o/t - Pro-life and Pro-Capital Punishment
David / Amicus
Pro-life and Pro-Capital Punishment
Address:
http://www.roman-catholic.com/Roman/Articles/CapitalPunishment.htm
theget
It seems to me that St. Thomas Aquinas' words might reasonably be
interpreted as supporting abortion in certain cases if the fetus
threatens the life of the mother.
"For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body
demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or
infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy an
advantageous to have it cut out of the body."
Would you agree?
Theget
David / Amicus
interpreted as supporting abortion in certain cases if the fetus
threatens the life of the mother.
"For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands
the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the
other members, it will be both praiseworthy an advantageous to have it
cut out of the body."
Would you agree?>>
That's why I ultimately leave such decisions to the wisdom of Holy
Mother Church.
theget
I'm sorry, but then I don't understand your purpose. Did you seek to
convince others of the point of view of the church? I don't think we
could say that it's your view, because you leave "such decisions" to
someone else.
How would you categorize "such decisions"?
"That's why" doesn't seem to have a referent. I can't understand what
you mean. Why do you leave "such decisions" to be decided by someone
else?
If you were on a jury and the accused testified at trial that he
allowed "Holy Mother Church" to decide if his actions were right or
wrong, good or evil, would you say that he was not guilty? On what
grounds?
Theget
Porter Smith
@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net:
It is perfectly logical that many people who are anti-abortion also support
capital punishment. I think you will find that these same folks include the
"except for rape and incest" exception. (I guess those unborn children are
not worthly)
What this means is that they do not care about human life. They just want
to control other people's lives.
David / Amicus
showed one could be against abortion and yet favor the death penalty and
not just for murder. That's what I believe.
And I think that is the official teaching of the Church.
D.F. Manno
Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
> That's why I ultimately leave such decisions to the wisdom of Holy
> Mother Church.
Incapable of independent thought, eh?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"I don't trust organized anything: teams, religions, corporations. People
in enterprise together consistently do two things: promulgate the enterprise,
no matter what, and protect miscreants in their midst." (Alfred Lubrano, author)
theget
I just want to make sure that I understand. Does the church "favor"
the death penalty?
What's their position on crucifixion? Do they "favor" that as well?
Theget
theget
I'm not entirely sure that I follow your point. How did you reach this
conclusion?
Theget
David / Amicus
the death penalty?>>
The Church recognizes the right of governments to execute criminals.
<<What's their position on crucifixion? Do they "favor" that as well?>>
I think that the Emperor Constantine outlawed it. It's been a moot
point for Christians since then. I think Islam allows it.
theget
I'm confused by your position. Did you decide on your own that the
page you posted the link for demonstrated the church's position? Or
did someone tell you that it did?
Theget
David Johnston
wrote:
>Just came across this interesting article.
Every anti-abortion, pro-killing murderers person says, "I'm
"pro-innocent-life". So, no, not very interesting.
David / Amicus
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have
been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not
exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way
of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect
people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such
means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the
common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human
person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state
has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed
an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from
him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the
execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if
not practically non-existent."
theget
That's very interesting, but I don't at all see how it was responsive
to my question. If you don't want to answer, that is, of course, up
to you.
Theget
Ray O'Hara
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13078-4B...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
pro-"life" {anti-choice as long as its not their daughter} and pro-death
penalty is the standard repugnot stance
"the Republicans believes the right to life begins with conception and ends
with birth"
Barney Frank.
Ray O'Hara
"theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:33635125-11be-4948...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Theget
=======================================================================
the Catholic Church is firmly against capital punishment.
various Prot sects are cool with it.
David / Amicus
pro-death penalty is the standard repugnot stance
"the Republicans believes the right to life begins with conception and
ends with birth" Barney Frank.>>
But it looks to me like that the "demonrats" stance is it's okay to
butcher babies in the womb and euthanize the sick and the old but they
want to give truly evil people like murderers and child molestors and
rapists a free pass for life in prison.
Kilk the innocent but let the evil-doers live.
David / Amicus
page you posted the link for demonstrated the church's position? Or did
someone tell you that it did?>>
I found that page on my own while surfing the 'net. Imo it represents
the Church's teachings. I thought it was a good explanation.
theget
But I find that confusing. Going by what you said, shouldn't you have
left that decision "to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church"?
Theget
David Johnston
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:13078-4B...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
>> Just came across this interesting article.
>>
>>
>> Pro-life and Pro-Capital Punishment
>> Address:
>>
>>
>> http://www.roman-catholic.com/Roman/Articles/CapitalPunishment.htm
>>
>
>pro-"life" {anti-choice as long as its not their daughter} and pro-death
>penalty is the standard repugnot stance
Must you really?
David / Amicus
represents the Church's teachings. I thought it was a good
explanation."
<<But I find that confusing. Going by what you said, shouldn't you have
left that decision "to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church"?>>
But as far as I can tell / perceive the article agrees with the
teachings of the Church.
theget
This seems inconsistent to me. Inconsistency is not AFAIK a mortal
sin, yet I wonder why you felt that you could make this specific
decision on your own and while in other situations you don't.
How do you decide?
Theget
Ray O'Hara
who has been euthanized, fetuses aren't people
the RNC health plan for its employees covers living wills{death panels}
Sarahquitter declared April 16th 2008 Healthcare Decision Day {deathpanels}
the prpclamtion can be read here
http://gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6
in July Newt Gingrich advoctated for living wills too {death panels}
Newt Gingrich wrote in the Washington Post:
More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months
of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has
developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1)
community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have
advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of
services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach
empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. The
Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30
percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If
Gundersen's approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million
Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33
billion a year.
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/20317-newt-gingrich-advance-directive-advocate/
once Living wills became a part of the Dem plan{ you could meet your Doctor
once every 5 years to discuss it, its not mandatory, only one is covered
per 5 years}
the Repubgnots cynically figured they could twist the issue to fool the
weak minded dupes {people like you} and it seems to have worked{on you}
the Repubs and blue dog Dems are taking their marching orders direct from
the Insurance lobby.
Ray O'Hara
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:sfeeg5dlo7kj3iob8...@4ax.com...
its the topic of the thread
Newt Gingrich and Saraquitter were both pro-death panel bvefore they learned
the party line was against it.
if the Dems had a cure for cancer the Repubnots would oppose it.
David Johnston
<raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
>news:sfeeg5dlo7kj3iob8...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:25:57 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
>> <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>>news:13078-4B...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
>>>> Just came across this interesting article.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pro-life and Pro-Capital Punishment
>>>> Address:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.roman-catholic.com/Roman/Articles/CapitalPunishment.htm
>>>>
>>>
>>>pro-"life" {anti-choice as long as its not their daughter} and pro-death
>>>penalty is the standard repugnot stance
>>
>> Must you really?
>
> its the topic of the thread
The topic of the thread is not namecalling.
Nick Knight
> On Nov 18, 6:15 pm, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
>
> > Just came across this interesting article.
>
> > Pro-life and Pro-Capital Punishment
If you read the official position of the Catholic Church the Vatican
is
in opposed to abotion and opposed to capital punishment.
David / Amicus
is
in opposed to abotion and opposed to capital punishment.>>
I have posted the Catechism on the death penalty. The Church is not
against capital punishment.
Ray O'Hara
yes it is.
theget
> "David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in messagenews:17945-4B0...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
>
> > <<If you read the official position of the Catholic Church the Vatican
> > is
> > in opposed to abotion and opposed to capital punishment.>>
>
> > I have posted the Catechism on the death penalty. The Church is not
> > against capital punishment.
>
> yes it is.
I think the Vatican disagrees with you.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
"The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, ...recourse
to the death penalty... ."
Theget
Ray O'Hara
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
Theget
===================================================================
the Pope is against as was the last pope, as the church sees the pope as
infallible what he says goes, tradition is what the pope says it is.
David / Amicus
as infallible what he says goes, tradition is what the pope says it
is.>>
The dogma of Papal Infallibility is limited and does not include the
Pope's personal opinions.
The Popes have not been against capital punishment per se but only
against its application. There is a difference!
theget
If what you say is correct, why do the popes allow the catechism to be
published with opinions that you believe they believe are misleading
at best?
Theget
Ray O'Hara
Theget
=====================================================================
"2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing
full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender,
recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to
defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor"
that bit justifies defensive war. it means if you are attacked you have the
right of self-defense
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor
and to protect 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.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively
repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without
depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of
absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare,
if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56."
that bit argues against executing criminals. it says if you catch them you
can keep them, killing them is wrong.
8 years of Catholic school taught me to read Catholic doctrine
David Johnston
That's a myth. While in the 19th century one of the popes did assert
that he had the authority to make "infallible" pronouncements on
doctrine, that authority has only actually been exercised once, to
officially state that Mary was uniquely born without sin. The typical
day to day moral guidance given by this pope or that is not covered by
papal infallibility.
David Johnston
That is not an accurate statement of their position. The recent popes
have spoken out against capital punishment, but they have not declared
it to be sinful. They have declared abortion to be sinful.
David / Amicus
Let's say an airplane goes down on a deserted island. (No not the tv
show "Lost").
One of the passengers starts killing others say for food.
There is no way to imprison him. So the only solution would be to
execute him for the safety of the other passengers.
David / Amicus
authority to make "infallible" pronouncements on doctrine, that
authority has only actually been exercised once, to officially state
that Mary was uniquely born without sin.>>
Actually three times --->
Pius IX - the Immaculate Conception
Pius XII - the Assumption
John Paul II - no female priests
theget
What is not an accurate statement of their position? If you mean what
Ray O'Hara wrote then I agree. I was hoping he would explain the
apparent conflict between his claim and the behavior of the popes.
> The recent popes
> have spoken out against capital punishment, but they have not declared
> it to be sinful.
I agree that this is a distinction. The catechism as posted on the
Vatican's website doesn't suggest that the death penalty can never be
applied.
> They have declared abortion to be sinful.
Theget
theget
But not evidently to understand the difference between absolutes and
conditions.
Please read more carefully or clarify your statement. As it stands, at
best I think you are giving a false impression of your meaning. "Very
rare" and "practically non-existent" does not mean never occurring.
It is one thing to suggest that something should almost never be done
for practical reasons and another to suggest something should never be
done for moral reasons. Please tell me if this isn't clear.
Theget
Ray O'Hara
Theget
=================================================================
it allows for self defense, not judicial execution{the death penalty}
executing prisoners even legally is a no-no.
example, a nut with an axe is chopping up shoppers at the mall;. a cop can
use deadly force to stop him if he refuses top stop when challenged.
once caught and convicted execution is seen as wrong.
Ray O'Hara
Theget
=====================================================================
yes it does.
that is what this says
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
Neither have the popes.
theget
I don't believe this is the position set out in the portion of the
catechism I gave the link for. Please tell me how you reached this
conclusion.
Theget
theget
theget
I suggest that your disagreement is with Ray O'Hara and not with me.
Theget
theget
I'm sorry, but what does this add to the disagreement we seem to be
having. It merely repeats what has already been stated. Rarely does
not mean never. Practically non-existent does not mean non-existent.
Please tell me if this is clear to you or not.
Theget
Ray O'Hara
Theget
=========================================================================
"
"2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing
full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender,
recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to
defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor"
when it says death penalty in this it doesn't mean judicial execution but
self defense. defending the country against invasion. defending your family
against an intruder bent on killing them and you.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor
and to protect 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.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively
repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without
depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of
absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare,
if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56."
the above passage says if you have them in custody you shouldn't kill them.
once the cuffs go on killing in no longer an option.
its quite clear.
"death penalty" just means killing. not execution.
you come at me with an ax and I have a .357 I CAN give you the "death
penalty" by shooting you.
if you drop the ax its off to prison.
Ray O'Hara
Theget
=============================================================
"if practically non-existant".
yeah it does.
once a man is locked up what excuse is there to kill beyond revenge.
theget
I have trouble believing that a group of people who are so finely
tuned to language wouldn't simply have said that they support killing
in self defense. In fact self defense is explicitly mentioned here
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm I suspect this
means that when the church says death penalty, they mean a death
penalty where a sentence has been passed by a court.
Theget
theget
There may be situations where a particular person can't be locked up
safely. For example, he may present a danger to his guards or his
fellow prisoners. Or he may be a particular risk of escape with an
intent to reengage in his criminal career.
I think they're trying to be very careful with their language. I take
their meaning to be, most of the time the death penalty should not be
imposed if we have a means of safely incarcerating the offender. If
for some reason we are unable to do this, then we may put that person
to death. I'd add that I think it's implicit that we still must
strive to find better ways to deal with similar problems.
Nevertheless, this does not rule out the death penalty in all cases,
no matter how infrequently we may encounter an exception.
However, I am not a Catholic, and this is just my interpretation of
what it means.
Theget
Ray O'Hara
Theget
======================================================================
it's a translation.
Ray O'Hara
Theget
================================================================================
you're reaching. we have some ultra-crazies locked up,watch the MSNBC,
series 'Locked Up"
if we can handle those guys we can handle anybody. tasers have given guards
the upper hand.
theget
I'm not reaching at all.
> we have some ultra-crazies locked up,watch the MSNBC,
> series 'Locked Up"
I've seen various shows of this kind and I think I understand your
point.
> if we can handle those guys we can handle anybody.
Can we handle those guys? I'm too lazy to look stuff up right now,
but it might be interesting to see how much damage the guys in max
security cause each year.
> tasers have given guards the upper hand.
Is that an absolute upper hand, or does the occasional corrections
officer not react quickly enough and get a serious injury or worse?
Also, the Vatican doesn't expect the rules to be applied to only our
society but every society, and not all human societies can afford
luxuries like secure prisons.
I think you may be confusing a moral stand with a practical outcome.
Theget
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
>Also, the Vatican doesn't expect the rules to be applied to only our
>society but every society,
The Popes advocacy against capital punishment isn't a rule.