S
- Status
A
Amolibri
Guest
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Now there is sophistry for you!
In the United States we pass laws to deal with future crimes. Our Constitution forbids ex post facto laws. Therefore the law deals at the outset with deterring people from committing crimes. The law permits the arrest and trial of suspects – who are not punished until convicted.
Bottom line, I said “killer,” and Frankadams said “suspect.”
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Ridicule richly deserved.
A
Amolibri
Guest
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Funny, I was just about to say that about you.
But you do admit that I have proven that Frankadams was the one who introduced the term “suspect” into this debate, and implied I somehow wanted them punished before trial, do you not?
I said in Post 101:
Note that I said “Killers” – didn’t mention one word about “suspects.”
Then he said in Post 103
And I corrected (very politely) his comment in Post 105:
F
fix
Guest
Nothing in that note contradicts Vern’s position. As I said we have a living magisterium to teach and interpret for us.
A
Amolibri
Guest
Funny, I was just about to say that about you.
Uh huh. …reminds me of the fellow who bragged about his humility.
Have you ever visited any prisoners? Just curious.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Would that be you?
Certainly! Is that not one of the Corporal Works of Mercy?
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Let’s review. At the beginning of #4 we have:
“Impossible” seems to preclude any form of support. However, the section continues by introducing a concept from Evangelium Vitae called “limiting the harm”:
At this point you might be shouting ‘see, see! Vern is just limiting the harm…’ There are several problems with this, for example Vern is not “an elected official”, nor is he voting on a “proposal”. So how far can we stretch JPII’s concept?
As you said, we have a Magisterium to help us. The next paragraph reads:
The concept of “limiting the harm” cannot be licitly used to compromise “fundemental contents of faith and morals”. At this point, the argument is settled, unless you want to argue that abortion and euthanasia are not infallibly held to be absolutes. However, just to make it clear, the document continues:
There is then a list of nine moral principles, abortion is first, euthanasia is second, and the rights of the human embryo is third. The list is ‘non negotiable’, the first sentence tells us so. If you are confused by the language, the list is referred to by Pope Benedict in SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS with the words “non negotiable”.
Nowhere in the doctrinal note is there approval for Vern’s position, which is that all nine can (actually he argues ‘should’) be compromised on because it allows one to pick the “lesser of evils” from not all candidates, but from the smaller pool of viable ones. Note that Vern has already declared that not voting for a viable candidate is a vote “wasted”. That is, he has expressly stated that political victory is of higher priority than supporting fundemental morals of Catholicism.
Nowhere in the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger that you wish to use is there approval for Vern’s position. It’s implication with regards to war and the death penalty can be debated, but it provides no argument to support comproming on abortion or euthanasia - which is Vern’s position.
Yes, we do. Why are you so reluctant to read and support it?
F
frankadams
Guest
Vern, are you blind or just that that stubborn??? Kindly note the second word in YOUR third sentence.
I think this explains a lot about you. If you have multiple chances to see the term “suspects” in your own sentence, fail miserably, and then actually brag about how it isn’t there to other posters, I think many of us can see why concepts like logic and reason are so difficult for you to comprehend.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
We do – your mistake is assuming that you are the Magisterium, and have the right to interpret what the Church says.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Yes, I mentioned people who are not yet convicted being willing to kill witnesses. But you introduced the term “suspects” in terms of people to be executed without trial.
I corrected you, gently and politely.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Where in the Doctrinal Note, the Catechism, or even the unrelated Cardinal letter, is there support for your position?
I’ve gone through a section of the Doctrinal Note and placed my interpretation beside it. Why are you taking it upon yourself to accuse me of a grave sin as opposed to simply doing the same?
If your concept of compromise on non negotiable moral principles for the sake of political success is licit, surely we can find that somewhere in Church Doctrine! With words like “impossible”, “non negotiable”, and “the essence of the moral law”, surely the ‘unless, of course, you really want to vote for a winner and get something done…’ caveat would be expressly spelled out.
Highlighting your ‘proper’ understanding in the documents would seem to be a Catholic obligation (CCC 2478-2481). That is why I take the time to go through the documents and outline my own perception for you.
E
Ender
Guest
Both of those statements are suspect and neither is of primary importance in determining whether capital punishment should be applied. The primary goal of all punishment is to redress the wrong caused by the crime. It is justice that requires a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime. The protection of society, deterrence, and rehabilitation are legitimate purposes of punishment but individually or together they do not outweigh the demand of justice.
The issue of justice (as well as deterrence and rehabilitation) was not addressed in JPII’s rejection of capital punishment. This is an omission that at some point will have to be addressed. The Church for its first 1995 years taught that capital punishment was an appropriate punishment and I am unpersuaded that that position was in error.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
*“36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.” *
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007
usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
Ender
F
frankadams
Guest
I think you accidentally cut off part of the citation. I believe it reads: “may decide to vote for the candidate Vern has deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position…” (emphasis mine).
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Because I don’t want to commit the same sin, of course!
You demand we accept your “interpretation.” I stick with the Church’s interpretation – which is found in the Catechism.
I have no “concept of compromise on non negotiable moral principles.”
And your perception is merely your perception. I prefet to go with the Catechism.
And in keeping with this section of the Catecjhism, I ask you to stop your convoluted arguments and holier-than-thou preaching.
F
frankadams
Guest
Well you did mention “suspects” once. It is in the part where you say “suspects.” But other than that, you “didn’t mention one word about “suspects.””
S
SoCalRC
Guest
At least you are in honest disagreement with the Church. However, it is important to distinguish between the Church’s theological position, and it’s recognition of rightful civil authority. Consider this statement permitting capitol punishment under the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
The word punishment is used in the quote (“because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent”). But “punishment” is not provided as a theological argument for the act to be lict under the faith. The core principle to apply is stated:
"For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life."
The Church maintains that this is still a licit application of the death penalty (protection of society). However, it asserts that, in the modern age, the “purpose of the law” can be better fullfilled without capitol punishment the vast majority of the time.
- Status