Posted on 07/07/2005 2:31:34 PM PDT by Diago
Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, president of the USCCB, has now officially granted the "out" to all those pro-abortion Catholic Senators on the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. In a letter to President Bush on the qualities he should be looking for in a nominee, Skylstad listed the death penalty alongside pro-life, rights of minorities and immigrants, the First Amendment, and parental choice in education.
Now when one of the CINO Senators wants to oppose a pro-life, pro-death penalty nominee, he'll be able to cite his Catholic faith, and the backing of the leadership of the Catholic bishops of the US in invoking the "seamless garment."
Contrary to what His Excellency proposes what the nominee needs to be is a strict constructionist. Rather than imposing an activist agenda on the people of the United States—whether conservative or liberal—instead he should follow the Constitution exactly. We don't need another unelected judge to legislate from the bench. What we need is a judge who knows what his place is in the federal government. If we had 9 of those, we wouldn't have to bring Bishop Skylstad's laundry list before the Supreme Court. Instead it would be taken care of by our elected state and federal legislators.
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
***
***
3. 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 penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
The campaign by some of the liberal democrat bishops continues. Their strategy is clearly to misrepresent the church's teaching on the death penalty in order to help fight gains by the GOP among Catholics.
Today is McCarrick's 75th birthday. I hope you've sent him an appropriate greeting.
Good news.
McCarrick turns 75 today:
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-1/112074203633830.xml&coll=1
Take heart, Diago. First, people of good will do not recoil at the mention of the death penalty (the way they do when abortion is brought up). And second, the faithful have learned to go past the bishops and take the teachings of the Church directly to the people.
Information is too widely available. And the average Joe in the pew is as likely to read a publication put out by Catholic Answers as they are something by the USCCB. The liberals' hold on the Church is loosening.
Yeah..."repent and enjoy your retirment."
As a Catholic, I can tell you that the bishops are too liberal and I would never want one of them to be Pope. Luckily, our current Pope has set the agenda as it relates to abortion. There's no denying that it's more important than the other issues (immigration, etc.)
If the U.S. bishops want the death penalty used rarely, if ever, then perhaps they would enjoy working on getting a judiciary actually willing to sentence to people to life in prison. Contrary to some opinions, we don't have a system that protects the innocent by removing the unjust aggressor from society permanently. They have the cart before the horse.
Their agenda is a secular humanist agenda, one that won't offend the rich and powerful liberals who they hob knob with and who they get loans from.
ping
This is from the document posted on www.usccb.org
However, noting “the Supreme Court’s ability to affect both principles and policies,” Bishop Skylstad asked Mr. Bush to consider “qualified jurists who, pre-eminently, support the protection of human life from conception to natural death, especially of those who are unborn, disabled, or terminally ill.”
The letter also goes on to state:
"I would ask you to consider jurists who are also cognizant of the rights of minorities, immigrants, and those in need; respect the role of religion and of religious institutions in our society and the protections afforded them by the First Amendment; recognize the value of parental choice in education; and favor restraining and ending the use of the death penalty."
Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty
Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty
Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty
Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty Pope Benedict & Death Penalty
http://bench.nationalreview.com/
The Seamless Garment--Again
[Gerard Bradley 07/07 04:40 PM]
The head of the U.S. Catholic Bishops conference — Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane — recently wrote to President Bush about Justice O'Connor's successor. Skylstad said that it is not for the bishops to endorse or oppose specific nominees, and he is right: The Church's pastors should articulate and defend the moral principles at stake in public affairs. They have no special competence when it comes to specifically applying those principles, and surely claim no expertise in jurisprudence. Bishop Skylstad's letter nonetheless falls short in two important ways. First, on abortion. He calls for jurists who "pre-eminently" would protect human life from "conception until natural death, especially those who are unborn, disabled, or terminally ill." Bishop Skylstad would have served the Church — and the nation — better had he had used the word "abortion", and had he urged the president to consider it in more forceful terms. The letter further weakens the message on abortion by unfurling the well-worn "seamless garment." This is the term Catholics use to describe it when their leaders water down the pro-life message by lumping abortion with other issues — as Bishop Skylstad does in his letter to Bush. He asked the president to consider "jurists who are also cognizant of the rights of minorities, immigrants, and those in need; respect the role of religion and of religious institutions in our society and the protections afforded them by the First Amendment; recognize the value of parental choice in education; and favor restraining and ending the use of the death penalty." Not content with this laundry list Bishop Skylstad referred to other (unnamed) "fundamental matters," too. But not to marriage or the family or to the homosexual insurgency or to Lawrence v. Texas, in any way, shape, or form. And that is, to put it very mildly, a real shortcoming in a message meant to identify the moral stakes in the coming appointment.
I’m pleased that the letter from the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to the President on the Supreme Court vacancy gave pre-eminence to abortion. But I would add to Gerard Bradley’s criticism the fact that the letter displays not the slightest understanding that the role of a justice in the American constitutional republic is distinct from that of a legislator. Simply put, it is not the proper mission of justices, Catholic or otherwise, to “support the protection of human life from protection to natural death” or to “favor restraining and ending the use of the death penalty.”
Roe v. Wade is wrong because the Constitution does not speak to the issue of abortion, not because Catholic teaching condemns abortion. The constitutional obligation of every justice is to restore the issue of abortion regulation to the political processes, not to impose a “pro-life” ruling that the Constitution itself somehow prohibits permissive abortion laws. Conversely, the death penalty is broadly constitutional, and justices should not rule otherwise, irrespective what Catholic teaching says about the morality of the death penalty.
Am I hostile to Catholic moral teachings? Not at all. Indeed, quite the contrary. But in our political system it is Catholic legislators and citizens, not judges, who have the right and obligation to promote the Catholic vision of justice. The reversal of Roe is necessary to enable Catholic legislators and citizens to persuade their fellow citizens to enact legislation that provides significant protection for the lives of unborn human beings. And Catholic legislators and citizens are already free to implement their understanding of additional limits that ought to be placed on the death penalty.
Aren't they under the pope's authority? Can't he just get rid of them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.