Abortion nay Capital Punishmant Yay? Hypocrasy

[Abbadon]

There is alot that i would like to say but i really cant respond to all the things i want to. So i will put forward this thought of mine after reading much.

Punishment of life imprisonment seems just that punishment. But to put someone to death for a crime they committed tends to cross the line unto vengeance and wrath, and aren’t they a deadly sin?

Around page 4 an interesting point was bought up but wasn’t really addressed. If the teachings from the past are seen as wrong and no longer followed, then might not the death penalty also be changed in the future. The quote was Aquanis and how non catholics should be put to death. I have many non catholic friends and my fathers bhuddist so technically they should all be put to death?

The poster had interesting points of the changing grades of morality through history but was i think interpreted else wise, but i think his rather offence attitude didn’t help either…

 

[Ender]

The concepts are not disconnected at all. If the offender never repents part of the “redressing the disorder” goes unfulfilled. The redressing the disorder is not limited to this action but is not excluded from this action either.

Cardinal Dulles described the four aims of punishment: retribution (redressing the disorder), protecting society, repentance (amending the sinner), and deterrence. The repentance of the sinner is an aim entirely separate from the need for retribution; perfect repentance does nothing to redress the disorder. The repentance of the sinner is not part of the justice owed society.

Guilt calls for punishment and repentance does not change the fact of one’s guilt nor lessen the need for repentance.

Ender

 

[Abbadon]

Catholic social teaching covers a broad range of important issues. But among these the teaching on abortion holds a unique place. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to disagree with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

This is interesting why is abortion and euthanasia viewed as a higher level of evil than war and death penalty. To me personally it’s the other way around.

The first few posters asked my stances so i should state them

Anti Death Penalty
Unsure on Abortion - (I’m really unsure on this topic as it is intrinsically complicated and untill there is more for me to make up my mind about it i really can’t)

What you might ask? Where is a soul? what is a soul? when does a soul merge with a human body? what happens to aborted children?

 

[Abbadon]

Pope Jhon Paul the II opposed the death penalty but Aquanis said all non catholics should be put to death. That doesn’t seem right. You must excuese me on my knowledge of Aquanius the first time I heard of this all non catholics should die was recently reading this thread.

 

[Ender]

Guilt calls for punishment and repentance does not change the fact of one’s guilt nor lessen the need for repentance.

This sentence should have read: “Guilt calls for punishment, and repentance does not change the fact of one’s guilt nor lessen the need for retribution.”

Ender

 

[cpayne]

Aquanis said all non catholics should be put to death. That doesn’t seem right.

There seems to be a fairly severe misunderstanding of Aquinas here. He does not think what you think he thinks. He’s actually a very kind person.

 

[cpayne]

He supports the death penalty, too, but not simply for being non-Christian or non-Catholic.

 

[Ender]

Aquanis said all non catholics should be put to death. That doesn’t seem right. You must excuese me on my knowledge of Aquanius the first time I heard of this all non catholics should die was recently reading this thread.

When you encounter something new you first need to apply a simple sanity test to it; that is, does it sound reasonable enough to be considered possible or is it so outrageous as to be almost inconceivable. This simple test should imply that Aquinas never said all non Catholics should be put to death. I’m not sure what you read or how you interpreted it, but this claim is simply untrue.

I don’t recall anything like that in this thread, perhaps you could cite the number of the post you are referring to.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Cardinal Dulles described the four aims of punishment: retribution (redressing the disorder), protecting society, repentance (amending the sinner), and deterrence.

I do not know or have read much about Cardinal Dulles, however I am completely sure (100%) he is not the Roman Catholic Church. It would seem your fixation with his writing could be a contributing factor in the struggle you have with the Roman Catholic Church?

 The repentance of the sinner is an aim entirely separate from the need for retribution; perfect repentance does nothing to redress the disorder.

completely wrong it would seem you have no knowledge of the Church teachings, I am sorry to be personal however post after post you directly oppose the catechism. I believe from reading your posts you have retribution confused with vengeance, and struggle terribly with the meaning of justice.

The repentance of the sinner is not part of the justice owed society.

How could they possibly be different?

Guilt calls for punishment and repentance does not change the fact of one’s guilt nor lessen the need for repentance.

Ender

Again “guilt” as you use it does not call for society to punish. The Church acknowledges society may punish offenders who have violated civil laws which are in line with Natural Moral Law, and that punishment is to redress the disorder.

What punishment would Ender like to see on:
Those who do not love God?
Those who do not honor their Mother and Father?
Those who commit fornication?
Those who commit adultery?
Those who covet? (btw how does Ender know who the coveters are?)

 

[cpayne]

completely wrong it would seem you have no knowledge of the Church teachings, I am sorry to be personal however post after post you directly oppose the catechism. I believe from reading your posts you have retribution confused with vengeance, and struggle terribly with the meaning of justice.

The comments are exactly appropriate; however, you are addressing them to exactly the wrong person.

Based on your comments, I have some questions:

(1) In your reading, does the Catechism allow for capital punishment? (I believe you have said yes to this; just double-checking.)

(2) Do you think capital punishment is an act of “vengeance”?

(3) Do you think capital punishment is inherently “unjust”?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This is interesting why is abortion and euthanasia viewed as a higher level of evil than war and death penalty. To me personally it’s the other way around.

The first few posters asked my stances so i should state them

Anti Death Penalty
Unsure on Abortion - (I’m really unsure on this topic as it is intrinsically complicated and untill there is more for me to make up my mind about it i really can’t)

What you might ask? Where is a soul? what is a soul? when does a soul merge with a human body? what happens to aborted children?

I am sorry I cannot understand this post completely however some parts are obvious based on Church teachings

1. Abortion is immoral when done specifically to eliminate the child
2. Capital Punishment is allowed under certain circumstances
3. When the circumstances for capital punishment are met is debatable
4. Euthanasia is immoral

What you might ask?
Where is a soul? The soul exists before and after the body, the soul resides in the body during your life

What is a soul? The soul is not physical it is the essence of life and is not produced by man nor on earth

When does a soul merge with a human body? When the Holy Spirit joins the two. As we do not know, the Church decree is to assume conception

What happens to aborted children? They are entrusted to God

Hope that helps

 

[Texas_Roofer]

FYI - you may or may not be aware of a long Death Penalty thread which immediately proceeded this issue being transferred to this thread

The comments are exactly appropriate; however, you are addressing them to exactly the wrong person.

Based on your comments, I have some questions:

(1) In your reading, does the Catechism allow for capital punishment? (I believe you have said yes to this; just double-checking.)

I have written many posts which clearly state what the catechism teaches, and posted the section of the catechism many times, so I am abet confused by this question - The catechism has always allowed the use of execution ( capital punishment, or death penalty) I do not oppose the catechism or the use of execution in the rare cases in which execution is reasonable.

(2) Do you think capital punishment is an act of “vengeance”?

This is a bad question because it presupposes the reason of the execution. There is not a direct link between these two issues ( capital punishment, vengeance). If the objective is vengeance additional offenders now exist. If the objective was to provide safety of the innocent from imminent danger then execution is not an act of vengeance

(3) Do you think capital punishment is inherently “unjust”?

Just as the question above this is a bad question. In legal definitions justice is the full extent of legal proceeding, guilt or innocents plays not part but is the outcome not the definition. In the catechism justice is the individual doing what is right whether ever known, tried, convicted, or found not guilty. So again if capital punishment is imposed on one who did not offend it does not meet the Church’s definition of justice however it may have met the legal definition of justice. Now to throw some assumption as to whether you meant to ask " Is there any circumstance in which the capital punishment is a “just” punishment?" the answer is yes and this is straight from the catechism.

I’ll ask you this ponder: The murder that is found not guilty yet wishes to be Catholic.
Consider what the Church would tell him of justice?
Consider what the Church would tell him about imposing the death penalty upon himself?

hope that helps

 

[Ender]

completely wrong it would seem you have no knowledge of the Church teachings

Possibly so … although since I have quoted extensively from Aquinas and the encyclicals and letters of nearly a dozen popes while you have quoted nothing at all it is not immediately obvious that I am less familiar with what the Church teaches than are you.

I believe from reading your posts you have retribution confused with vengeance

They say one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Nonetheless, I will cite Aquinas again:

• “retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.”
• “the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation”
• “Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.”
  So, according to Aquinas: retribution is what is owed someone who harms another; justice requires that the sin be paid by suffering a penal evil; vengeance is the infliction of that penal evil. That is, justice requires retribution to avenge the evil of the sin.

{You} struggle terribly with the meaning of justice.

Not really: ‘justice … is indicated in the words, “Rendering to each one his right,”’

Again “guilt” as you use it does not call for society to punish.

“As I use it?” If a man sins he is ummm guilty of sin. What else could the word possibly mean?

You continue to disagree with much of what I say but you have yet to quote a single Church source that supports your position. Doesn’t it even seem possible to you that your understanding might be flawed since you have nothing with which to defend your positions other than your own opinion?

Ender

 

[cpayne]

FYI - you may or may not be aware of a long Death Penalty thread which immediately proceeded this issue being transferred to this thread

I have written many posts which clearly state what the catechism teaches, and posted the section of the catechism many times, so I am abet confused by this question - The catechism has always allowed the use of execution ( capital punishment, or death penalty) I do not oppose the catechism or the use of execution in the rare cases in which execution is reasonable. This is a bad question because it presupposes the reason of the execution. There is not a direct link between these two issues ( capital punishment, vengeance). If the objective is vengeance additional offenders now exist. If the objective was to provide safety of the innocent from imminent danger then execution is not an act of vengeance Just as the question above this is a bad question. In legal definitions justice is the full extent of legal proceeding, guilt or innocents plays not part but is the outcome not the definition. In the catechism justice is the individual doing what is right whether ever known, tried, convicted, or found not guilty. So again if capital punishment is imposed on one who did not offend it does not meet the Church’s definition of justice however it may have met the legal definition of justice. Now to throw some assumption as to whether you meant to ask " Is there any circumstance in which the capital punishment is a “just” punishment?" the answer is yes and this is straight from the catechism.

I’ll ask you this ponder: The murder that is found not guilty yet wishes to be Catholic.
Consider what the Church would tell him of justice?
Consider what the Church would tell him about imposing the death penalty upon himself?

hope that helps

I was following you up until—oh, never mind. I’m bowing out, and God’s blessings upon all.

 

[Abbadon]

When you encounter something new you first need to apply a simple sanity test to it; that is, does it sound reasonable enough to be considered possible or is it so outrageous as to be almost inconceivable. This simple test should imply that Aquinas never said all non Catholics should be put to death. I’m not sure what you read or how you interpreted it, but this claim is simply untrue.

I don’t recall anything like that in this thread, perhaps you could cite the number of the post you are referring to.

Ender

I don’t think such tests are really viable considering the rather absurd. colorful and insane history that the church and the faith has. I draw your attention to 1 Samuel 18:24-25 now thats pretty wack, and theres a whole bunch of whack and weird stuff in the bible and throughout the churches past.

It was post number #18

Does anyone know and can cite whether Aquanis really said something like this? to bad the original poster is now banned it would have been intresting.

What you might ask?
Where is a soul? The soul exists before and after the body, the soul resides in the body during your life

What is a soul? The soul is not physical it is the essence of life and is not produced by man nor on earth

When does a soul merge with a human body? When the Holy Spirit joins the two. As we do not know, the Church decree is to assume conception

What happens to aborted children? They are entrusted to God

See the problem i have is that all these are simply assumptions and the greater truth of the matter remains completely unclear. No ones ever seen a soul or documented it or documented any of my other questions either. And a completely different religion would have a completely different response…

It’s just me personally, I’m not a big one for the bible and in all honesty don’;t really, well, trust it but thats a whole other thread, and doesnt need discussion here.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

It was post number #18

Does anyone know and can cite whether Aquanis really said something like this? to bad the original poster is now banned it would have been intresting.

I’ve been looking at life issues teachings and related background information for a long time and have not seen anything by Aquinas that could be stated that way. Based on the rest of what that poster said, and his failure to produce a citation after that particular claim was questioned but before he was banned, I’m inclined to think it was bogus, and intentionally so. People who make unsupportable claims about what others have said are usually aware that they have an agenda they can’t support without relying on the accusations to try to force everyone else to stay on the defensive while pretending to be above backing themselves up.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…you have yet to quote a single Church source that supports your position…

Ender

Your memory seems rather short? here are some from the past and I’ll add a few
.
Looking at the catechism for punishment and vengeance

1828 The practice of the moral life animated by charity gives to the Christian the spiritual freedom of the children of God. He no longer stands before God as a slave, in servile fear, or as a mercenary looking for wages, but as a son responding to the love of him who “first loved us”:106

If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.107

106 Cf. 1 Jn 4:19.
107 St. Basil, Reg. fus. tract., prol. 3G 31,896B.

‘um fear of punishment makes us slaves. So It appears this fear is eternal punishment not man on man punishment .

1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. “The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come.” It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, “types,” and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.

There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law. Conversely, there exist carnal men under the New Covenant still distanced from the perfection of the New Law: the fear of punishment and certain temporal promises have been necessary, even under the New Covenant, to incite them to virtuous works. In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom "God’s charity has been poured into our hearts."18
18 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,107,1 ad 2; cf. Rom 5:5.

It appears this fear is eternal punishment not man on man punishment

2061 The Commandments take on their full meaning within the covenant. According to Scripture, man’s moral life has all its meaning in and through the covenant. The first of the “ten words” recalls that God loved his people first:

Since there was a passing from the paradise of freedom to the slavery of this world, in punishment for sin, the first phrase of the Decalogue, the first word of God’s commandments, bears on freedom "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."25
25 Origen, Hom. in Ex. 8,1G 12,350; cf. Ex 20:2; Deut 5:6.

Did man kick man from paradise or was that God? So it appears again God is doing the punishment not man

2090 When God reveals Himself and calls him, man cannot fully respond to the divine love by his own powers. He must hope that God will give him the capacity to love Him in return and to act in conformity with the commandments of charity. Hope is the confident expectation of divine blessing and the beatific vision of God; it is also the fear of offending God’s love and of incurring punishment.

‘um I do not think it is the man on man punishment here either. So it appears again God is doing the punishment not man

cont.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

cont…

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64

Does not sound like endorsing vengeance

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. **Punishment **has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67 67 Cf. Lk 23:40-43.

I know this is your favorite, yet it does not say to execute. It says “to the requirement of safeguarding the common good” and “redressing the disorder” so again by killing the killer we have yet to show this as a proper method to redress the disorder

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 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 nonexistent."68

and this must be your nemesis ? It clearly leans against execution does not ban but leans aganst

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.[68]
68 John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.

‘um who is in heaven is it the government of men? Nope that is God again not man

2302 By recalling the commandment, “You shall not kill,”[93] our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.
Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.”[94] If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”[95]
95 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 158, 1 ad 3.

‘um restitution not revenge; “to correct vices” does not seem to fit execution

Additionally if you would like to read about justice at newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htmyou will see it required the “man” to do right to both other men and society. Not the society to decide justice for the man.

For vengeance newadvent.org/cathen/01489a.htmthe requirement is it be balanced with reason.

hope that helps

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Your memory seems rather short? here are some from the past and I’ll add a few

I see and agree that you’ve added “a few”. However, in reviewing the entirety of both of this thread and the preceding “Support the Death Penalty?” thread for each of: 1828, 1964, 2061, 2090, 2262, 2268 and found no hits aside form what you put up.

Ender was using the phrasing of “redressing the disorder” and speaking towards the need for punishment found in 2266 as early as post 65 of the originating thread, and 2267 is posted in a sticky thread at the top of the forum so it was already provided… Further, 2266 and 2267 are the articles which we are discussing the interpretation of for which other sources needed to be provided.

So, please, refresh us: before these two most recent posts of yours, which posts (with links) in the last month have you or anyone else made in capital punishment or incarceration threads providing any of the citations you listed beyond your inclusion of 2266 and 2267?

Accusing Ender of having a “rather short” memory seems to be little better than a childish bit of lashing out at finally being pinned into having to provide something to try to back up your claims. There is no excuse for using ad hominem attacks even with a weak argument, but if a case is strong enough to stand on its own merits there is simply no reason to preface it with one.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I see and agree that you’ve added “a few”. However, in reviewing the entirety of both of this thread and the preceding “Support the Death Penalty?” thread for each of: 1828, 1964, 2061, 2090, 2262, 2268 and found no hits aside form what you put up.

Ender was using the phrasing of “redressing the disorder” and speaking towards the need for punishment found in 2266 as early as post 65 of the originating thread, and 2267 is posted in a sticky thread at the top of the forum so it was already provided… Further, 2266 and 2267 are the articles which we are discussing the interpretation of for which other sources needed to be provided.

So, please, refresh us: before these two most recent posts of yours, which posts (with links) in the last month have you or anyone else made in capital punishment or incarceration threads providing any of the citations you listed beyond your inclusion of 2266 and 2267?

Accusing Ender of having a “rather short” memory seems to be little better than a childish bit of lashing out at finally being pinned into having to provide something to try to back up your claims. There is no excuse for using ad hominem attacks even with a weak argument, but if a case is strong enough to stand on its own merits there is simply no reason to preface it with one.

So make your mind up did I list them or not???

Ray the constant spreading of pronouns and accusations are signs of a weak debater. Either of you could have listed any or all, however the problem is getting the catechism to back up the claims and interpretations of the past. That is why I listed these. And why others avoided listing these. It is also why personal pronouns are being used in place of catechism citations.

hope that helps