow this is really exciting. I have signed a petition to my bishop to deny Catholic politicians Holy Communion based on their public support of abortion.
To apply the same criteria to the taking of a life that is not "innocent" by equating the formal execution of a convicted murderer with the legalization of abortion might be considered a stretch. However, I apply God's 5th command "Thou shalt not kill" (another human being) to include wars and executions. He gives life, and retains the right of taking it. God told Satan he could do what he wanted to His servant Job - but not kill him - for the reason that God retains full rights over Life and Death. The State usurps God's rights when it makes wars, and performs executions, or legalizes abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia.

Aren't most of us "cafeteria" Catholics in some way or another, including the bishops? Life requires choices, even ones that only offer a decision between options that are all bad. I seriously doubt that any sort of concerted effort will be made by bishops to bring Scalia to task for his stand on capital punishment. I think they see him as a hope for ending Roe v Wade. They won't jeapordize that. Cafeteria Catholics.

For some reason, it is okay for Catholic universities to choose to end health insurance for everyone rather than offer health insurance that includes the ability of individuals to choose contraceptives. Ending coverage for everyone leaves those who make the least amount of money having to buy private insurance that covers less because it costs less. If those who buy less insurance, or no insurance, are financially ruined or, worse, die because they could not afford the health care, at least the Church is not tainted with the sin of providing the option to choose contraceptives in the health insurance they offer employees. If people die, it is better than forcing the Church into a position of being complicit in an individual choosing contraceptives. In this case, the Church chooses to protect the souls of Catholics and non-Catholics alike even if it kills them. This is insane but this is exactly the threat that is being made. Cafeteria Catholics.

Every battle the church fights right now against implementation of the new health care law is eroding it. Bishops may win the battle of expanding the definition of groups exempted from the new health care provisions, but they have played into the hands of those who want the whole thing thrown out. Evidently, preventing contraceptives and sterilization from being a part of their health insurance is more important that national health care coverage for all. They may win the battle but the battle could mean that those who want no national health care plan will win their war. How are we better off?

If we wait for 2014 and if the Health care bill survives through the courts and/or the next election, we will have a national health care that provides health insurance for everyone, regardless of health status. It would help if the Catholic Church came out full force and full square for national health care, even if it includes contraceptives and sterilizations and even if it includes the very limited access to abortions that it now includes. Millions will be better off. The fight to end even the little choice regarding abortion now offered in the bill - that fight can continue. The Church will never win on contraceptives and sterilizations, however, because they are too entrenched in the practice of good medicine, too proven effective in protecting the health of women, and too widely practiced by even Catholic women. That battle was lost long ago. Their only hope is to change the minds and conscience of individual Catholics - which is where they should be operating - not in the halls of government, but in the hearts of the people.

Should virtually all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have been denied communion? What about St Thomas More, St Robert Bellarmine, & Blessed John Henry Newman? How about St. Pope Pius V who promulgated the Catechism of Trent " (executions of murderers)is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder? Pope Pius XII? Augustin and Aquinas? St Paul? etc. etc. etc. All supporters of capital punishment.

The pacifistic attitudes toward evil, sin and punishment began in the 1970s. It was unknown for the first 3000 years of Judeo/Christian history.

“The reversal of a doctrine as well established as the legitimacy of capital punishment would raise serious problems regarding the credibility of the magisterium. Consistency with scripture and long-standing Catholic tradition is important for the grounding of many current teachings of the Catholic Church; for example, those regarding abortion, contraception, and the permanence of marriage. If the tradition on capital punishment had been reversed, serious questions would be raised regarding other doctrines." Avery Cardinal Dulles, “Catholic Teaching on the Death Penalty”, in Owens, Carlson & Elshtain, op. cit., p. 26. 2004

In thinking about what it means to be pro–life, Christians must, to begin with, distinguish between protecting innocent life and protecting society against those who destroy life. People incapable of making so elementary a distinction have no place in determining where the argument should go from here.

Our Catholic faith did not begin with the JPII Generation.

There is absolutely no reason Justice Scalia should be denied the Eucharist because of his views on the death penalty. I suggest a reading of "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion" for any doubters.

The applicable portion states, " ...if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion."

His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. 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."

Your argument is illogical because the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear that, though the instances where capital punishment is the only resort, there can be such instances. This is true, even in the United States.

In addition, there is no equivalent argument between abortion and capitol punishment. All, every single one of those killed by abortion are innocent of any wrong doing. Of those who are executed or are currently on death row, many have actually committed heinous crimes and some we know absolutely, that they were guilty of the crimes they committed.

Our priority should be defense of the defenseless who are being killed though they are innocent. I do have issues with the death penalty because I know of cases where the innocent were freed or there were injustices. I also know few jails are impossible to escape from and there are those who have indicated they will kill again if given the chance.

So no, those who are pro-life are not being cafeteria Catholics when we acknowledge that capital punishment may be necessary in some cases, we are in accord with the Church.

There is no comparison between the horror of abortion (1.2 million estimated babies killed by abortion in U.S. in 2010) and the death penalty (46 executions in U.S. in 2010). This article is misleading and accusatory, suggesting that Justice Scalia is in a state of mortal sin and would create scandal by publicly taking communion. Upholding a state's right to determine whether the death penalty is warranted in a given case is not against Catholic teaching. The catechism does state that the death penalty may be the best option in some rare cases, and Catholics in good conscience can disagree about whether in every imaginable case in this country, death penalty would be immoral.

Justice Scalia is correct. The traditional teaching of the Catholic Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty as the Catechism #2267 states. Papal sentiments and bishops conferences'opinions are not official Church teaching.

The unborn child is innocent and is a completely different situation from the execution of a guilty murderer. A careful study of moral theology is needed here. Justice is giving to people what they deserve and while we try our best to do this, we can never be perfect in how we respond. One can safely say that good Catholics defend the innocent, especially when they are voiceless.

If you really believe in Jesus Christ you would understand that death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person on death row. True judgment is not in this world but in the Last Days i.e., the Last Judgment. The greatest danger is not repenting before one’s death.

The unborn child is innocent and is a completely different situation from the execution of a guilty murderer. A careful study of moral theology is needed here. Justice is giving to people what they deserve and while we try our best we are not perfect. Good Catholics defend the innocent especially when they are voiceless.

If you really believe in Jesus Christ you would understand that death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person on death row. True judgment is not in this world but in the Last Days i.e., the Last Judgment. The greatest danger is not repenting before one’s death.

I think you misrepresent the pope and Catholics in general when you say, "They oppose it on the same grounds that they oppose abortion: executions are seen as an assault on the sanctity of human life. This is why, just last week, Pope Benedict XVI himself asked for Davis's life to be spared." Abortion is ALWAYS the murder of an innocent life, the death penalty (i.e. lethal injection of condemned prisoners) is not.

It certainly appears that in the Davis case there were so many individuals who recanted their stories and such shoddy "evidence" was presented during the trial that Davis was, as he himself claimed, an innocent man. This is the point that caused public outcry and stands in opposition to the teaching that "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined..."

A very intelligent, loving priest I know explained the Catholic teaching to me based on a scriptural reference. In John 19:10-11 When Pilate says to Jesus, "Don't you realize I have the power to either free you or crucify you?" Jesus' response is, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. So the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin." Here, Jesus does not say, "You do not have the power to crucify me." Rather, he acknowledges what Pilate says, but reminds him where this power comes from. As the Church teaches in reference 2257 of the Catechism, "...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."

While I agree that in our present age with our current technologies, we seem to have the means to defend human lives against unjust aggressors who have been brought into custody, the idea that, "They (Church doctrines) oppose it (the death penalty) on the same grounds that they oppose abortion: executions are seen as an assault on the sanctity of human life." is not fully examining the details.

Wow! You're really calling Scalia a cafeteria Catholic!
"Dear pot"
"yes kettle"
"your're black"

I do oppose capital punnishment, but by your logic, anyone who speeds in the church parking lot would be denied communion. Nice try to legitimitize baby killer supporters who call themself Catholic, but no cigar.

It seems that Scalia and Chaput agree on the teaching about capital punishment. If Scalia should be denied Communion, it follows as the night the day, that (gasp!) so should the bishop.

But it has to be admitted, I think, that because the Church's explicit teaching includes the loophole of protecting innocent people from unjust aggressors (the murderers), that neither Scalia nor The bishop are denying Church teaching.

The practical issue will always be a prudential one -- in any given set of circumstances one can argue as to whether or not lives will be threatened by the continued life of the murderer. Even in prisons, murderers threaten other prisoners, and the question will arise -- is murderer X a threat to other prisoners?

I consider myself to be pro-life but I feel that the Church's teachings on the sanctity of life begins at the point of conception to the end of life. Furthermore, in my opinion, life's sacredness does not only refer to the unjust taking of life but also the unjust economic, social, sexual and spiritual degradation of human beings under the guise of national, corporate, or individual interests that overide human dignity in the name of expediency.

Now one major contention that has been put forth in this discussion is the distinction between innocent and guilty lives. But, strictly speaking, the doctrine of original sin holds that none are innocent but all are guilty as a result of the sin of Adam. Thus medieval scholasticism would generally hold that unbaptized infants could not enter heaven because the guilt of original sin had not been washed away through the sacrament of Baptism.
Furthermore, if a murderer sincerely repents and confesses in the Sacrament of Reconciliation he/she is forgiven and washed clean and spotless through the blood of Christ. If one's sole criterion for or against the taking of life is the guilt or innocence of the parties concerned then abortions are justified in terms of innate guilt and capital punishment is condemned (for those convicts duly forgiven under Church teaching) as they are "innocent" through forgiveness. I doubt that many would find these arguments morally acceptable but my point is only to show the problematic in our human concepts of guilt or innocence versus divine cognition.

The real issue in the theological discussion of capital punishment is whether human beings have a right to take a life because all life belongs to God as Creator. One can point to the various death penalty offenses in the Old Testament as justifying capital punishment in present times but how many Catholics would be morally comfortable with urging the state to execute those who broke the Sabbath, committed adultery, or, in the case of the herem ban in warfare {where men, women, children and cattle were to be summarily executed in certain Canaanite cities). All these, and other offenses as well, are set in the Old Testament Law. On the other hand the New Testament (and that is why it is called "new") drastiically "fullfills" the Torah with the prophetic commands of love, forgiveness, and tolerance of sinners (of which we all are in truth). All execution of judgement is in the hands of God and not men. Although the various states and nations have their laws Christians may not condone those actions which go against "the Law of Christ.

As for those who (erroniously) believe that Catholic Christian "pacifism" is the result of Vatican II I would like to remind them that one of the earliest disputes in the early Church was whether Roman soldiers could be baptized snce they were engaged in killing and violence. Although the Church compassionately allowed them to be baptized it put certain strictures on their ability to soldier in the Roman army. That there was even such a dispute only shows that there were strong elements of Christian pacifism in the earliest centuries of Christianity and not merely a modern counciliar phemomena.

I consider myself to be pro-life but I feel that the Church's teachings on the sanctity of life begins at the point of conception to the end of life. Furthermore, in my opinion, life's sacredness does not only refer to the unjust taking of life but also the unjust economic, social, sexual and spiritual degradation of human beings under the guise of national, corporate, or individual interests that overide human dignity in the name of expediency.

Now one major contention that has been put forth in this discussion is the distinction between innocent and guilty lives. But, strictly speaking, the doctrine of original sin holds that none are innocent but all are guilty as a result of the sin of Adam. Thus medieval scholasticism would generally hold that unbaptized infants could not enter heaven because the guilt of original sin had not been washed away through the sacrament of Baptism.
Furthermore, if a murderer sincerely repents and confesses in the Sacrament of Reconciliation he/she is forgiven and washed clean and spotless through the blood of Christ. If one's sole criterion for or against the taking of life is the guilt or innocence of the parties concerned then abortions are justified in terms of innate guilt and capital punishment is condemned (for those convicts duly forgiven under Church teaching) as they are "innocent" through forgiveness. I doubt that many would find these arguments morally acceptable but my point is only to show the problematic in our human concepts of guilt or innocence versus divine cognition.

The real issue in the theological discussion of capital punishment is whether human beings have a right to take a life because all life belongs to God as Creator. One can point to the various death penalty offenses in the Old Testament as justifying capital punishment in present times but how many Catholics would be morally comfortable with urging the state to execute those who broke the Sabbath, committed adultery, or, in the case of the herem ban in warfare {where men, women, children and cattle were to be summarily executed in certain Canaanite cities). All these, and other offenses as well, are set in the Old Testament Law. On the other hand the New Testament (and that is why it is called "new") drastiically "fullfills" the Torah with the prophetic commands of love, forgiveness, and tolerance of sinners (of which we all are in truth). All execution of judgement is in the hands of God and not men. Although the various states and nations have their laws Christians may not condone those actions which go against "the Law of Christ.

As for those who (erroniously) believe that Catholic Christian "pacifism" is the result of Vatican II I would like to remind them that one of the earliest disputes in the early Church was whether Roman soldiers could be baptized snce they were engaged in killing and violence. Although the Church compassionately allowed them to be baptized it put certain strictures on their ability to soldier in the Roman army. That there was even such a dispute only shows that there were strong elements of Christian pacifism in the earliest centuries of Christianity and not merely a modern counciliar phemomena.