More on Death Penalty

Dear Editor: This is in response to the Editor’s Note following my letter (Sept. 22) citing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s thoughts defending the morality of the death penalty. The note read as follows: “What Pope John Paul II said was that while the death penalty is not objectively evil, it can only be justified when a society has no alternative to defending itself. He added that he did not see where in the world it could be justified today. Justice Scalia seems to take this position a bit too lightly.”

Permit me a second quote from the article I previously quoted from (First Things, May 2002, p. 21) that, I feel, sheds some light on the care and consideration Justice Scalia exhibited in arriving at his position:

“I am therefore happy to learn from the canonical experts I have consulted that the position set forth in Evangelium Vitae and in the latest version of the Catholic catechism does not purport to be binding teaching – that is, it need not be accepted by practicing Catholics, though they must give it thoughtful and respectful consideration…

“So I have given this new position thoughtful and careful consideration – and I disagree.”

Far from taking the words of Pope John Paul II lightly, Justice Scalia went to considerable length in consulting canonical experts and was humbly guided by their counsel.

Additionally, Sister Camille D’Arienzo’s letter (Sept.1) addressing the efforts of State Senator Serphin Maltese to reinstate the death penalty in New York merits further scrutiny. She writes that “God calls us to resist acting from our baser instincts of fear and vengeance.” But those supporting the death penalty need not act from our fear or feelings of vengeance any more than one does for sending a killer to jail for the rest of his life without any chance of parole, as Sister suggests we do.

Sister also states that “no one, neither individual nor state has the right to kill.” That, of course, is not true. Federal law and the laws of a majority of the states are in accord with the death penalty.

Sister adds that “to deny this is to accept irrationality.” Really? The Church that Sister has devoted her life to has defended that right for over two millennia. Is the Church irrational?

Further, Sister reasons that “our law does not allow us to rob the robber or rape the rapist. Why should it allow us to kill the killer? Are we not called to a higher standard of behavior than that of those whom we condemn?” That is clever but the answer to it is that we do not, in fact, murder murderers. We execute them (not often or swiftly enough, alas) after they have been found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. That does not mitigate the fact that that distinction is a huge one and goes a long way to debunking the notion that our legal system does not rise “to a higher standard of behavior” than those who murder us.

Lastly, Sister writes that “the European Union, composed of nations from which many of our ancestors came, will not allow membership to any country that has the death penalty.” Here many will surely find it troubling that Sister is appealing to an organization whose members have adamantly refused to ac-knowledge their Christian heritage (in the writing of their failed constitution) in order to prevent an action that her own Church has upheld for centuries.

And that is the gravamen of my complaint against Sister D’Arienzo. It remains quite simple: that whatever one’s views concerning the merits of the death penalty, the efforts of State Senator Serphin Maltese to reinstate it in New York does not in any way, shape, or form disrespect the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. I, for one, wish him Godspeed.

Michael Kelly
Glen Oaks

Dear Editor: This is in response to “Defending the Death Penalty” (Readers’ Forum, Sept. 22). If the death penalty is considered by some to be a deterrent to crime, may I quote a very knowledgeable gentleman on that particular issue. I am referring to Mr. Pierrepont, who for many years was the official British “hangman.” He hanged a total of 608 people and his response was, “It is not a deterrent.”

If the death penalty is meant to be a punishment in response to a particular crime, then the time is long past when that logic was acceptable as well as necessary in order to protect society. In an age when facilities were not available to incarcerate those who were considered a threat to society, “they are hanging men and women for the wearing of the green.” The death penalty was considered the most expeditious way of ridding society of “undesireables.”

Now hopefully in a more enlightened age when a perpetrator acts with disregard to his own and other lives, society now has alternative means of punishment. They may use what was originally designed for the convicted person to give him/her an opportunity to reflect on their deed and hopefully atone or reform in some way. It is called the penitentiary.

Thomas C. Cullinane
Bayside

God and Party Politics

Dear Editor: I am pleased that six readers of The Tablet chose to respond to my letter of Aug. 12.

I thank Manuel Calleja, Janet L. Kuse, Rosemary Mangino, and Kohn Mustardo for their comments. I take exception to the unfounded indictment of writer Ernest Folli “that the democratic Party is responsible for the death of 45 million children.” To the best of my recollection Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the majority opinion in Roe vs. Wade was appointed by President Nixon and under our constitutional system justices are appointed for life in order to be immune to partisan passions.

Ms. Kuse is absolutely correct: God is not a Republican nor a Democrat. In the words of Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners, “When either party tries to politicize God or co-opt religious communities to further political agendas, it makes a terrible mistake.”

In my letter of Aug. 12, I did not in any way intend or imply that the political party of my choice has a monopoly on wisdom and light. I simply stated that on the issues of the war in Iraq and social justice the Democratic Party speaks for the majority of Americans. My reference was not Democratic Party platform. My references were “Economic Justice for All,” the 1986 pastoral letter on Catholic social teaching, and the recent remarks of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, “urging robust and principled debate on the difficult issues of our day.”

I note with interest that my six interlocutors did not mention what I consider two important pro-life issues: the war in Iraq and immigration reform.

On the issue of the war in Iraq, America, the national Catholic weekly, has this to say: “The world would be a much safer place today if the United States had heeded the warnings of the Vatican before the preemptive invasion of Iraq in 2003, an unnecessary war of choice that threatens to leave Iraq a failed state and a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism.”

On the issue of migration, Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio has shown the compassion and leadership that fixing our broken immigration system demands. Anti-social criminal activities should never be condoned, but as the New York Immigration Coalition has pointed out, a real solution must take into account “the pursuit of a better life by immigrants, the labor needs of our country, the desire of families to live together, and the reality that our nation does not match our need for immigrants with the number of visas it makes available for people to come here legally.”

I firmly believe that unrestricted abortion is morally indefensible, but I also believe that respect for life must be catholic and indivisible: selective outrage is, at best, incomplete.

I agree with Ms. Mangino that, as voters, we have every right to express our Catholic priorities. I was merely suggesting that government budgets are also statements of real priorities. The hundreds of billions of dollars we spent on the war in Iraq can better be spent to celebrate life. Just to mention one example, the family and medical Leave Act (FMLA) that gives expectant mothers the right to three months maternal leave without losing their jobs can be improved. It was the first law signed by President Clinton after he took office in January of 1993. The first President Bush vetoed it twice. “The steady decline in the rate of abortion during the pro-choice Clinton administration seems to have reached a plateau under pro-life Bush.

Joseph F. Seminara
Bay Ridge

More Prayers for Francesco

Dear Editor: I was deeply saddened to read about Francesco Loccisano’s passing. I prayed for his recovery every day. One thing was great, he had a prayer life and that was a gift from God. I will continue my prayers for his family every day so that they receive divine guidance to give them grace.

Margaret Ingrassia
Bay Ridge

A Great Irish Fair

Dear Editor: The Great Irish Fair was most enjoyable this year.  I’m so proud that it is back in Coney Island.  A truly extraordinary, all-city event promoting Irish culture and raising the much needed funds required to give our children a good Catholic education. The music was superb and the crowds enjoyed a fun-filled family weekend that ended all too soon. Congratulations are in order to Marty Cottingham and his staff for reviving and producing a well organized event. I, for one, cannot wait until next year!

Al O’Hagan
Deptford, N.J.

Editor’s Note: Al O’Hagan was the chairman of the Great Irish Fair for 22 years before he retired and moved out of Brooklyn in 2004.