Yes, this is a different kind of post. It's more academic than the usual journalism from popular media. For your information in regards to discussions on possible Supreme Court nominees,...
“they are also obliged to adhere to their church’s teaching on moral matters”
What?!?! Who says??
The official Catholic church is one of the most pro open borders organizations in the world. The Catholic bishops in the USA are gung ho on open borders. The Catholic charities organization is notorious for settling Muslims and Somalians in small towns across the USA, despite protests by the locals. This practices destroys the fabric of the community and the local culture, and turns once prosperous communities into dangerous criminal hell holes.
Not all Catholics adhere to their church's stance on this. But I would be suspicious of anyone who walks in lockstep with the Catholic leadership when in comes to open borders and immigration policy.
The death penalty is not against Catholic teaching. Pope John Paul II opined that as matter of prudential judgment that the conditions for it were rarely met. But he did not proclaim that it was against Catholic dogma.
JP2 said that with the advent of thr modern prison system, ge saw no reason to ever enforce capital punishment. JP2 was not an expert on the prison system. His opinion should be given due thought but is by no means binding.
Scalia did not think he was in a moral and legal bind.
In capital cases before the court he defended states rights to have capital punuishment on legal grounds - the Constitution does not prohibit it. He did not “abstain”, as if he was wrestling between the law and his faith. He ruled on the law and the Constitution, as we want judges to do.
You can’t be a good RC and support the death penalty?
Interesting, since up until 1968 the Vatican had a death penalty for attempting to assassinate the Pope.