Capital punishment will be on the November Calif. ballot

Stand by for the Calif. bishops’ endorsement
San Quentin Death Row - photo from The Bohemian.com

San Quentin Death Row – photo from The Bohemian.com

The following comes from a June 23 release on the website of the California Catholic Conference.

The initiative to eliminate the use of California’s death penalty law has officially qualified for this November’s ballot.

The measure to revoke capital punishment in the state collected almost 405,000 signatures – well above the 365,000 verifiable signatures required for certification.

California, the most populous state in the country, has the largest population of death row inmates. Repealing the law would change the death sentences of almost 750 convicted inmates to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In a study published in the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Judge Arthur L. Alarcon concluded that since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1978,  “taxpayers have spent roughly $4 billion to fund a dysfunctional death penalty system that has carried out no more than 13 executions.”

Catholic Bishops have been very vocal in the past of their support for measures abolishing the use of capital punishment, declaring that state-sanctioned killing diminishes us all and the application of capital punishment is flawed and inconsistent. The Bishops have actively campaigned to support similar measures, establishing The Catholic Campaign to End the Use of The Death Penalty. The Catholic Mobilizing Network’s Mercy In Action Project seeks to promote clemency for those facing imminent execution.

A competing measure that would require inmates to be executed after ten years on death row has also been certified for November’s election. The initiative collecting the most votes on November 8 will go on to become law.

Keep an eye out for the CCC’s upcoming coverage of all initiatives that will appear on the ballot – including those that the California Bishops will formally endorse or oppose. For more information on California’s death penalty law, visit the CCC website at www.cacatholic.org/death-penalty.

 

Comments

comments

To add a comment, click on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ icons OR go further down to the bottom of comments to the Post your comment box.

Comments

  1. If we can incarcerate and protect others from harm by a person, we do not need to kill that person.

    • We do not need to abolish the death penalty (and should not) when a change in circumstances or a particular criminal case could arise in which the state would be justified in carrying out the death penalty.

      The moral legitimacy of capital punishment is supported by the Old Testament, the Fathers of the Church and Church Tradition. That cannot change. It can never be the case that capital punishment would be considered by the Church to be an intrinsic evil, but that is what abolitionists hold: that there can never be a circumstance in which the death penalty would be justified; that it is always evil.

      That simply is not true. Since it is not always evil, it should not be abolished. It should be prudently and judiciously applied, which…

      • Sawyer: your point of view contradicts the Magisterium. THe circumstances have changed so that it is not morally justifiable now to use the death penalty in our time. Popes John Paul II and Benedict, and Francis–and the rest of the bishops of the Catholic Church–have said so. Other means are now available to protect society without recourse to the death penalty. This is also articulated in the Catechism, which comes directly from JP2.

        You say the death penalty is not an intrinsic evil. NOBODY has argued that it is. HOWEVER methinks the flaw in your reasoning is that in your mind you think that it is an intrinsic good, which is perennially applicable. Well, the last two popes have dashed that notion completely .

      • “May Christmas help to strengthen and renew, throughout the world, the consensus concerning the need for urgent and adequate measures to halt the production and sale of arms, to defend human life, to end the death penalty…” Pope John Paul II’s message “Urbi et Orbi”, Christmas 1998.

        • JP2 Urbs et Orbi message 1998 is exactly an exhortation and not doctrinal definition: use of the world “may” is subjunctive expressing a personal wish and opinion .

          Catholic teaching is that the imposition of the death penalty in principle is itself moral.

          • You’re totally wrong Angelo. The use of the death penalty today has no moral justification, hence the call of the Popes to abolish it. It is cruel and unnecessary. JP2 said so. Read this:

            “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (John Paul II’s homily at the Papal Mass in St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).

        • Anne T. says:

          That was in 1998. Now it is old news, and times have changed drastically. I think they should allow guns in prison, so if the transwomen come after the women, we will have an equalizer.

          • “I rejoice that on 18 December last, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution calling upon States to institute a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and I earnestly hope that this initiative will lead to public debate on the sacred character of human life.” Pope Benedict XVI to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See, January 7, 2008.

      • If what Sawyer is saying were true (that is, “a case could arise in which the state would be justified in carrying out the death penalty”) totally reveals Sawyer has not understood the Magisterium’s teaching on this. It is not the “case” or even the severity of the crime that determines the use or non-use of the death penalty. Rather it is the existence of other means to protect society against a capital criminal. Because other means now exists as judged by JP2 and the two popes after him, it is not now morally justified to use the death penalty IN ANY CASE!

      • What Sawyer is saying (that is, “a case could arise in which the state would be justified in carrying out the death penalty”) totally reveals Sawyer has not understood the Magisterium’s teaching on this. It is not the “case” or even the severity of the crime that determines the use or non-use of the death penalty. Rather it is the existence of other means to protect society against a capital criminal. Because other means now exists as judged by JP2 and the two popes after him, it is not now morally justified to use the death penalty IN ANY CASE!

    • Your Fellow Catholic says:

      Exactly.

      • Your Fellow Catholic says:

        That was an “exactly” for Fr. Perozich’s statement, not Sawyers.

        Sawyer uses qualifiers that just don’t hold up in real life: “a particular case could arise in which the state would be justified in carrying out the death penalty”. Guess what. If you have round the clock video and eyeball surveillance, 1 inch bars, and well maintained rebar-reinforced concrete walls and sharpshooters all around, you don’t have a particular case in which the death penalty is justified.

        • Guess what: retribution is a legitimate aim of punishment. Always has been, always will be. Some capital crimes call for execution as just retribution carried out by the state. That is Catholic doctrine.

          The ability to keep criminals locked up that you, jon and other abolitionists so rely on is a circumstance that could fail: convicts killing guards, ordering hits while in prison, escaping. It all happens. You are too optimistic about society’s ability to prevent capital criminals from killing again, and so are the most recent three popes. It is a prudential judgment, which is why it is not a doctrinal matter; furthermore, it is an incorrect judgment.

          • Your reasoning Sawyer doesn’t make sense. The solution to the problems you raise (“convicts killing guards, ordering hits while in prison, escaping”) rests on strengthening and bolstering the penal system; the solution doesn’t rest on clinging onto this rotting relic from the culture of death.

            Your reasoning is not only illogical but also callous. Your position is that we should hang onto the killing of another human being so that they don’t become escapees. Your position is that we keep on killing, when the real solution is to continuing improving our penal system. Your POV is disgustingly callous and wantonly cruel.

          • By calling the pope’s teaching on the abolition of the death penalty, you Sawyer are in violation of Lumen Gentium #25, which I have conveniently quoted above. To dissent from the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals is indeed a sin.

          • By calling the pope’s teaching on the abolition of the death penalty wrong, you Sawyer are in violation of Lumen Gentium #25, which I have conveniently quoted above. To dissent from the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals is indeed a sin.

    • FromThePew says:

      Sorry Fr. RP, but the key word is “IF”. You know stuff happens that is NOT planned. Like when a death row killer(s) ESCAPES? (Upper NY state comes to mind, aided by a worker on the inside, the entire STATE of NY people & responders were put into danger, wasn’t someone killed, cost Millions for law enforcement, etc.) Also, many incidents of killer prisoners being let go due to administrative errors & they go after their victims & witnesses, before they are found out. If even only ONE more innocent is damaged, that cost is TOO high.
      Continued……..

      • FromThePew says:

        Continued………….We have a God given RIGHT(per the C. Catechism & common sense) as a society to rid ourselves of these KNOWN offenders, that would repeat killing again “IF” something ‘unintended’ happened, like power grid problems or prison riots or ‘whatever’ & they get loose. As a witness, would you want them coming after you & your family? Don’t even TRY to equate this ‘tiny example of death due to JUSTICE’ to the unholy death culture, where MILLIONS of babies die in pain, their body parts are sold & the C. Church is silent. The premise: The death penalty works as a deterrent. Why NOT support JUSTICE for the victims maimed, murdered by these few hardened criminals. Insanity!

      • FromThePew says:

        Continued….A related SIDE issue. POTUS continues to pardon FELONS & releases them unfettered, claiming they are non-violent drug related incarcerations without sharing their criminal records. Now what if you, your family, your loved one were a witness to one of these crimes in your neighborhood? Would you feel safe when they come home next door or down the block? A relative living in Detroit, has had their home attacked, drive by shooting, because of being a witness to crap like this. Not a great idea for a future witness. That is how it degrades the justice system! And without access to records, how do we know guns were not involved? Let’s trust & verify not just catch & release.

  2. Stephanie Hart says:

    The death penalty is broken because liberals keep stopping it. Executions are not going forward because of ridiculous lawsuits. We euthanize horses without pain — we can do the same for these low lifes that are on death row. I am tired of listening to their whining. No one seems to care about the victims. If the killers get life and death row is eliminated, then they can kill someone else while in prison. The death penalty needs to be reformed: Give them two appeals, quickly, and then pull the plug if no new evidence exonerates them. No trial is perfect. There is a difference between killing and execution. You take a life — you pay with your life. Life in prison with TVs, computers, free health care and the like don’t cut…

    • Stephanie: what did Our Savior say about “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?” You say, “you take a life — you pay with your life.” Our Lord has condemned that.

  3. Here is the binding doctrinal substantiation that the authentic teachings of the Pope (speeches, homilies, documents, not your airplane press conferences and not while sleep-talking) ARE BINDING. Check it out from Lumen Gentium paragrapah 25:

    “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine,…

  4. T
    Avery Cardinal Dulles:
    The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that “Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the State has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime.” Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the “Consistent Ethic of Life” at Fordham in 1983, stated his concurrence with the “classical position” that the State has the right to inflict…

    • “May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (John Paul II’s homily at the Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

  5. Avery Cardinal Dulles:
    In light of all this it seems safe to conclude that the death penalty is not in itself a violation of the right to life. The real issue for Catholics is to determine the circumstances under which that penalty ought to be applied. It is appropriate, I contend, when it is necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment and when it does not have disproportionate evil effects. I say “necessary” because I am of the opinion that killing should be avoided if the purposes of punishment can be obtained by bloodless means.

    • So the quote you give us from Dulles purportedly to support your POV, Sawyer, ends up supporting JP2’s and Benedict’s, and Francis’ call to end the death penalty. Read Dulles’ last sentence there. Brilliant.

      • Holy Grail says:

        You might want to read more carefully, there John…

        Cardinal Dulles is stating that it is his “opinion” that killing should be avoided. He doesn’t say that his “opinion” is Catholic “doctrine.”

        Seems to me that’s the point of the two quotes from Dulles: to distinguish the lack of an official teaching for abolishing the death penalty in the first one from the personal opinion that its use should be avoided in the second one. The two quotes are not incompatible, but the second doesn’t require assent like the first one does.

        • You are wrong Holy Grail: There is indeed a clear official teaching on abolishing the death penalty. The last two popes spoke clearly about ending the death penalty. JP2 was known for it. Avery DUlles himself in this article that Sawyer cites says he supports the position of the Magisterium to end the death penalty. Read it yourself: “The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.”—Dulles

          • Larry Northon says:

            “Prudential judgments” are choices between which of two or more LAWFUL actions would be the most desirable and prudent. By definition, prudential decisions do NOT involve choices between sin and virtue, and cannot be made binding on Christians by the Magisterium. “Prudential judgments” in themselves lie outside the scope of the Magisterium, and not subject to the Church’s infallible and binding authority.

          • Well, Larry Norton you are wrong. Lumen Gentium #25 binds Catholics to the prudential judgments of the popes. When articulated in homilies, official documents, and speeches, they are binding. Read it for yourself in Lumen Gentium: “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his…

          • “….manner of speaking.”

          • Larry Northon says:

            The name is “Northon.” In Lumen Gentium, you left out the sentence which precedes your quote: “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.” Prudential decisions are NOT “teachings.” They are not matters of “faith or morals” in that they do not involve choices between sin and virtue. By definition, they are choices as to which of several morally LAWFUL options is the wise and prudent one. Prudential matters do not fall under the infallible authority of the Magisterium. They cannot be declared by the Magisterium. We are not obligated to obey. It is entirely up to the individual conscience.

          • Larry Northon says:

            “In some moral matters the use of reason allows for a legitimate diversity in our prudential judgments. Catholic voters may differ, for example, on what constitutes the best immigration policy, how to provide universal health care, or affordable housing. Catholics may even have differing judgments on the state’s use of the death penalty or the decision to wage a just war. The morality of such questions lies not in what is done (the moral object), but in the motive and circumstances. Therefore, because these prudential judgments do not involve a direct choice of something evil and take into consideration various goods, it is possible for Catholic voters to arrive at different, even opposing judgments.” Moral Principles for Catholic…

          • Larry Northon says:

            …Moral Principles for Catholic Voters; Bishops of Kansas, 2006

          • Still wrong Larry Norton: The quote you just presented contradicts your own assertion. This voter guide reads: “The morality of such questions lies not in what is done (the moral object), but in the motive and circumstances.” Take circumstances. Because the circumstances now are such that there are other means to stop a capital criminal short of killing him, what could be the possible motives in terminating the life of that criminal if justice and protection of society are satisfied for short of killing? Bloodlust? An eye for an eye? Anger? Retribution? None of those motives are good. THAT is the force of JP2’s teaching calling for an end, the abolition of the death penalty. No salutary motive remain if the defense of…

          • ….society and justice are satisfied short of death.

            Additionally, your point that JP2’s, Benedicts, and Francis’ teaching to end the death penalty are not in fact “teachings” is disingenuous and grossly wrong. Of course this is an authentic teaching of the last two popes and the present one for this teaching is articulated in their homilies, speeches, official documents. Those are official instruments for disseminating papal teaching.

            Ending the death penalty is indeed their prudential judgment, and they are teaching the whole Church to adhere to this judgment of theirs. ANd Lumen Gentium has taught that their prudential judgments must be “sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will…

          • … in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” You are very mistaken. You have embarked on a difficult task of trying to rationalize your disobedience on this point. It is much easier to obey. Much easier.

          • Additinally Larry Norton: the bit you quoted merely describes that Catholics may diverge in their opinion, in their judgment of this issue. This is merely descriptive.

            But note the main point of that section, ” each of us should guide our decision-making on such issues by a fundamental respect for the dignity of every human person from the moment of conception to natural death. This is a non-negotiable principle. It is the foundation for both Catholic social teaching and of a just society. Respect for human dignity is the basis for the fundamental right to life.”

            Respect for human dignity is non-negotiable, your voter guide itself says. ANd this is the thurst of JP2’s teaching on the abolition of the death penalty: that its…

          • abolition is in keeping with human dignity. Read it below:

            “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” Pope John Paul II at the Papal Mass in St. Louis, Missouri on January 27, 1999.

  6. The abolitionists’ stance relies COMPLETELY upon having CERTAINTY that the prudential judgment that bloodless means are sufficient holds ALWAYS AND IN EVERY CASE. The abolitionists CANNOT have that certainty because they CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE. Therefore the prudential judgment that is the SOLE BASIS for the abolitionist argument is an UNCERTAIN PREMISE, and from an uncertain premise one may NOT deduce a certain conclusion.

    No one can be certain that capital punishment will never be necessary in the future. Therefore, capital punishment should not be abolished.

    • This statement is my last comment on this matter in this thread. I will not be drawn into a pointless exchange with the usual suspects who are deficient in logic and knowledge of Catholic doctrine and theology.

      Abolitionists cannot be certain that bloodless means will always be sufficient in the future. Given that reality, capital punishment shouldn’t be abolished. To abolish it is to claim that you can predict that it will never be necessary for the state to implement capital punishment in the future; but no one can claim such a thing without being dishonest or foolishly naive, for no one can predict contingent future circumstances in which prudential judgments will have to be made.

      • “Dear brothers and sisters, the time has come to banish once and for all from the continent every attack against life. No more violence, terrorism and drug-trafficking! No more torture or other forms of abuse! There must be an end to the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty! No more exploitation of the weak, racial discrimination or ghettoes of poverty! Never again!” Pope John Paul II’s homily at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico City on Saturday, 23 January 1999. Listen to the living Magisterium! Respect life!

      • Sawyer, in that same article by Dulles, he concludes that he personally supports the Magisterium’s call to abolish the death penalty. The article you quote to us actually supports JP2’s call to end the death penalty. Read Dulles words from the same article: “The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.”

        The death penalty does more harm than good, Dulles himself wrote.

        • Robert McElroy says:

          Am I wrong or are you not seeing that Dulles used the word “prudential judgment” instead of faith? Maybe Dulles personally agrees with JPII’s prudential judgment but he’s not saying that everyone else has to support it too. He personally supports that position but doesn’t say he thinks its required by Catholic faith.

          • Yes you are wrong Robert McElroy: A pope’s prudential judgment is binding per Lumen Gentium #25: “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

  7. Anne T. says:

    Ahem! Transmen (who are stronger than most women) are now asking to be put in women’s prisons. Some of those claiming to be “transmen” have raped women and children in the past. We all know that is because some what to keep on raping women, etc. Who says all prisons will be safe for anyone in in the future?

    • Anne T. says:

      Oops! I think I meant “transwomen”. Gee, it is hard to keep up with all this latest insanity.

      Also, the word in my second to last line should be “want”. Now I am getting off here before I get into more trouble.

    • Robert McElroy says:

      I am confused: is a transman a man pretending to be a woman or a woman pretending to be a man? does man in transman refer to what is biological or what is psychological?

  8. Holy Grail says:

    I will be voting for the measure that requires executions after ten years. Enough is enough!

    • Then you are deciding to dissent from the clear teaching of the Magisterium.

    • FromThePew says:

      HG, Enough is Enough. We can export them to another country when they are on D. Row. Here is what China does to their ‘mediator’ type offenders….The Chinese government continues to illegally harvest organs from millions of its innocent prisoners despite saying it had ended the practice two years ago, a decade-long study has alleged. Experts estimate between 60,000 and 100,000 prisoners of conscience are executed annually and have their hearts, livers and other organs removed to use for transplants.

      • FromThePew says:

        Continued….Ugh. While ‘real’ criminals here, get everything: food, health care, TV’s, recreation, etc A study in contrast. Yet it’s not good enough.
        Note Spelling is: MEDITATORS not mediator above. Full article refers to them as ‘prisoners of conscience’. This is from Gabriel Samuels article of June 28, 2016 @ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/ Titled: China KILLS Millions of innocent meditators for Their Organs, report finds.
        No one should EVER complain about our system again.

  9. “Well done!” Pope Benedict XVI to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo when she presented to the Holy Father a copy of the new law outlawing the death penalty in the Philippines, June 26, 2006.

  10. Bob One says:

    Let’s be practical. The primary purpose of the death penalty is to make people think twice before committing as murder, etc. How is that working? Its not! The number of murders is up in our country. Hundreds live on death row and will never be executed. Then, there is the notion of pro-life teaching about life from conception until natural death. Add to that the hundreds of cases of wrongfully sentenced people, who in fact committed no crime and the legitimacy of the entire concept is called into question. Does the church allow it in certain circumstances? Yes. But that is no reason to keep a failed program in place.

    • Bob, maybe if executions proceeded more swiftly the deterrent effect of the punishment would be noticeable. As it is, with executions delayed for so long because of costly and lengthy judicial wranglings by anti-death penalty lobby groups there is virtually no death penalty in this country, thus no deterrent effect.

      So let’s be practical: once someone has been convicted and sentenced to death, carry out the execution within one year. Then let’s see whether capital crimes fall in frequency.

      But you’re wrong about the primary purpose of the death penalty: it’s not deterrence. It’s either retribution or safeguarding the populace.

      The legitimacy of capital punishment is not at all in question: its judicious and moral…

      • So Sawyer, I thought you said you were not going to comment anymore on this topic here. I guess some people just can’t keep their word. But in any case THE practical thing to do is what the Magisterium has taught: abolish the death penalty. That is the most prudent, most wise, most practical course of action today, as there are now other means to stop a capital criminal short of killing him/her. This is well-articulated in the Catechism: the Catholic principle is that the use of the death penalty is precluded when there are other means to protect society and stop a capital criminal.

        And, you’re wrong about the purpose of the death penalty: it is NOT retribution, it is indeed the protection of society.

  11. FromThePew says:

    Meanwhile, down at the unholy abortion mill, which the C. Church is strangely & mostly SILENT, baby body parts are cut out to be sold for research while the baby dies in horrid pain & suffering. Or the poor mothers die, are maimed due to the poor quality of ‘doctors’ (Frankenstein?) & emergency care. Yet we worry about a KILLER getting DP justice within 10 years? WHY? If there is reasonable doubt, surly it will be discovered in that timeframe. The only reason this system is failing is the libs won’t let DP JUSTICE happen anymore. Our safety, those of us in the trenches, could depend on it while the elites all have ‘security’.

    • This comment shows a lack of initiative. Pew, then why don’t you go out there and lend your voice to this crime? This is where the Catholic laity should rise up and act. The laity is charged to shape the secular world into Christ’s image. The clergy is there to minister to the laity. You know what the teaching of the Church is on this issue. Then by all means do something!

      • FromThePew says:

        Jon, Thanks (ahem) for your unrelenting ability to make suggestions to the Cal Catholic World. My ‘lack of initiative’ as you say, does not allow me to respond further to your kind (ahem) suggestion.

        • Well, in that case one can only deduce that the seeming outrage in your language about the selling of baby part is not as compelling to as it seems to be. You point out how silent the Church has been on this. Well, you’re part of the Church and this apparently concerns you, as it should all of us, so what are you doing about it? Otherwise, you’re just blowing air here.

          • FromThePew says:

            You deduce wrongly. Your premise shows bad logic and rudeness (lack of civil discourse) abound in your posts which are becoming a waste of space. Would be a waste of time to give any reasonable answer to the rude, unreasonable, illogical deductions of jon. God knows we have all tried. And as usual, I’ll trust in God to judge VS jon.

    • FromThePew says:

      Continued…….Hey, being in prison in the good old USA is relatively easy. Here is what China does to their prisoners. Title: ‘China KILLS Millions of innocent meditators for Their Organs, report finds’ Dated: 6/28/2026 Found @
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/
      No one should EVER complain about our system again.

    • FromThePew says:

      Continued…..Re: my july 3rd comment above on abortion. Correction, I should say the church in America. The church in Africa and it’s cardinals (God bless them), have spoken out clearly on this very issue of UNHOLY abortion just this week. RE: the genocide of killing all those black babies in the USA. Saying (paraphrasing) abortion of black babies in the US is something we (the Catholic Church) should be apologizing for. Praise be to God. Those who have the bully pulpit could put this matter to rest by leading those in the pews up in a revolt about abortion & the death culture. Africa seems to be blessed with those church leaders. Sadly, not so much here in the USA.

  12. FromThePew says:

    A SIDE issue. POTUS continues to PARDON FELONS & releases them saying they are non-violent drug related incarcerations, but without sharing their criminal records. What if you/family/loved one were a witness to one of these crimes in your neighborhood? Would you feel safe when they come home next door or down the block? A relative living in Detroit, had their home attacked, a drive by shooting, because of being a witness to this drug crap. Guess that one had a gun! Tends to suppress any future witness & that is how releasing felons degrades the justice system. Not enforcing our laws like DP, picking & choosing which laws to enforce is another POTUS tactic, like catch & release immigration.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.