Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[vz71]

I do place them on a par and I think that a fair reading of vatican documents supports that the Church claims that all life and death issues are substantially the same.

I believe the lack of citation to back your statement is probably because there is no backing.
Of course, I noticed that you have suddenly changed your argument. You no longer place the death penelty and just war on par with abortion…you now place “life and death issues” whatever that means.

Why not produce backing for your initial argument?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do place them on a par and I think that a fair reading of vatican documents supports that the Church claims that all life and death issues are substantially the same.

Yet the Church says abortion and euthansia are intrinsically evil, but war and the death penalty are matters for prudential judgement.

So the Church has not said they are “substantially the same.”

 

[vz71]

Vern, twice now you have hitched your argument on someone else’s only to find that you misread their post and instead of criticizing me they were criticizing you. That was embarassing enough I would think, to cause you to rethink the idea of not speaking for yourself. You do this constantly, rewriting someone else’s thoughts in an attempt to gang up on me or others. I do not intend to sit idly by. I am going to call you on it agian and again. Speak for yourself.

I do not believe you understood my post.
As the author of said post, I am the authority on it, please do not add meaning that is not there.

 

[wildleafblower]

Many people have the mistaken idea that long posts, convoluted sentences, and rarely-used words somehow make for an “intellectual” post.

What they fail to realize is that the purpose of writing is to communicate. If the post does not clearly communicate the writer’s ideas, the writer, not the reader, has failed.

Hi Vern:wave:

Your brilliant and astute observation especially reminded me of the “responsibilty” of lawyers which was so elequantly expressed in the ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF THE ACADEMY OF AMERICAN AND ITERNATIONAL LAW on Saturday, 27 September 1986:

Dear Friends,

1. I am happy to welcome to the Vatican the members of the Alumni Association of the Academy of American and International Law. I am pleased that you have requested this audience and I wish to take the occasion to assure you of my respect for your important role in society.

This meeting with you calls to mind the words of the prophet Micah: “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God”? Yours is indeed an esteemed and noble profession, one which boasts ancient and modern traditions and which exerts great influence on the stability and well-being of society. For the service you offer safeguards the rights of citizens, implements the demands of justice, and helps to guarantee society’s orderly development in righteousness and freedom.

1. You are called upon to promote justice according to the norms of law. The exercise of your profession requires more than just legal knowledge and expertise. **You must also be persons of wisdom and prudence, men and women possessing a vigilant moral commitment and firmly believing in the dignity and inalienable rights of every human being from the first moment of conception until natural death **

As lawyers, you possess a deep concern for justice, yet something even more than justice is needed. As I stated in my Encyclical Letter on the mercy of God: “The experience of the past and of our own time demonstrates that justice alone is not enough, that it can even lead to the negation and destruction of itself, if that deeper power, which is love, is not allowed to shape human life in its various dimensions”. **Certainly one must not minimise the important role and absolute necessity of justice in relations between people; I only wish to point to the higher role and “deeper power” possessed by love. That is why the Prophet encourages us to act justly but also to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God. **

1. I assure you of my prayers for your deserving efforts in the service of society. The Psalmist of the Old Testament says: “The just will flourish like the palm tree and grow like a Lebanon cedar”. As you seek to strengthen in our world the bonds of harmony, stability and peace, may the Lord grant his abundant blessings to you and your families.
   vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1986/september/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19860927_giuristi-americani_en.html
   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...jp-ii_spe_19860927_giuristi-americani_en.html

My love for JOHN PAUL II will never die! He continues to remain for me an inspiration. His words profess the spring waters of immense love for humanity.

P.S. Off-topic, I know you love horses as much as I do. I was blessed as a young girl to have the experience of breaking stallions. Number one rule, don’t ever get on a horse unless you’re confident that you are the boss. Pull back the rein and dig your heels into 'em till they behave. :thumbsup:I hope to return to our horse discussion later next week until then I’m making arrangements for hot air ballooning across New Mexico.
for your patience.

Saving space- I see what you wrote below Vern. Congratulations, Papa! I love colts.

 

[vern_humphrey]

P.S. Off-topic, I know you love horses as much as I do. I was blessed as a young girl to have the experience of breaking stallions. Number one rule, don’t ever get on a horse unless you’re confident that you are the boss. Pull back the rein and dig your heels into 'em till they behave. :thumbsup:I hope to return to our horse discussion later next week until then I’m making arrangements for hot air ballooning across New Mexico.
for your patience.

We just had a blessed event here – my wife’s jenny, Jill, foaled. We have named the little critter Jasmine, and have a long list of children applying for her when she’s weaned.

 

[Amolibri]

I do place them on a par and I think that a fair reading of vatican documents supports that the Church claims that all life and death issues are substantially the same. We are simply not for death, except that which is natural. Too many delight in arguing that they are not YET prevented from promoting the death penalty or war. Good grief, have you heard of the utter mess they are having in Dallas with a corrupt prosecutor. 17 men have been released so far as being convicted of crimes they did not commit. How can anyone support a system that runs the risk of killing people who are not guilty but the victim of a faulty human system.

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I do not believe you understood my post.
As the author of said post, I am the authority on it, please do not add meaning that is not there.

I understood your post quite well. I was in no way referring to your post at all.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yet the Church says abortion and euthansia are intrinsically evil, but war and the death penalty are matters for prudential judgement.

So the Church has not said they are “substantially the same.”

Vern we have been through all this before. You are aware of what both JPII and the Catechism says about the death penalty. You know there are virtually no moral bases for it any more as JPII has alluded to. You know that the Church has not told you specifically that it is a sin to promote the death penalty. So since you wish to promote it you can still do it. You know it is against the tenor of Vatican thinking. You’re just splitting hairs and we all know it. Just war is also severely limited and it’s pretty clear that the Vatican does not believe Iraq is one. Again, you are not sinful in promoting it and so you do. Religion is being used as a means to follow beliefs one wishes to, by sneaking by the obvious intent.

 

[vz71]

Religion is being used as a means to follow beliefs one wishes to, by sneaking by the obvious intent.

Ah. The obvious intent.

Usually quite seperate from the real intent.

In this case, it is.
Abortion is intrinsically evil. The death penelty is not, just war is not.
That is church doctrine.
That is proof that the two are not on par with abortion.

Unless we want to follow the *obvious *intent.:ehh:

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Ah. The obvious intent.

Usually quite seperate from the real intent.

In this case, it is.
Abortion is intrinsically evil. The death penelty is not, just war is not.
That is church doctrine.
That is proof that the two are not on par with abortion.

Unless we want to follow the *obvious *intent.:ehh:

JPII has said that he can think of little or no reason why anyone need be executed in the modern world. I say that the Catholic dogma, fairly interepreted says that the Church is pro life in EVERY respect, and condones killing by any means either totally without any exception, or with exceptions that are very infrequent, mainly as to do with defensive war to protect one’s own country. The fact that JPII and the Catechism exclude the death penalty to only a strange circumstance wherein the perpetrator cannot be held safely, suggests that it is really saying that the American system is wrong. Most of the world agrees. If one still clings to it, I am forced to believe that one does so out of a general desire to execute, and clings desperately to a tiny thread that seems to allow that belief. It is not I suggest the better position or the moral position. It is similar to those who cling to creationism when it is clear that the Church now accepts some form of evolution. She does not make it sinful to still cling to creationism, but she has also made her position quite clear. Play the dogma card if you wish, I’m being quoted to death on another thread by a PBC document. When I have sited it in my favor, I’m told it’s not dogma and need not be followed. Of course when used to support some supposed belief, it is just fine of course. Double speak is at work here, and frankly I find it boring to play the game.

 

[Brendan]

JPII has said that he can think of little or no reason why anyone need be executed in the modern world…

That’s fine.

But note that he also recognizes that he does not know every circumstance, and gives the right to make the determination to execute someone, not the Church, but to the State.

If JP-II wants the State to make that determination, who are we to disagree with him?

 

[Ender]

I do place them on a par and I think that a fair reading of vatican documents supports that the Church claims that all life and death issues are substantially the same.

If by life and death issues you mean abortion, war, and the death penalty, then there is no reasonable way at all to claim that the Church sees them as substantially the same.

Too many delight in arguing that they are not YET prevented from promoting the death penalty or war.

It may be emotionally satisfying to vilify your opponents but even if your unjustifiable charge was true it would mean nothing whatever about the validity of the arguments being made. The arguments are either true or false and that fact is not affected by whether the person who makes them is himself a good person. It is not the unpleasantness of these charges that I find so exasperating as it is their complete irrelevance.

Ender

 

[frankadams]

Ah. The obvious intent.

Usually quite seperate from the real intent.

In this case, it is.
Abortion is intrinsically evil. The death penelty is not, just war is not.
That is church doctrine.
That is proof that the two are not on par with abortion.

Unless we want to follow the *obvious *intent.:ehh:

Your point has been made. You support the Pope, the Vatican, and the USCCB on abortion because you must. You completely go against the Pope, the Vatican, and the USCCB on the death penalty and war because you may.

Your victory? You may confidently remain in communion with Rome as your pro-death penalty, pro-war mentality contributes to what the Church calls a "culture of death," a mentality which helps foster a pro-abortion society. That is your victory. Congratulations.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Your point has been made. You support the Pope, the Vatican, and the USCCB on abortion because you must. You completely go against the Pope, the Vatican, and the USCCB on the death penalty and war because you may.

Your victory? You may confidently remain in communion with Rome as your pro-death penalty, pro-war mentality contributes to what the Church calls a "culture of death," a mentality which helps foster a pro-abortion society. That is your victory. Congratulations.

And just what did this post contribute to the debate?

 

[vz71]

JPII has said that he can think of little or no reason why anyone need be executed in the modern world. I say that the Catholic dogma, fairly interepreted says that the Church is pro life in EVERY respect, and condones killing by any means either totally without any exception, or with exceptions that are very infrequent, mainly as to do with defensive war to protect one’s own country. The fact that JPII and the Catechism exclude the death penalty to only a strange circumstance wherein the perpetrator cannot be held safely, suggests that it is really saying that the American system is wrong.

Glad to hear the acknowledgement.
Abortion is wrong…period, end of story. There are no exceptions.

And as you said, “JPII and the Catechism exclude the death penalty to only a strange circumstance wherein the perpetrator cannot be held safely”
In other words, there are instances that warrant the death penalty.

Abortion and the death penalty are not on par with one another.

 

[vz71]

Your point has been made. You support the Pope, the Vatican, and the USCCB on abortion because you must. You completely go against the Pope, the Vatican, and the USCCB on the death penalty and war because you may.

If you really want to know what I think, ask.
Your ESP has failed you. You really do not know what I am thinking.

Your victory? You may confidently remain in communion with Rome as your pro-death penalty, pro-war mentality contributes to what the Church calls a "culture of death," a mentality which helps foster a pro-abortion society. That is your victory. Congratulations.

I’m uncertain congratulations are in order here.
Everything you attribute to me that you appear to congratulate is false.

But I’ll take the victory anyway…thanks.

 

[frankadams]

Abortion and the death penalty are not on par with one another.

You have made this clear on several occasions, as have most of the posters here. This means that while your Pope, your Vatican, and your bishops oppose the death penalty, you are free to enthusiastically endorse it. And while your Pope, your Vatican, and your bishops spoke out forcefully against this war prior to its beginning, you were free to enthusiastically endorse it. I simply made the observation that by doing so, you contribute more and more to the culture of death which your Pope, your Vatican, and your bishops routinely decry.
I pray that our Church might one day speak with a more united voice on all issues that seek to respect the sanctity of human life.

 

[Super_Grover]

The Catechism contains teachings at all three of the levels you discussed and the citations you made about the nature of the Catechism itself are significant, which is why I referenced only Church sources to defend my position. There are other less weighty individuals who say the same thing.

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=15

Ender

Sorry, my response is about two pages behind. This is a voluminous post, and my “non-internet” life called me away this weekend.

Oh, I definitely had recognized that the CCC had all three levels of teaching contained within it, but had said what is contained in the CCC is not belonging to the first two levels and infallible simply by virtue of being in the CCC. I guess it just didn’t occur to me, (and I had failed to sufficiently research, apparently) that matters of prudential judgment would be placed in the Catechism. That really does seem inappropriate.

From your article, I thought this was interesting.

It is, I think, unfortunate that this prudential judgement was added to the Catechism. No matter how valuable it may be, the protection of the Holy Spirit does not apply to it, nor can such judgements ever be part of the Church’s Magisterium. The Church has no special gift for discerning the capabilities of the modern age in comparison with past ages, the quality of the world’s penitentiaries, or —to return to the main point—what is necessary for the protection of the public safety. For this reason, her opinions on this subject do not properly belong in catechisms.

I would have to agree with this, which is part of what has nagged me about 2267.

But there is something unresolved for me still. It is one thing to express opinions about modern jails. But it seems quite another thing to reverse the order of the first two reason for infliction of punishment, including the death penalty. It seems that the Church has long held that the primary reason for punishment, including the death penalty, was redress and expiation, while the next reason in order of priority was protection from future harm. JPII does not seem to contradict that with respect to other penalties, but seems to reverse these two priorities only as to the death penalty – placing the protection from future harm at the top, and not allowing for the death penalty even for redress and expiation unless the person is a future threat.

Frankly, I have a hard time with this:

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.

It seems that everything following “if” is simply not consistent with Trent, and 3 Doctors, and 2 recent Popes. The “if” clause should have addressed the traditional purpose of the Church as allowing, and even demanding, the death penalty when necessary to redress the disorder caused by the offense, and expiation, and then, secondly, to defend human lives against the unjust aggressor.

First, would you accept that he has flipped these priorities? It seems that emphasis that bloodless means be used when sufficient, suggests that “sufficient” is completely defined by what is necessary to prevent future harm from that particular offender, rather than evaluate whether the person deserves death.

Second, if this reordering of priorities is just his opinion, how is it that he, even as Pope, was entitled to hold and express an opinion that was at odds with long standing Church teaching that offered redress and expiation as the primary purpose of capital punishment?

 

[mapleoak]

Protecting society from harm does not necessarily apply only to sufficiently holding captive one who is deemed dangerous. It can be said that just expiation which serves as a deterent is a means of protecting society.

 

[Brendan]

Protecting society from harm does not necessarily apply only to sufficiently holding captive one who is deemed dangerous. It can be said that just expiation which serves as a deterent is a means of protecting society.

Not only that, but the expiation alone can be reason enough

Pope Pius XII said as much in 1952

Here is what Pope Pius XII had to say about it in a speech to medical professionals.

Even when it is the question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. It is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his crime, he has dispossessed himself of the right to life

Pius XII, "Speech to the International Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System (September 13, 1952)

What is really interesting about this speech is that it was given to medical professionals as a call for them to protect the Right to Life.

Pope Pius was making a point that the Right to Life did not exclude the death penalty, as the criminal, by their own actions, had deprived themselves of the right to life.