[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16750-16752]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         CARDINAL ROGER MAHONY

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have spoken several times on the floor 
this year about the flaws that plague our nation's administration of 
the death penalty. I am not alone in raising this issue. The American 
Bar Association, the Reverend Pat Robertson, the NAACP, the National 
Urban League, and many other organizations and individuals have added 
their voices to the chorus of voices supporting a moratorium on 
executions. A moratorium would allow time to review the system by which 
we impose the sentence of death. The National Conference of Catholic 
Bishops and United States Catholic Conference are among those groups 
who agree that it is time to pause.
  I rise today to share with my colleagues the statement of Cardinal 
Roger Mahony, the Archbishop of Los Angeles. At the National Press Club 
here in Washington in May, Cardinal Mahony spoke eloquently in support 
of a moratorium on executions. He said, ``the time is right for a 
genuine and reasoned national dialogue.'' In a letter to me, he later 
said, ``the obvious inequities that surround the death penalty are 
truly shameful.''
  I encourage my colleagues to take a moment to read his statement. And 
let us begin the reasoned national dialogue here, in the United States 
Senate. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of Cardinal Mahony's 
statement be printed in the Record.
  The statement follows:

         [The National Press Club Washington, DC, May 25, 2000]

      A Witness To Life: The Catholic Church and the Death Penalty

     (Address by Cardinal Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles)

       Good afternoon. As I begin my remarks, I would like to 
     thank John Cushman and the Board of Governors of the National 
     Press Club for the invitation to speak before you this 
     afternoon. I would also like to acknowledge the members of 
     the United States Catholic Conference Committees on Domestic 
     and International Policy as well as staff from the United 
     States Conference who are joining me for today's program. 
     Finally, I would like to extend a special welcome to Frank 
     and Ellen McNeirney, the co-founders and co-directors of 
     Catholics Against Capital Punishment.
       I come to this prestigious forum as a pastor who has 
     witnessed firsthand the irreparable pain and sorrow caused by 
     violence in our communities and in our nation. I have 
     presided at the funerals of police officers killed in the 
     line of duty. I have sought to console and comfort families 
     who have lost children to gang violence and drive-by-
     shootings. I have heard the concerns and fears of parents who 
     live--day in and day out--surrounded by the violence that 
     haunts their neighborhoods.
       As a Catholic priest, I have seen the pain of those whose 
     lives have been forever altered by the loss of a loved one to 
     senseless murder. Their own struggles have tested not only 
     their faith but the faith of those who walk with them. As 
     their own quest for healing has brought them closer to God, 
     their witness has been a light of hope to those who accompany 
     them.
       The cost of crime and violence is real. It is measured in 
     the lives of parents, children, and families, not anonymous 
     statistics. The hopes, dreams, and human potential that will 
     never be realized are a loss to each one of us.
       I believe the Gospel teaches that people are responsible 
     for their actions. I believe that the reality of sin demands 
     that those who injure others must make reparation. But I do 
     not believe that society is make safer, that our communities 
     are made whole, or that our social fabric is strengthened by 
     killing those who kill others. Instead, the death penalty 
     perpetuates an insidious cycle of violence that, in the end, 
     diminishes all of us.
       For many Catholics, Pope John Paul II's visit to the United 
     States in January, 1999 was a turning point on this issue. In 
     calling the abolition of the death penalty an authentically 
     pro-life position, he challenged Catholics to protect not 
     only innocent human life, as we do in opposing abortion and 
     euthanasia, but also to defend the lives of those who may 
     have done great evil by taking the life of another. To 
     demonstrate this conviction in a dramatic and personal way, 
     he appealed for the life of Darrell Mease whose execution was 
     postponed in deference to the People's visit.
       The words and actions of Pope John Paul II in St. Louis 
     brought renewed attention to the debate on the death penalty. 
     It provided renewed moral support to those who have worked 
     tirelessly over the last several decades for an end to 
     capital punishment, and placed the Catholic Church even more 
     squarely on the side of those calling for its abolition.
       In articulating a consistent ethic of life, the late 
     Cardinal Joseph Bernardin provided the framework for a 
     ``sustained moral vision.'' It now appears that this 
     consistent moral vision is beginning to take root and gain 
     ground. A recent article in America magazine notes that pro-
     life Catholics are far more likely to reject capital 
     punishment than Catholics who do not embrace the Church's 
     stand on abortion. Among these pro-lifers, fifty-two percent 
     reject the death penalty while support among all Catholics--
     in 1998--remained at around 70 percent. While we still have 
     work to do in our community, it is clear that this consistent 
     ethic of life is resonating in the pro-life community.
       I recognize that there are distinct differences between 
     abortion and the death penalty. But like abortion, the death 
     penalty remains one of the more contentious and volatile 
     issues facing the nation. It is an issue steeped in deep 
     emotion. It is a topic that evokes visceral responses from 
     supporters and opponents alike. It is a debate that, 
     unfortunately, often generates more heat than light, more 
     passion than persuasion.
       Among the signs that the nation as a whole may be taking a 
     new look at the death penalty is a recent ABC poll that 
     indicates

[[Page 16751]]

     support for the death penalty is a recent ABC poll that 
     indicates support for the death penalty has dropped to 64 
     percent from nearly 70 percent just a few years ago. And in a 
     Time magazine online poll, 43 percent of respondents 
     expressed support for abolition of the death penalty.
       This gradual shift is remarkable given that virtually no 
     elected leader in the last decade has made the case against 
     the death penalty. It is worth noting that in the last two 
     elections, presidential candidates from both parties 
     supported capital punishment. In some cases, candidates went 
     to great lengths to advertise their supported capital 
     punishment. In some cases, candidates went to great lengths 
     to advertise their support throughout their campaigns. Both 
     President Clinton and Governor Bush halted their presidential 
     campaigns to reject appeals to delay executions in highly 
     publicized cases.
       In California, 565 inmates await execution on death row. 
     Unfortunately, support for the death penalty is one of the 
     few things that unites politicians of both political parties.
       So the fact that, in the face of almost universal support 
     among elected officials, the death penalty is slowly losing 
     support among the public at-large is hope that the tide may 
     be turning.
       Movies such as ``Dead Man Walking'' and the ``The Green 
     Mile,'' and TV shows such as ``The Practice'' and ``West 
     Wing'' have brought the moral complexity of the issue to a 
     much broader audience. The courage of Illinois Governor 
     George Ryan and the work of lawyers, journalists and students 
     have focused attention on the fact that innocent people are 
     on death row.
       In the midst of this debate, the most persuasive and 
     challenging voices continued to be the victims. One of the 
     most visible is Pope John Paul II. He has never fully 
     recovered from the gun wounds that nearly killed him. But his 
     own attack became an example for us all when he reached out 
     in forgiveness to his assailant and called for the abolition 
     of the death penalty. Other victims and families are less 
     known, but no less inspiring or heroic.
       There is Bud Welch, a Texaco dealer who lost his only 
     daughter, Julie, in the bombing that destroyed the Oklahoma 
     City Federal Building. He turned his own anger into a search 
     for justice and reconciliation. He was denied an opportunity 
     to testify at Timothy McVeigh's trial because of his 
     opposition to the death penalty--a position that Julie also 
     shared. Undeterred, he has carried his message to hundreds of 
     groups arguing that capital punishment only deepens the 
     emotional wounds opened by the initial act of violence. He 
     has met with members of the Timothy McVeigh family knowing 
     that they also suffer terribly from their son's crime.
       The witness of Pope John Paul II, Bud Welch and others 
     strikes me as the modern day embodiment of Jesus Christ's 
     message of hope, forgiveness and reconciliation. It is an 
     affirmation that the answer to violence cannot be more 
     violence.
       In the Catholic Church, teaching on the death penalty has 
     developed over time. For centuries, the Church accepted the 
     right of the state to take a life in order to protect 
     society. But over time and in the light of new realities, 
     Catholic teaching now recognizes that there are non-violent 
     means to protect society and to hold offenders accountable. 
     Church teaching now clearly argues for the abolition of 
     capital punishment.
       In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the conditions 
     under which a life can be taken--even to protect the lives of 
     others--have been narrowed significantly. Specifically, the 
     Catechism states:
       ``If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives 
     against an aggressor and to protect public order and the 
     safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to 
     such means, because they better correspond to the concrete 
     conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to 
     the dignity of the human person.''
       How do these principles that uphold human life and dignity 
     apply to the complex matter of capital punishment? In 
     reflecting on Catholic teaching, we must conclude that ``even 
     the most hardened criminal remains a human person, created in 
     God's image, and possessing a dignity, value, and worth which 
     must be recognized, promoted, safeguarded and defended.'' 
     Simply put, we believe that every person is sacred, every 
     life is precious--even the life of one who has violated the 
     rights of others by taking a life. Human dignity is not 
     qualified by what we do. It cannot be earned or forfeited. 
     Human dignity is an irrevocable character of each and every 
     person.
       In the last decade, the Holy Father has reminded us that 
     the purpose of punishment should never be vengeance. Rather, 
     it is a ``condition for the offender to regain the exercise 
     of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills 
     the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's 
     safety, while at the same time offering the offender an 
     incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be 
     rehabilitated.
       The Pope states that ``. . . the nature and extent of 
     punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and 
     ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except 
     in cases of absolute necessity; in other words, when it would 
     not be possible otherwise to defend society.'' He goes on to 
     say ``. . . as a result of steady improvements in the 
     organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, 
     if not practically non-existent.''
       The reality is that the penal system in the United States, 
     perhaps better than all other countries, has the ability to 
     permanently isolate dangerous individuals.
       Now, even some death penalty supporters are becoming 
     increasingly uncomfortable with the status quo. The arbitrary 
     manner in which the death penalty is sometimes applied; the 
     disproportionate number of racial and ethnic minorities and 
     low-income persons on death row; the fiscal burdens borne by 
     penal institutions; and, most disturbingly, the mounting 
     evidence that innocent people have been convicted and 
     sentenced to death--all these factors have sown considerable 
     doubt in the minds of elected officials and the public at-
     large.
       In many states, underfunded and overworked defense 
     attorneys struggle to keep up with large caseloads. It is 
     simply unacceptable that defendants charged with capital 
     crimes should have to rely on counsel that is underfunded, 
     inexperienced, or simply incompetent.
       A wide range of voices is calling for an end to the death 
     penalty or a moratorium on executions. Governor Ryan of 
     Illinois, a supporter of the death penalty, suspended 
     executions in his State until its capital punishment 
     apparatus could be thoroughly examined. He has stated that he 
     will reinstate the death penalty only if the commission 
     studying the issue can provide a ``100 percent guarantee'' 
     that the Illinois system is flawless.
       In New Hampshire, the legislature last week passed a 
     measure to ban capital punishment only to have it vetoed by 
     Governor Jeanne Shaheen.
       And in the Supreme Court, questions have been raised again 
     about the circumstances under which death row inmates have 
     been tried and sentenced.
       In Congress, Senator Patrick Leahy and Representatives Ray 
     LaHood and Bill Delahunt have introduced legislation that 
     would, among other things:
       Ensure that defendants have access to exculpatory DNA 
     evidence when available;
       Require states to provide competent defense counsel; and
       Limit the federal government's authority to pursue the 
     death penalty for federal crimes committed in states without 
     capital punishment.
       Senator Russell Feingold has introduced a bill to abolish 
     the death penalty at the federal level and Representative 
     Jesse Jackson, Jr. has joined him in introducing bills that 
     would institute a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.
       We support these and other bills that would end the death 
     penalty or, at the very least, postpone or commute some 
     sentences while exposing fundamental flaws in the current 
     administration of capital punishment.
  It is in this light that I have written today to Gray Davis, Governor 
of California, calling on him to institute a moratorium on the death 
penalty while the California system can be thoroughly assessed and the 
inequities, weaknesses, and biases in the process can be revealed 
fully.
  All these initiatives, taken together, are signs of growing 
skepticism about the system under which the death penalty is currently 
applied. While I support these efforts, the long-term goal is not 
simply to make the application of the death penalty free from bias, 
inequity, or human error. Instead, these efforts should be steps 
towards a public dialogue that ultimately brings a permanent end to 
state executions. As the campaign to ban partial birth abortions has 
cast new light on the morality of abortion, these partial steps against 
the death penalty can create awareness of the fundamental moral 
problems with capital punishment. The time is right for a genuine and 
reasoned national dialogue.
       A recently formed independent commission to study issues of 
     procedure, innocence, and other legal aspects of the system 
     is significant and my fellow bishop, Cardinal William Keeler 
     of Baltimore, has agreed to serve on that commission. But we 
     must expand the dialogue beyond the legal problems to address 
     the moral and human dimensions of the death penalty. This 
     dialogue should be happening not only in commissions, but 
     also in our communities, in our churches and homes, and in 
     newspapers and other public forums.
       In the end, we are deceiving ourselves if we believe we can 
     fix the current death penalty system to make it more humane 
     and just. Social, political and economic factors make a 
     complete overhaul of the system doubtful. Moral and ethical 
     questions make such an endeavor impossible.


                               conclusion

       As we have pointed out in previous statements, the death 
     penalty is further indication of a culture of violence that 
     haunts our nation. Sadly, we are the most violent nation on 
     earth not currently at war. It is reflected in our movies and 
     music, our television and video games, in our homes,

[[Page 16752]]

     schools, and on our streets. More ominously, our society is 
     tempted to solve some of our more significant social problems 
     with violence. Consider this:
       Abortion is promoted to deal with difficult or unwanted 
     pregnancies.
       Euthanasia and assisted suicide are suggested as a remedy 
     for the burdens of age and illness.
       Capital punishment is marketed as the answer to deal with 
     violent crime.
       A nation that destroys its young, abandons its elderly, and 
     relies on vengeance is in serious moral trouble.
       The Catholic Bishops of the United States join with Pope 
     John Paul II in a recommitment to end the death penalty. Our 
     faith calls us to be ``unconditionally pro-life.'' We will 
     work not only to proclaim our anti-death position, but to 
     persuade others that increasing reliance on capital 
     punishment diminishes society as a whole.
       In addition, we recommit to work with our community of 
     faith to combat crime and violence, to turn our prisons from 
     warehouses of human failure and seedbeds of violence, to 
     places of rehabilitation and recovery. We will stand with 
     victims of crime and seek real justice and accountability for 
     them and their families.
       Simple solutions rarely address difficult problems. What is 
     needed is a moral revolution that results in genuine respect 
     for every human life--especially the unborn and the poor, the 
     crime victims and even the violent offender. In the end, our 
     society will be measured by how we treat ``the least among 
     us.'' It challenges each person to defend human life in every 
     circumstance and situation. It calls on our leaders and the 
     media to seek the common good and not appeal to our worst 
     instincts.
       This is a time for a new ethic--justice without vengeance. 
     Let us come together to hold people accountable for their 
     actions, to resist and condemn violence, to stand with 
     victims of crime and to insist that those who destroy 
     community, answer to the community. But let us also remember 
     that we cannot restore life by taking life, that vengeance 
     cannot heal and that all of us must find new ways to defend 
     human life and dignity in a far too violence society.
       This will be a long struggle. It begins by raising new 
     doubts about the death penalty. It will require new and more 
     serious efforts to address crime and reform prisons. But in 
     the end, we cannot practice what we condemn. We cannot defend 
     life by taking life. We cannot contain violence by using 
     state violence.
       In this new century, we join with others in taking a 
     prophetic stand to end the death penalty. In doing so, we 
     hope to share a new vision of society that is unambiguous and 
     consistent in its defense of life. It will demand the courage 
     and faith of many to see us through a long and challenging 
     process of dialogue and conversion. It is a challenge, 
     however, that is worth our best efforts.
       Thank you.

                          ____________________