death penalty news June 13, 2004
COLORADO: Bishops in Colorado for crucial dialogue - Progress on abuse-related reforms and the role of Catholics in public life are on this week's agenda. More than 250 U.S. Roman Catholic bishops will gather in Denver this week for a critical closed-door meeting at a time when divisions have appeared in their ranks. In recent months, the leaders of America's largest religious denomination have staked out different positions on the church's proper place in the political arena, whether some church teachings should be emphasized over others, and whether Communion should be a forum for judging how Catholics stand on issues. One goal of the six-day Denver summit, which begins Monday at the Inverness Hotel and Conference Center in Arapahoe County, is to narrow those gaps and find consensus where possible, observers say. "The bishops don't like the appearance of arguing or disagreeing in public because they value very much the image of a united church," said the Rev. Tom Reese, editor of America, a Jesuit magazine. "Having different bishops say different things just destroys this image of unity." The Denver assembly was to be a solemn prayer retreat - a gathering held every five years that differs from the bishops' semi-annual business meetings. But events of the past six months caused at least two items of business to be added: a progress report from a committee of bishops examining Catholics in public life, and a likely decision on how to measure dioceses' latest progress in meeting reforms adopted after the 2002 clergy abuse scandal. The political discussion was ramped up in January when Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis said he would not serve Communion to Catholic Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry because Kerry backs abortion rights, in conflict with the church. Since then, about 15 U.S. bishops have spoken out on the Communion question. Some have said they believe Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should refrain from the Eucharist. Others dread confrontations over the sacrament at the center of Catholic life. Colorado prominent in debate The emphasis on abortion has prompted criticism that some bishops are selectively emphasizing church teachings and not holding Catholic candidates accountable on the church's stands on capital punishment, war and other subjects - an approach, critics say, that benefits the Republican Party. Some conservative bishops - including Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput - believe abortion is a litmus-test issue. Others do not. "The reality of bishops having quite different points of view on sensitive issues is not a novelty," said Russell Shaw, a conservative Catholic writer and former spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "What we have now is somewhat different in that the differences have such a high degree of visibility." Another unusual wrinkle is the prominence that Colorado, not a traditional Catholic center, has taken in the debate. The state's U.S. Senate race includes Attorney General Ken Salazar, a Catholic who supports abortion rights. In a May pastoral letter, Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan warned that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, euthanasia, gay marriage and stem-cell research in conflict with the church risk their eternal salvation. He declared that dissenting politicians may not receive Communion. Sheridan later issued a clarification explaining that he was not denying anyone the sacrament, saying only that Catholics should refrain if they are not in good standing. Sheridan went further than any other U.S. bishop by extending those same standards to rank-and-file Catholics who vote for dissenting candidates. In contrast, Chaput's May 25 column on Communion did not delve into hot political topics. Catholic public officials or parishioners "living in serious sin or who deny the teachings of the church" should refrain from taking Communion on their own accord, he wrote. The Denver archbishop said in an interview conducted by e-mail last week that while bishops sometimes have differing opinions, an underlying unity on the essentials always exists. "Every bishops' meeting has differences," Chaput said. "That's the nature of honest discussion. I think quite a few bishops will have concerns at this meeting about strengthening the Catholic identity of American Catholic public witness." Unease over differing messages The bishops of the nation's 195 dioceses have the right to set guidelines for following church teachings in their respective areas. Even so, differing messages can make the Catholic hierarchy uneasy. Pope John Paul II, speaking recently to American bishops at the Vatican, made reference to "the formation of factions within the church" in America. The Rev. Richard McBrien, a liberal theologian at the University of Notre Dame, said the bishops conference is overwhelmingly conservative, so the divide is not about ideology. He believes a gulf does exist over pragmatism. A majority of bishops, McBrien argues, are in the pragmatic camp, concerned about being identified with one political party or candidate and mindful that most Catholics resent when bishops interfere with the political process. "(Bishops) do not want to find themselves leading a march in which the only people behind them are militant pro-lifers and Republican partisans," McBrien said. The faithful "would resent any efforts by the bishops that would have the effect of making Sen. Kerry's election more difficult, and the bishops' credibility, already mortally wounded in the sexual-abuse scandal, would suffer even further damage." Controversies over Catholic politicians have flared before: in the presidential campaigns of Al Smith in 1928 and John F. Kennedy in 1960 and in the 1980s with the candidacies of Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, who support legalized abortion. The latest debate was preceded by a November 2002 Vatican doctrinal note that underscores the importance of Catholics taking part in political life. The document decries a "kind of cultural relativism" and restates church stands on abortion, euthanasia, war and other issues. In response, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops formed a task force to draft a new policy on the responsibilities of Catholics in public life. The group, which will issue a status report in Denver, is not expected to wrap up work until after the November election. But a fraction of bishops already have gone public with statements about politics and Communion. That has some concerned that the statements of a few are being given inordinate weight. Several U.S. bishops are hoping to issue a statement on politics out of Denver. Chaput has called abortion the "contemporary human rights issue of our time" and said he would never vote for a pro-abortion rights candidate. Going beyond the abortion issue Not all bishops are so single-issue minded. Pueblo Bishop Arthur Tafoya in May released a statement emphasizing Catholics should consider not just abortion but also poverty, war, the death penalty and working for peace and justice. Tafoya, 71, is part of an earlier generation of bishops cut from the cloth of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, who advocated a "consistent ethic of life," or a "seamless garment." A 2003 U.S. bishops conference statement on faithful citizenship, produced for this election year, outlines the importance of respecting life from conception to the grave. It highlights a litany of issues ranging from avoiding war and nuclear-weapon use to reducing poverty and promoting marriage. But special status is given to abortion and euthanasia, "preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others." Some Catholics believe focusing narrowly on abortion will only hurt the church's standing. Linda Pieczynski, a board member of the reform group Call to Action, said establishing a "hierarchy of evils" diminishes other Catholic social teachings. "As a Catholic voter, you have to look at candidates and see how they stand on all issues and see which one violates their concerns the least, because neither party embodies Catholic teaching all the way down the line," she said. Pieczynski said that while abortion is a mortal sin, she could never support President Bush, who opposes abortion rights. She believes Bush is guilty of other mortal sins: waging "an unprovoked war" on Iraq and signing death penalty warrants as Texas governor. Robert George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, dismisses comparing abortion to the death penalty and war because Catholic teaching allows for capital punishment and war under certain conditions. He also argues that the scope of the abortion issue - 1.3 million are performed annually in the United States - elevates its importance in the public realm. "I know Republicans who want the bishops to keep quiet about this because they are worried about a backlash," George said. "I don't think bishops should let Republicans dictate their positions. They should be concerned about being obligated to teach what the Gospel teaches about human life." Conservative Catholic groups applaud the few U.S. bishops who are holding Catholic politicians accountable at the Communion rail to the church's abortion teachings. Catholics "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" are not to take the Eucharist, according to church law. "We have gone 30 years without doing much about these politicians," said Deal Hudson, publisher of Crisis magazine and a Catholic adviser to the Bush administration and the GOP. "There's a basic consensus that the reasonable first step is to ask pro-abortion politicians to examine their own conscience. A few bishops think these politicians are well aware of what they're doing and they don't need that kind of warning, period - they can go right to sanctions." Hudson believes U.S. bishops within two years will reach a consensus to strongly discourage or publicly refuse to give the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who back abortion rights. Reese, of America magazine, said the Denver assembly should show a majority of U.S. bishops believe they should lay out the church's teachings about Communion but ultimately let individuals decide whether they're fit. Most bishops want no part of denying anyone Communion, he said. That seems in keeping with the spirit of the bishop of Rome. Reese points out that at a private Vatican Mass last year, Pope John Paul II was said to have given Communion to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, an Anglican who supports abortion rights. ---------- HEADLINING THE RETREAT Issues that will take center stage Monday through Saturday as more than 250 U.S. Catholic bishops meet in Arapahoe County: Catholics in public life A committee headed by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., will update bishops on its work, which is scheduled to be completed after the November election. A few bishops have issued statements connecting Catholic politicians' stands on moral issues to their fitness to receive Communion. But only one - Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis - has explicitly stated he would deny Communion to presidential candidate John Kerry, a Catholic who backs abortion rights. McCarrick has said denying Communion to politicians puts the church on a "slippery slope" leading to denying the Eucharist to voters. There's a good chance the bishops will issue a statement in Denver on politics, given the attention the subject has been getting. Scandal reforms Bishops will discuss whether and how to proceed on a second annual review of how dioceses are meeting reforms adopted in 2002 in response to the clergy abuse scandal. Some bishops, including Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, have questioned whether annual reviews are necessary. A board of Catholic laypeople charged with monitoring the church's reaction to the scandal strongly questioned bishops' commitment to reforms. The future of the lay panel - known as the National Review Board - is in question, however. One bishop said the Denver assembly may lead to a "reformulation" of the group. A review last year found 90 percent of dioceses are enacting the scandal reforms, including abuse prevention training and forming review boards with laypeople. Plenary council This, the main event of the meeting, has been overshadowed by other business. Bishops will discuss whether to hold a plenary council - a nationwide meeting of bishops, priests and laypeople - on the state of the church in America. It likely would examine causes of the clergy abuse scandal. The last U.S. plenary council was in Baltimore in 1884 and resulted in the Baltimore Catechism. Chaput says it's premature to say whether another council is needed. "But if it does occur, it needs to be a real act of self-examination and renewal, with a critical eye not only on ourselves but on our compromises with American culture and habits of thought," he said. The bishops are expected to wait until their next business meeting in November to vote on whether to hold a plenary council. (source: Denver Post) ======================= MARYLAND: Executions Carried Out To the Letter - In Baltimore, Killer's Death Set to Follow Detailed Plan The mechanics of death in Maryland run several dozen pages of emotionally detached detail. They discuss, from start to finish, how the state set about executing John F. Thanos in 1994, Flint Gregory Hunt in 1997 and Tyrone X. Gilliam in 1998, and how prison officials this week are ready to execute 42-year-old Steven Howard Oken. Maryland does not publicly disclose the time and date of death in advance, the lingering legacy of a time when releasing that information led to a distasteful public spectacle. A Circuit Court judge signs a warrant that specifies a five-day window during which the condemned inmate will suffer lethal injection. The state correction commissioner and the individual whom he designates his "execution commander" decide the hour and day. Not until three hours before the procedure is scheduled to begin are the dozen witnesses alerted. Their destination is the old Maryland penitentiary -- now, of all ironies, a prison hospital -- in downtown Baltimore. Yet as the state Correction Division's "Execution Operations Manual" makes clear, the preparation gets under way far in advance with weekly drills. The commander leads two units: a special security team that monitors the inmate in the days beforehand -- up to the moment he climbs onto the table where he will die -- and a second team that carries out the execution. The first group operates within the confines of what used to be called the death house, an isolated, second-floor configuration of gray walls and gray floor, as well as four gray cells, each 8 feet, 9 inches long and 7 1/2 feet wide. The other group works around the corner, quite literally. "There's a lot of planning that goes into this," said Mark Vernarelli, spokesman for the Correction Division. "We want to maintain decency and dignity and do it as smoothly as possible." For all the impassioned arguments for and against the death penalty, when a case advances this far -- as Oken's has after almost 17 years -- a routine sets in. The momentum continues even if legal challenges are pending, such as tomorrow's 2 p.m. hearing in federal district court on the defense attorney's appeal for a stay of execution. Fourteen days prior to execution week, for example, the execution area is inspected, equipment checked and personnel prepped. All observations of the inmate are recorded. Four days prior to execution week, "crowd control strategies" for possible demonstrations for and against the death penalty are planned with Baltimore police. "Receipt of pharmaceuticals" is verified. In the next several days, and in the countdown hours before the execution, the inmate is asked to detail funeral arrangements. Telephones into and out of this area of the Metropolitan Transition Center are tested and retested to prevent any delay in communication should a last-minute stay be granted by a court or the governor. The inmate's personal property is inventoried, and he puts in writing what is to be done with it. By the targeted day, the plan dictates that Oken will be waiting in cell No. 1 of the special security unit, where correction officials say "tranquillity" is the goal, and the most prominent sound is the cool, constant whoosh of the ventilation system. He will have traded the orange "jumpers" of the Supermax facility across the street, his home for the past 13 years, for a set of scrubs and shoelace-less sneakers that are a washed-out shade of tan. He can be handed a phone through the cell's thick bars and can receive visitors, but there is no close human contact. A thick, red line demarcates a several-foot-wide zone that neither relatives nor defense attorney can violate. A radio and TV are allowed -- outside of the cell. Oken will be afforded some variety for his last meal, officials say, but hardly a carte blanche menu. And when the time has come, he will be handcuffed again through the bars and his hands and legs shackled via a "chain box" that will force him to shuffle to his death in the adjacent room. There, an intravenous line will be inserted as he lies on a padded gurney, and the witnesses will be brought into the observation room. He will have a moment to make a last statement. Then, the unseen Execution Team will begin releasing the three specified chemicals -- color-coded red, green and blue -- into the IV line. The final one will stop Oken's heart. Within minutes, it should be over. Oken is scheduled to die for the 1987 sexual assault and murder of Dawn Marie Garvin, a 20-year-old college student and newlywed whom he murdered in her Baltimore County apartment. Two weeks later, he also murdered his sister-in-law and, after driving to Maine, a young motel clerk. His would be the fourth lethal injection in Maryland. Between 1961 and 1994 -- which included a brief period when the Supreme Court deemed capital punishment unconstitutional -- the state put no one to death. Between 1923 and 1961, however, 80 people were hanged or sent to the gas chamber. Fifty-three had been convicted of murder, 27 of rape. (source: Washington Post) ============================ WASHINGTON: Political clash: GOP, Demos offer stark choice for voter It may be true that politicians often sound alike, fuzzing their differences, but don't blame the parties. This year, Democrats and Republicans have produced hard-edged platforms that draw stark contrasts. Washington's two main parties differ over gay marriage, abortion rights, tax policy, pre-emptive war, Israel, oil drilling in the Arctic wilderness, charter schools, and the Iraq war. For starters. Party leaders readily concede that the scrappy platforms are the no-shades-of-gray opinions of their party's activists. But they also believe the clear positions will help guide voters and candidates in this watershed year. Democratic Chairman Paul Berendt calls his party's views "a proudly liberal Democratic platform. We didn't shy away from any controversy." He said voters are hungry for progressive politics and are fed up with George Bush and stale Republican ideas. "They haven't come up with a new idea for 20 years, not since the beginning of the Reagan Revolution." Republican Chairman Chris Vance loves the Democratic platform, too, and says he's mailing copies to the GOP and its candidates ? so they can use it against the Democrats this fall. "It's crazy," he says. "It's a radical, left-wing platform, an anti-American platform. I hope very much that they run on this platform. The polls show people are opposed to gay marriage, opposed to an income tax, most support the president's pre-emptive strike doctrine, and most support capital punishment." Vance says Democratic candidates like Christine Gregoire will have to run from ? not on ? the platform, but that Republicans are united behind a mainstream conservative platform and four-square behind the president. ___ A SAMPLER OF DIFFERENCES Both parties have posted their platforms on their Web sites, but here are highlights: _ABORTION. Democrats support abortion rights. Republicans oppose abortion and would require parental consent for such procedures. _POT. Ds support decriminalizing possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana, and legalization of pot for medical purposes. Rs did not address. _CIVIL LIBERTIES. Ds support "reversal of the erosion of civil liberties in our country." Rs have an entire plank on personal liberty. _AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Ds support; Rs don't address. _ASSISTED SUICIDE. D's support "medically assisted death with dignity with suitable safeguards for terminally ill patients." Rs say they would protect life until natural death. _SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. Ds support right of gays to marry. Rs support a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage. _CRIME. Ds say prevention is as important as responding to crime. Ds call for review of "three strikes" and other sentencing laws and elimination of racial profiling. Rs call for swift punishment for offenders and protection of individual liberties and due process. _DAMS. Ds take credit for Snake and Columbia river dams and say any breaching should be based on "sound, credible economic and scientific information." Rs oppose removal of dams and support changes that will help with relicensing. _DEATH PENALTY. Ds would abolish capital punishment. Rs favor capital punishment and oppose early release of offenders for budget reasons. _EDUCATION. Ds support "stable funding source" for education and endorse an initiative to boost the sales tax by 1 percent. They also urge full funding of voter-approved education initiatives, which the Legislature largely suspended for two years. They call for repeal of the national No Child Left Behind Act. Democrats also call for state funding of fine arts education, use of simple majority to pass school levies and bonds, and the right of teachers to strike. They call for classes on "issues of sexuality" and drug abuse, and would bar aggressive military recruiting on high school campuses and would demand an equal opportunity for "dissenting opinions." Democrats oppose charter schools, vouchers for private school, and sale of junk food on campus. Republicans support charter schools, tax credits and vouchers, support full implementation of No Child Left Behind and support teaching English as the official and primary language. Rs call for sex education that promotes abstinence before marriage and a policy that doesn't promote or identify homosexuality as a healthy or morally acceptable lifestyle. _ENERGY. Ds oppose expansion of nuclear power until long-term storage can be guaranteed. They also oppose drilling in any wildlife refuge, wilderness area or environmentally sensitive area, a reference to the Bush administration's proposal to explore for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Republicans support drilling for oil in ANWR, as well as incentives for use of renewable fuels and development of alternative energy sources. Rs support further nuclear power plant construction. _ENVIRONMENT. Ds favor cleanup of all contaminated land and water, strong measures to combat global warming, stronger fuel economy standards for SUVs and other vehicles, and stronger land-use planning efforts and farmland preservation. Rs say environmental regulations should be "reasonably limited," reliable, and consistent, and that growth-management and shoreline rules should be set at the local level. _GUNS. Ds don't call for more gun-control laws but seek stringent enforcement of current state and federal laws. Rs have a similar position. _HEALTH. Ds endorse universal publicly financed coverage. Rs oppose that and favor a free-market approach. _INCOME TAX. Ds support a progressive tax system ? code for a state income tax. Rs call for lower taxes. _ELECTIONS. Democrats call for public financing of all campaigns and would make Election Day a national holiday. They would automatically register all eligible voters. They would require all broadcast media to provide free airtime for candidates. They call for abolition of the Electoral College in favor of direct popular election of the president and vice president. Rs have no similar plank. _FOREIGN POLICY. Ds call for abandoning the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive war and say non-violence should be the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy. Ds also call for an "even-handed," two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They call for increased foreign aid and call for an end to the economic embargo against Cuba. Republicans back "pre-emptive self-defense" and say U.S. sovereignty should never be under foreign or UN command. They call for "gaining control of our borders and adopting a firm immigration policy for homeland security." Republicans adopt a strong pro-Israel plank, saying Israel has a right to defend itself against foreign attack and state-sponsored terrorism. "For a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state to exist, we must support Israel in winning their war against terror in their homeland." _IRAQ. Ds called for "equitable and rapid exit strategy" from Iraq and Afghanistan. They call for creation of a cabinet-level Department of Peace. They call for a congressional investigation of "apparent manipulation of intelligence" by the administration to justify war. Rs strongly support the president's effort, commending Bush and the military. _MEDIA. Ds say public owns broadcast airwaves and the Internet and that they should be managed to serve the public interest. Ds express concern about concentration of media ownership. Rs have no similar plank. _MILITARY. Ds call for "complete funding" of Veterans Administration hospitals and facilities for disabled veterans. They call for an end to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and would allow openly gay people to serve in the armed forces. Rs call for support of the military and veterans. _PATRIOT ACT. Ds say federal law was "irrational reaction" to 9-11 and should be scaled back. They say the law should not be renewed. Rs' support is implied. _TRADE. Ds say the United States should renegotiate or withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization. Rs don't address, but favor international trade. _TRANSPORTATION. Ds calls for "multiple funding sources" for new projects, greater reliance on non-automobile transportation, multiple airports in urban areas, tax credits for fuel efficient cars, and a cap on ferry fares. Rs call for immediate attention to highway congestion and would remake the Department of Transportation into a Highway Department. Tax increases should be minimized, the platform says. (source: AP)
