She also writes: "Some Catholics draw a more general conclusion from
these particulars-that the Church's teaching is advisory rather than
authoritative. Members are well-advised to consider it, but in the end
they are free to accept or reject it. (p. 345)"
"Catholic judges must answer some complex moral and legal questions in deciding whether to sit in death penalty cases. Sometimes (as with direct appeals of death sentences) the right answers are not obvious. But in a system that effectively leaves the decision up to the judge, these are questions that responsible Catholics must consider seriously.
Judges cannot-nor should they try to-align our legal system with the
Church's moral teaching whenever the two diverge. (p.350)"
She also writes: "Some Catholics draw a more general conclusion from these particulars-that the Church's teaching is advisory rather than authoritative. Members are well-advised to consider it, but in the end they are free to accept or reject it. (p. 345)"
"Catholic judges must answer some complex moral and legal questions in deciding whether to sit in death penalty cases. Sometimes (as with direct appeals of death sentences) the right answers are not obvious. But in a system that effectively leaves the decision up to the judge, these are questions that responsible Catholics must consider seriously. Judges cannot-nor should they try to-align our legal system with the Church's moral teaching whenever the two diverge. (p.350)"
No argument, but I am concerned about her potential need for recusal.