The Day Andrew Cuomo Got Religion

Who could have predicted back in 1928 that Al Smith's successor as governor of New York would be explaining his advancement of legislation by his "solidarity" with the pope? Back then, poor Governor Smith was defeated in his run for president in part by anti-Catholic fears that he represented a "Romish Peril," not least by way of a transatlantic tunnel between Washington and the Vatican. A vote for Al Smith would put America under the dictatorship of the pope.

So when Governor Andrew Cuomo, literally on the same day Pope Francis declared that the death penalty is "inadmissible" in all cases, introduced a bill to abolish capital punishment in New York, the left erupted in justifiable outrage at Cuomo's attempt to establish religion.

Or not. So far, there have been no actual reports of protesters turning out with signs telling the pope to stay out of our lethal injection chambers.

Francis's declaration didn't change Cuomo's views on the subject; he was already an opponent of capital punishment, as was his father before him, the late Governor Mario Cuomo. But Andrew sees this new teaching as divine "validation of my father's principled stand against the death penalty."

Speaking of principled stands, you may recall Andrew's father as the originator of the now-ubiquitous moral nonsense that Catholic politicians could be "personally opposed" to abortion, while at the same time, "as servants of the broader public – supporting its availability to those who did not share those beliefs." With that single phrase, Mario handed pro-abortion Catholic politicians (and their Catholic voters, who by that time were mostly Democrats) the get-out-of Hell-free card they needed to explain their fervent advocacy for an evil practice to which they said they were personally opposed.

"But the pope's new language stops short – notably – of calling capital punishment "intrinsically evil," a "theological term meaning that an action can never be done in a moral way, regardless of the circumstances." The new Catechism entry will neither state that the death penalty would always be immoral in other circumstances nor condemn those who have supported its use in the past."

As a lifelong Catholic who has been teaching from scriptures and the Catechism for decades, I am convinced that doctrine cannot "develop" in such manner as to negate its previous meaning or render it uncertain and obscure.

That is what Pope Francis' revision of the Catechism (Pope John Paul II 1992 edition) did: negate its previous affirmation that a lawful ruler may justly apply the death penalty; and rendered obscure the exact reasons why such application should be vanishingly rare.

Like American Thinker.com columnist T.R. Clancy, I too would vote against the Death Penalty if it were on the ballot in my state. For various reasons, if anyone wants me to list them.

But I think Pope Francis' formulation is a frustrating equivocation. Even the word "inadmissible" is equivocal. Let me give two examples of how it might be taken:

Never permitted: "Marie wanted to enter into evidence a conversation she heard in a dream. The judge ruled that the contents of a dream are always inadmissible."

Prohibited in this instance, but possibly permitted at a different time or in a different way: "Marie wanted to enter into evidence a letter which was in two different handwritings and written in pencil, showing cross-outs and signs of erasure, and signed by herself only, also in pencil. The judge ruled this letter was inadmissible in that form." ... She later came back with a fair copy: typed neatly, signed by herself in ink, and notarized. The judge entered it as evidence."

Pope Francis has implied much, but clarified little. "Lex dubia non obligat,"+ a doubtful law is not binding.

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.