Abortion nay Capital Punishmant Yay? Hypocrasy

[Ray_Scheel]

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

Yes, you have consistently been referring to your interpretation of the passages already under discussion as your sole backup for the interpretation you have assigned to them. That such an approach was a circular argument had been pointed out repeatedly. However, aside from the object of discussion, none of the points you listed had been provided by you until 2 posts ago, so to that: No, until two posts ago you had not provided any sources for your interpretations that were not self-referential.

(BTW, was that a personal pronoun?)

Either of you could have listed any or all,

But it wasn’t our claim to defend(I’m presuming you are lumping in Ender, even though there have been multiple other people asking you for citations for your claims as well), but yours. That a person is responsible for defending their own claims is Debate 101.
(Look at that, another personal pronoun…)

however the problem is getting the catechism

Catholocism 101: catechisms are summary documents, intended to cover fundamentals. Limiting one sources considered to only things found in catechism (including at one point even arguing against giving superior consideration to the context of the phrase in EV that was the source of the text of 2267) is compatible with neither the purpose of any catechism nor the Catholic understanding of the deposit of tradition.

to back up the claims and interpretations of the past.

Another lesson from debate 101: a person is under no obligation to defend claims others have made up about what that person had or hadn’t said. A great many posters have spent multiple posts fending off accusations from you that they had made a claim they hadn’t, or accusations that they hadn’t posted a source they had (and could cite a post number showing where).

Aside from 2266 (originally referenced in context by Ender) and 2267 (already provided by CAF itself at hte top of the forum), you can’t provide a link to a post made by you (or anyone arguing your position) prior to alleging Ender had a short memory regarding you having provided any non-circular citations. That you had is a current claim of yours

That is why I listed these. And why others avoided listing these.

Debate 101: Good faith by the other parties is to be presumed until proven otherwise. Insinuating motive to other’s actions is considered to be poor form, especially when doing so because the failed to do what was one’s own obligation.
(And look at that, yet another personal pronoun, tsk, tsk)

Ray the constant spreading of pronouns and accusations are signs of a weak debater.

It is also why personal pronouns are being used in place of catechism citations.

Signs of weakness in debate are things like calling people “ignorant” for questioning a circular argument, or accusing them of having a short memory when you can’t seem to point to any place where you provided outside citations until after that point. Nothing in debate that rules out use of personal pronouns to point out personal attacks.

It seems to be that you only object to them when they are isolating the personal attacks and false/misleading claims about other in your statements, as you’ve been using personal pronouns to make those attacks starting very early in your participation in these threads.

 

[john_ennis]

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?

Since you are not sure when the person is a person, you have no stance? Or are you pro-choice? Are you as strongly against killing late-term babies as you are against the death penalty?

I’m trying to understand how someone who’s not sure, would not want to err on the side of life, and try to fight abortions just in case (since you are essentially admitting that abortions may be the taking of innocent human life).

Almost all people who criticize pro-lifers who support the death penalty, are themselves against the death penalty but not abortion.

Do you at least see that others may believe that as soon as a human is conceived, it’s a person, so they oppose all abortion? I hope you’re not also critical of pro-lifers who are against the death penalty. They’re consistent, yes?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

"Texas Roofer:

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

Yes, you have … No, until two posts ago you had not provided any sources…

? ? :whacky: ? ?

Catholocism 101: catechisms are summary documents, intended to cover fundamentals. Limiting one sources considered to only things found in catechism (including at one point even arguing against giving superior consideration to the context of the phrase in EV that was the source of the text of 2267) is compatible with neither the purpose of any catechism nor the Catholic understanding of the deposit of tradition.

let me guess another accusation which you will be unable to support?

Another lesson from debate 101: a person is under no obligation to defend claims others have made up about what that person had or hadn’t said. A great many posters have spent multiple posts fending off accusations from you that they had made a claim they hadn’t, or accusations that they hadn’t posted a source they had (and could cite a post number showing where).

If you check the specifics this will not hold up, it was not I making these accusations

Aside from 2266 (originally referenced in context by Ender) and 2267 (already provided by CAF itself at hte top of the forum), you can’t provide a link to a post made by you (or anyone arguing your position) prior to alleging Ender had a short memory regarding you having provided any non-circular citations. That you had is a current claim of yours

How about from the thread Support the Death Penalty in posting to you and Ender?

Post # 186 Sept 10 1:45pm forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=180695&page=13

Post # 198 Sept 10 9:19pm specifically pointed that out to youforums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=180695&page=14

Post # 210 Sept 11 @ 10:15pm you were given links to the
Vatican website directing you to the catechism.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=180695&page=14

Post # 394 Sept 24 at 11:44pm forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=180695&page=27

Post # 432 Oct 2 9:48pm forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=180695&page=29

Post # 441 Oct 2ndforums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=180695&page=30

 

[Ray_Scheel]

? ? :whacky: ? ?

Isolating the circular references from the non-circular of your post 157 here required two answers.

let me guess another accusation which you will be unable to support?

Well, if you’ve originated a citation that was not in the catechism, I don’t recall it. As far as placing more weight on teh wording in the CCC than the originating quote in the source document, you did that here:

Popes do not write the catechism the Magisterium does. Outside of yourself, I have seen no one second your point of view. The earlier posting concerning BXVI was a long way from affirming such a stand, it dealt with people who do not fully agree with the Church’s teaching.

If you check the specifics this will not hold up, it was not I making these accusations

Despite never pointing out where we’d done so, you’d repeatedly suggested I and others were arguing for a “prudential catechism” and that we were claiming Ratzinger, Dulles, and the USCCB disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church.

How about from the thread Support the Death Penalty in posting to you and Ender?

Well, but less than half of those are non-circular references you originated…

(BTW, if you right-click on the post number and choose “Copy link location” (or similar wording depending on your browser) it willl create a link that will take someone straight there)

Post # 186 Sept 10 1:45pm%between%

Which was a circular referenece to 2267, though 2267 was already provided in the sticky thread at the top of the forum

Post # 198 Sept 10 9:19pm specifically pointed that out to you

Yes, a quote pointing out to the circular reference to 2267 you’d made in post 186…

Post # 210 Sept 11 @ 10:15pm you were given links to the
Vatican website directing you to the catechism.

Yes a link to the page containing 2259-2283 (so, in other words, the context of 2267) and then another pointing out 2485-2486, about the nature of lying (mods: that is the word repeatedly used in the CCC passage linked), which was yur response to having it pointed out your failure at that point to back up your repeated claim that the Magesterium was now claiming the authority to make the determination for the necessity of the death penalty on behalf of the state beyond your self references to your interpretation of 2267 and its neighbors…

Post # 394 Sept 24 at 11:44pm

(Ratzinger’s guide to receiving Communion and the full text of the USCCB document calling for an end to the Death Penalty) It is notable that these are the only two citations you’ve made that were not to CCC paragraphs, and your only use of them was to claim that the citations Ender had already provided from them in post 235 (providing links to the full text when he did) had to be out of context for no stated reason (other than that they obviously didn’t agree with your interpretation of CC 2267).

Post # 432 Oct 2 9:48pm

CCC1459 and 1460 about confession and the assignment of penance in the confessional, nothing there even in contexts about the duties of the state to which you were trying to apply it.

Post # 441 Oct 2nd

a link to CCC 1959, your support to support your claim that the State was in violation of “Natural Moral Law” if it included vengeance as on of its punishment objectives, in an interpretation that more or less excluded from consideration in immutability of Natural Law mentioned in 1958 in your proposal that 2267 changed (by limiting) the authority of the States to make the determination for why and when capital punishment was necessary.

 

[catharina]

Here’s one way to make the law work without execution. “Devlin” who is a man who engaged in child sexual abuse, keeping his first kidnap victim captive for four years, has now recieved a sentence that MEANS life without parole. From cnn:

“On Monday and Tuesday, Devlin was immediately sentenced to life terms for kidnapping and abusing the boys in Washington, St. Louis and Franklin counties. Devlin received 20 consecutive life sentences, making him ineligible for parole until he is more than 100 years old.”

Sounds about right to me.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Let me ask you: do you believe that one truth can supersede another truth? If something is true, can it ever be set aside? If it can be, how could we continue to call it true?

Regarding 2266 and 2267, I think they are clearly irreconcilable which indicates to me that they cannot both be true. Since I have already pointed out that 2267 is JPII’s opinion - while 2266 represents the consistent teaching of the Church - I have no difficulty accepting 2266 and rejecting 2267.

Ender

Habemus Papam!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Isolating the circular references from the non-circular of your post 157 here required two answers.

Well, if you’ve originated a citation that was not in the catechism, I don’t recall it. As far as placing more weight on teh wording in the CCC than the originating quote in the source document, you did that here:

Despite never pointing out where we’d done so, you’d repeatedly suggested I and others were arguing for a “prudential catechism” and that we were claiming Ratzinger, Dulles, and the USCCB disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church.

Well, but less than half of those are non-circular references you originated…

(BTW, if you right-click on the post number and choose “Copy link location” (or similar wording depending on your browser) it willl create a link that will take someone straight there)

Which was a circular referenece to 2267, though 2267 was already provided in the sticky thread at the top of the forum

Yes, a quote pointing out to the circular reference to 2267 you’d made in post 186…

Yes a link to the page containing 2259-2283 (so, in other words, the context of 2267) and then another pointing out 2485-2486, about the nature of lying (mods: that is the word repeatedly used in the CCC passage linked), which was yur response to having it pointed out your failure at that point to back up your repeated claim that the Magesterium was now claiming the authority to make the determination for the necessity of the death penalty on behalf of the state beyond your self references to your interpretation of 2267 and its neighbors…

(Ratzinger’s guide to receiving Communion and the full text of the USCCB document calling for an end to the Death Penalty) It is notable that these are the only two citations you’ve made that were not to CCC paragraphs, and your only use of them was to claim that the citations Ender had already provided from them in post 235 (providing links to the full text when he did) had to be out of context for no stated reason (other than that they obviously didn’t agree with your interpretation of CC 2267).

CCC1459 and 1460 about confession and the assignment of penance in the confessional, nothing there even in contexts about the duties of the state to which you were trying to apply it.

a link to CCC 1959, your support to support your claim that the State was in violation of “Natural Moral Law” if it included vengeance as on of its punishment objectives, in an interpretation that more or less excluded from consideration in immutability of Natural Law mentioned in 1958 in your proposal that 2267 changed (by limiting) the authority of the States to make the determination for why and when capital punishment was necessary.

Ray this is incoherent. It appears to argue against the posting which you claimed did not exist?

 

[Ender]

And you all thought this thread was dead …

One common argument against the death penalty is that it is mere vengeance and we are commanded not to be vengeful. The problem is that this argument also undercuts the justification for all punishment, not just executions, and it misses the distinction between what is proper for the individual and what is proper for the state.

If a person commits a crime, should he be punished? If you answer yes then you are advocating vengeance - which Aquinas defines as “the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.” Even the dictionary (Merriam-Webster) defines it this way: “punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense.”

But if vengeance is simply punishment for an offense, why are we taught to avoid it? *“2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, “You shall not kill,” and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek” . *

This is because exacting vengeance has been removed as a right of the individual and made the duty of the state. It would not be possible to live in a society where crimes were not punished, but if the individual may not punish (exact vengeance on) the criminal, who can? The state - which has not only the duty to punish but to make the punishment just, that is, it must be proportionate to the severity of the crime, neither more nor less.

None of this is an argument supporting the death penalty, but it is an explanation of why this particular argument (vengeance) against the death penalty is invalid.

Ender

 

[Joan_M]

Was by rlg94086

The life of an unborn child is so important yet it is okay for us to put to death a man who commited a sin?

Isnt life life regardless?

I’d like pro death sentence catholics to post here and justify it and if there anti abortion why the double standard?

Also what about treat thy nieghbour as you would like to be treated? Would you want to be sentenced to death or given a chance of forgiveness and redemption

Intrested to know

The fifth commandment prohibits murder. Abortion is murder. Capital punishment is not. There is no double standard.

There are some crimes that demand the forfeiting of the life of the person who committed them. Actually, since no one in civilized countries are comdemned to death and executed immediately thereafter, it is more than possible that the criminal can be forgiven and redeemed prior to execution.

How can you equate a helpless, vulnerable, innocent baby and, for example, a serial killer or a terrorist? We must use our reason when looking at things. Abortion is totally different from capital punishment.

 

[dudleysharp]

And I believe the death penalty is never acceptable unless the convict is so messed up mentally (sociopath?) that he has no intention on ever changing, AND is a threat to the guards, AND there is even the slightest possibility he may escape from prison. If he was to escape, and it was known that he WOULD kill again, and he does, the innocent blood of new victims fall on us all.

There is no doubt that PJPII position on the death penalty qualifies as a prudential judgement. However, it was also unreasoned and was improperly used to affect the Catechism.

PJPII argued that the death penalty was not needed for a defense of society. However, he never looked at the risk to innocents without the death penalty. Innocents are more at risk when we allow murderers to live. Therefore, the defense of society should call for more executions.

PJPII’s position spares guilty murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocents, a position totally at odds with fundamental Catholic principles.

NOTE: Because innocents are at risk of executions, some wrongly presume that innocents are better protected implementing a life without parole sentence, instead.

What many forget to do is weigh the risk to innocents within a life sentence. When doing that, we find that innocents are more at risk with a life sentence.

First, we all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

Secondly, no knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.

Therefore, it is logically conclusive, that actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.

Thirdly, 15 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence. Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 10 studies. They don’t. Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.

Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to put more innocents at risk.

 

[pnewton]

So many threads, so little time. I am anti-abortion and not anti-death penalty. This is not a matter of hypocracy. In both cases, it is my pro-life postition that is the overriding motive for my stance. I value life so much, that there is no more heinous crime than the taking of another life. When it is demonstrable that one who murders is likely to murder again, he must be stopped. It is also my conviction that the only way to stop some is by ending their life.

People die. Murder victims do not ask for death. It is an unfortunate effect of sin and hatred that we have violent death in this world. Innocent people will die this year. That is unavoidable. Whenever society has a chance to lessen this problem, governments are obligated to do so.

 

[dudleysharp]

I am anti-abortion and not anti-death penalty. In both cases, it is my pro-life postition that is the overriding motive for my stance…

It is very difficult for many to accept that support for the death penalty can, quite easily, be viewed as a pro life position.

First, all judicial sanctions are based upon taking away that which is valued from the offender.

We impose fines (taking away money), incarceration (taking away freedon) and execution (taking away life), In each case, we take away something of value. As the crimes get worse, generally speeking, we will take away that which is of greater value.

We value life greatly, that is why it is taken away from those who commit some of the worste crimes.

Biblically, God instructs that men shall be executed for the commission of numerous sins/crimes.

Secondly, the death penalty is a better protector of innocent life than is a lesser sentnence. By sparing guilty murderers, we have chosen to sacrifice more innocent lives. Therefore, the death penalty supports the pro life position

We all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.*
*
No knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.

Therefore, it is logically conclusive, thatactual innocents are more likely to be sentenced tolife imprisonmentand more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
*
14 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence. Somebelieve that all studies with contrary findings negate those 14 studies. They don’t.*Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.
*
Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it,some havechosen to put more innocents at risk.
*​

Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review. There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

Of all the governments programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record? Unlikely.