Catholic Clergy and Their Puzzling Support for Liberal Parties and Candidates

[barnestormer]

It is not meaningless at all, and this is not some debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We’re talking about life and death here. I can’t believe you would cast such an important topic in such a trivial light. Hopefully that is not indicative of your thought process or faith.

In the past there were circumstances where the death penalty was acceptable. In the future there may be. But abortion never was, is not, and never will be acceptable. You have to think over the course of time and in terms of moral absolutes—not just in the here and now and in the changing winds of what’s acceptable or not.

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

How can they possibly disagree in light of John Paul’s statements and the Catechism statement that the circumstances warranting use of the death penalty are so restricted as to make its use effectively unjustifiable? There’s no wiggle room there.

Today, there is therefore a “seamless garment.”

JPII or the Catechism never called the death penalty intrinisically evil.

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

Sure, and absent “those circumstances that are not around here and now,” it’s effectively forbidden.

Your distinction reminds me of the debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You find it straightforward, I find it meaningless.

Not at all. This is when we Catholics ought not to be seen as allowing exceptions to a consistent across-the-board pro-life philosophy.

Richard, what you are ferrring to as Right-to-Life. This is different than pro-life.

 

[Richardols]

barnestormer:

In the past there were circumstances where the death penalty was acceptable.

Due to our human imperfection and savagery.

In the future there may be.

I can’t envision a reversion to such atavistic barbarity.

Funny that only right-wing American Catholics still cling to wanting to use the death penalty. Our discussion would be nonsensical in Europe.

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

Funny that only right-wing American Catholics still cling to wanting to use the death penalty. Our discussion would be nonsensical in Europe.

Catholic Europe?

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

JPII or the Catechism never called the death penalty intrinisically evil.

Right. But, we aren’t debating whether or not anything in particular is intrinsically evil.

 

[barnestormer]

Richardols:

Due to our human imperfection and savagery.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Richardols:

I can’t envision a reversion to such atavistic barbarity.

Oh, well in that case I’d better not question your omnipotence.

Richardols:

Funny that only right-wing American Catholics still cling to wanting to use the death penalty. Our discussion would be nonsensical in Europe.

Ok, well, I happen to be a right-wing Catholic who is opposed to the death penalty. I’m simply following the entirety of Church teaching, not interjecting my own twisted interpretation.

Richardols:

Our discussion would be nonsensical in Europe.

What’s your point? I don’t care what would be nonsensical in Europe—that great model of secularism, socialism, and Church disintegration.

 

[Isidore_AK]

Richardols:

Due to our human imperfection and savagery.

I can’t envision a reversion to such atavistic barbarity.

Funny that only right-wing American Catholics still cling to wanting to use the death penalty. Our discussion would be nonsensical in Europe.

I can. How about in the aftermath of a civil war? Or insurrection? Global economic meltdown would quickly reduce much of the world to ‘atavistic barbarity’.

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

Catholic Europe?

Doesn’t matter. Where in Catholic or Protestant Europe is the death penalty legal any more?

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

Right. But, we aren’t debating whether or not anything in particular is intrinsically evil.

???

 

[barnestormer]

Richardols:

we aren’t debating whether or not anything in particular is intrinsically evil.

But you don’t seem to understand what “intrinsically evil” means, or at least you fail to grasp its application in real life. You don’t seem to care that there is a tremendous moral difference between something that could potentially be acceptable and something that is not acceptable under any circumstances.

 

[Richardols]

barnestormer:

Oh, well in that case I’d better not question your omnipotence.

What does omnipotence have to do with anything?

Ok, well, I happen to be a right-wing Catholic who is opposed to the death penalty. I’m simply following the entirety of Church teaching, not interjecting my own twisted interpretation.

You oppose it? So do I, absolutely. So we’ve arrived at the same destination by different paths. The results are what count.

Europe—that great model of secularism, socialism, and Church disintegration.

As opposed to the United States, huh?

 

[Richardols]

barnestormer:

But you don’t seem to understand what “intrinsically evil” means, or at least you fail to grasp its application in real life. You don’t seem to care that there is a tremendous moral difference between something that could potentially be acceptable and something that is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Yeah, I don’t care. It’s irrelevant in real life. To me, the important thing is that abortion and the death penalty both ought to be abolished - as the Catechism agrees. I don’t care what rationalization one uses to reach that conclusion. A Catholic and an agnostic may well both oppose abortion using different rationales. What counts is that they agree on the issue.

 

[barnestormer]

Richardols:

What does omnipotence have to do with anything??

You’re the one who claimed not to be able to fathom the need for the death penalty. I’m assuming you gave it lots of thought, looked into the future and made the decision that we’ll never need it.

Richardols:

You oppose it? So do I, absolutely. So we’ve arrived at the same destination by different paths. The results are what count.

But you seem to miss the point that abortion and euthanasia are of a different moral gravity than the death penalty.

Richardols:

As opposed to the United States, huh?

On a whole the US is a lot more churched that Europe is anymore.

 

[buffalo]

Here is the actual text of the Catechism:
[2266](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2266.htm’) 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

[2267](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2267.htm’) 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

 

[barnestormer]

Richardols:

Yeah, I don’t care. It’s irrelevant in real life. To me, the important thing is that abortion and the death penalty both ought to be abolished - as the Catechism agrees. I don’t care what rationalization one uses to reach that conclusion. A Catholic and an agnostic may well both oppose abortion using different rationales. What counts is that they agree on the issue.

It’s not irrelevant, and the Catechism, Church Fathers, and Church Councils disagree with your underlying premises.

If you want to revel in your ignorance, that’s fine.

 

[Richardols]

barnestormer:

I’m assuming you gave it lots of thought, looked into the future and made the decision that we’ll never need it.

Yes, I gave it lots of thought, made a reasonable assumption about its need in the future, and concluded, not decided, that we’ll never need it.

But you seem to miss the point that abortion and euthanasia are of a different moral gravity than the death penalty.

What’s the practical effect of your super fine distinction?

On a whole the US is a lot more churched that Europe is anymore.

Hard to believe given our society and its “values.”

 

[Richardols]

barnestormer:

It’s not irrelevant, and the Catechism, Church Fathers, and Church Councils disagree with your underlying premises.

The Catechism states, as Buffalo graciously posted, “cases…are very rare if not practically nonexistent.” So, the Catechism and John Paul II and I are in agreement.

If you want to revel in your ignorance, that’s fine.

A pity that you have to resort to an ad hominem to try to make your argument.

 

[barnestormer]

Richardols:

The Catechism states, as Buffalo graciously posted, “cases…are very rare if not practically nonexistent.” So, the Catechism and John Paul II and I are in agreement.

No, because you have said that the death penalty is never necessary or acceptable, while the above citation states that such cases are “very rare if not practically nonexistant.” The language there would not have included “very rare if not” were it not intended to convey that the death penalty could at some point be necessary. They left the door open, on purpose.

Once again you’re guilty of the pattern that some of your past posts throughout this website demonstrate: selective reading and interpretation of text.

“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.”

It’s clear there that the death penalty is something that could potentially be acceptable, and previous posts point out that there are very real circumstances that may necessitate it—e.g., civil war, economic and societal collapse, etc.

Buffalo’s citation does not state that the death penalty is 100% unacceptable, but his same source (i.e., the Catechism) tells us that abortion is.

These issues are not on the same moral level, and you’re challenging 2000 years of theological tradition if you think they are.

Richardols:

A pity that you have to resort to an ad hominem to try to make your argument.

No ad hominem here. Simply pointing out a fact that your posts make obvious to all of us in this thread who are making consistent arguments in favor of the entirety of Church teaching and understanding. We’ll all keep you in our prayers.

 

[buffalo]

barnestormer:

No, because you have said that the death penalty is never necessary or acceptable, while the above citation states that such cases are “very rare if not practically nonexistant.” The language there would not have said “very rare” were it not intended to convey that it could at some point be necessary. They left the door open, on purpose.

.

barnestormer is correct. It is a goal to be desired and achieved by a modern affluent society… I myself feel that it should be rare, however the door is open and it is not intrinsically evil.