Catholic Clergy and Their Puzzling Support for Liberal Parties and Candidates

[Richardols]

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.

A distinction without a difference. I live in the real world.

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.

Fat chance of your fantasies occurring.

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

I don’t care what some theologian 500 years ago living in a barbaric Europe where all felonies were capital offenses and we had popes who kept mistresses and led wars concluded. This is the 21st century and I’ll follow a late 20th century pope, thank you.

No ad hominem here.

My God. You’re not man enough to admit that saying that I revel in ignorance is an ad hominem. You’re the one who needs the prayers, bud.

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

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.

I don’t care if it’s merely distasteful, or not nice, or wrong, or bad, or evil or intrinsically evil - I oppose the death penalty and am convinced that John Paul II did and Benedict XVI today oppose it.

 

[barnestormer]

Richardols:

I oppose the death penalty and am convinced that John Paul II did and Benedict XVI today oppose it.

Well it’s good that you oppose the death penalty, and you’re correct that JPII and B16 oppose it. BUT, they understand that it is not an act that is evil under all cirsumstances and in all situations.

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

I don’t care if it’s merely distasteful, or not nice, or wrong, or bad, or evil or intrinsically evil - I oppose the death penalty and am convinced that John Paul II did and Benedict XVI today oppose it.

Richard - the intrinsically evil part is really important.

In third world countries the death penalty is allowed per the Catechism. The Popes are trying to move away from it as a part of legitimate defense. However, the country must have the resources to keep the population safe and many don’t. It is only unless you have the economic means to incarcerate in solitary confinement each prisoner who is a homicide threat can you acheive this 100%, for a prisoner on death row can still kill a guard or another inmate.

 

[barnestormer]

Richardols:

Fat chance of your fantasies occurring.

So I fantasize about the collapse of civilization and civil war? Whatever. I don’t know what world you live in, pal.

Richardols:

I don’t care what some theologian 500 years ago living in a barbaric Europe where all felonies were capital offenses and we had popes who kept mistresses and led wars concluded.

I see. So I guess Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, are all irrelevant? And following your logic, 200 years from now people can look back and say “hey, I don’t care what JPII and B16 said, because they lived in a corrupt world where bad things happened. I’m following [fill in the blank].”

Once again, I don’t know what world you live in.

Richardols:

This is the 21st century and I’ll follow a late 20th century pope, thank you.

Then follow JPII, who argued publically that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil and that abortion and eutanasia are intrinsically evil. Be consistent.

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

Richard - the intrinsically evil part is really important.

I see it as a philosophical argument at best. You think it means something in the real world. Well, fine.

In third world countries the death penalty is allowed per the Catechism. The Popes are trying to move away from it as a part of legitimate defense. However, the country must have the resources to keep the population safe and many don’t. It is only unless you have the economic means to incarcerate in solitary confinement each prisoner who is a homicide threat can you acheive this 100%, for a prisoner on death row can still kill a guard or another inmate.

Except that in third world countries, the death penalty is used almost regularly, and for offenses that no civilized person would tolerate. I oppose the death penalty based on circumstances in this country, not in some country where they, for all I know, eat the convict after he’s been hanged. And, it should be barred everywhere. The trend of civilized nations is abolition, not retention.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

No, the Pope allows that the death penalty but under such narrow circumstances as to make its application wholly meaningless.

Not true. Pope John Paul II has said that in today’s day, the death penalty should never be necessary. Unfortunately, because the Western jusice system is broken, a case can be made that it is necessary. But it shouldn’t be… just as the Pope has said.

 

[Brad]

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.”

The liberal policy of being weak on punishment of crime necessiates the death penalty. This is unjustifiable.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Due to our human imperfection and savagery.

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

And now we have achieved perfection and are not barbaric?

 

[estesbob]

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 oppose the death penaly as vehemently as I oppose Abortion. However invoking Europe does not advance the argument-Unfounately you wont see mch discussion in Europe on aborton or euthansia. It wuld be considered , as you put it, nonsensical.

So tell me who is more barbaric-a country that allows the death penalty but still finds abortion and euathansia unsettllng enough to vigorously debate or a country that bans the death penalty but considers the very young and the very old disposable? To even imply that Europe is somehow moraly superior to the US is utter nonsense

I have found , BTW, that those who constantly invoke the Church’s supposed ban on the death penaly usualy do so as cover for voting for canidates who oppose just about every other Church teaching on life and morality. Its the old moral equivalency argument-"well my candidate may suport the kiling of 1.2 milion unborn children a year but your canidate supports the execution of 200 or so murderers and rapists a year and suports lower taxes, both of which are far more babaric. "

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

The liberal policy of being weak on punishment of crime necessiates the death penalty.

Life imprisonment is a weak punishment? LOL!

 

[barnestormer]

Richardols:

Life imprisonment is a weak punishment? LOL!

Weight rooms, recreation, free health care, 3 square meals a day, no hard labor, cable television, libraries, conjugal visits, a corrupt system that allows prisoners with enough clout to buy anything (or anyone) they want, and the list goes on.

Life in prison may be a punishment, but given the aforementioned, it isn’t exactly a living hell.

Outlaw the death penalty and bring back chain gangs!

 

[barnestormer]

Richardols:

Life imprisonment is a weak punishment? LOL!

I think Brad may be referring to the fact that life sentences (w/o chance of parole) don’t happen as often as they should, and a seemingly endless (and taxpayer financed) appeals process that does allow some criminals to fall through the cracks of the justice system. Not to mention that all an accused criminal has to do is cry that he was abused as a child and all accountability goes out the window while he is sent for therapy then released.

I would agree that, regardless of what happens to the death penalty, the sentencing system needs to be reformed in favor of stiffer penalties that will actually deter crime (which one could argue the death penalty does not do).

 

[Richardols]

barnestormer:

Weight rooms, recreation, free health care, 3 square meals a day, no hard labor, cable television, libraries, conjugal visits, a corrupt system that allows prisoners with enough clout to buy anything (or anyone) they want, and the list goes on.

In every state, huh? Health care quality is at best average and more often poor. (judging by the care here in Arkansas and surrounding states)

Three square meals of poor quality high fat food? It’s average at best.

Conjugal visits are a good thing. Maintenance of marital relations and allowing free contacts by children with their parents is a Christian thing to do.

Buy anything they want? Not here in Arkansas, nor in Louisiana or Mississippi. What states are you referring to?

Life in prison may be a punishment, but given the aforementioned, it isn’t exactly a living hell.

In Matthew 25, we are told to visit the imprisoned. Scripture nowhere tells us to make imprisonment a living hell.

Outlaw the death penalty and bring back chain gangs!

Do you want to drive on the quality of roads built by convict labor?

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

In Matthew 25, we are told to visit the imprisoned. Scripture nowhere tells us to make imprisonment a living hell.

Do you want to drive on the quality of roads built by convict labor?

Matthew 25 - Does scripture direct us to make prisoners more comfortable than our impoverished citizens?

Under proper supervision - yes.

 

[barnestormer]

Richardols:

In every state, huh? Health care quality is at best average and more often poor. (judging by the care here in Arkansas and surrounding states)

They get FREE health care. No offense, but don’t use Arkansas and that area as a gague by which you measure the rest of the country.

Richardols:

Three square meals of poor quality high fat food? It’s average at best.

The point is that the food is free to them. Make them work for their provision. See a theme developing here?? Make convicts earn $$ to help offset the costs of their imprisonment. See anything in Scripture that goes against that?? Nope. In fact, one could argue that part of accepting punishment for one’s crimes is paying a debt to society.

Make convicts work, instead of sitting on their hindquarters all day.

Richardols:

Conjugal visits are a good thing. Maintenance of marital relations and allowing free contacts by children with their parents is a Christian thing to do.

Yes, convicts should be able to visit their children now and then, but I’m sorry—if you want to have relations with your spouse, DON"T COMMIT A CRIME. It’s not a complicated equation.

Richardols:

Buy anything they want? Not here in Arkansas, nor in Louisiana or Mississippi. What states are you referring to?

Again, don’t assume that Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are the standard by which the rest of the nation operates (and that’s true in a vast number of issues).

Richardols:

In Matthew 25, we are told to visit the imprisoned. Scripture nowhere tells us to make imprisonment a living hell.

Prison should be a punishment. Christ came to bring mercy, but also justice. How is it merciful to taxpayers to make them shoulder the complete burden of financing idle prisoners?

Let’s not even get into the “but Scripture doesn’t say…” Where does Scripture say that only in Scripture is found truth?

Richardols:

Do you want to drive on the quality of roads built by convict labor?

Convicts can pick up litter, clear vegetation on the sides of roads, perform basic landscaping and related prep work, etc. There are any number of Public Works activities that they can do to earn their keep, and they can do so much cheaper than prevailing wage union labor or govt employees.

(By the way, in my high school years I worked on a county road crew and in a city parks dept, and I can tell you that much of the work is grunt work that any person can do. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that all govt employees or contract builders are geniuses with finely honed skills.)

 

[Richardols]

barnestormer:

They get FREE health care. No offense, but don’t use Arkansas and that area as a gague by which you measure the rest of the country.

Well then, what states offer high quality health care to its convict populations?

The point is that the food is free to them. Make them work for their provision. See a theme developing here?? Make convicts earn $$ to help offset the costs of their imprisonment. See anything in Scripture that goes against that??

No, but I see it in state law. In numerous states, convicts are paid nothing for their labor. Nothing. That means they have neither the ability to pay for their room and board nor any ability to have some money available when they join the free world. The old image of a “new suit, a bus ticket home, and a 10 dollar bill” is no longer valid.

Make convicts work, instead of sitting on their hindquarters all day.

What state are you thinking of, that doesn’t require convicts to work?

Yes, convicts should be able to visit their children now and then, but I’m sorry—if you want to have relations with your spouse, DON"T COMMIT A CRIME. It’s not a complicated equation

Not for Catholic bishops, who universally support conjugal visits and family visits for convicts. Not so much for the benefit of the convicts as for the benefit of those children who do better when they can have contact with and visits with their moms or dads in prison.

Again, don’t assume that Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are the standard by which the rest of the nation operates (and that’s true in a vast number of issues).

Okay, you tell me the states where everything is so great for prisoners. I’ve given you examples. Let’s have some evidence from you.

How is it merciful to taxpayers to make them shoulder the complete burden of financing idle prisoners?

In what states are convicts idle?

Convicts can pick up litter, clear vegetation on the sides of roads, perform basic landscaping and related prep work, etc. There are any number of Public Works activities that they can do to earn their keep, and they can do so much cheaper than prevailing wage union labor or govt employees.

Such public works are usually done as “Community Service” by minor offenders with almost no supervision. Who is going to pay for the large number of guards needed to supervise felons?

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Life imprisonment is a weak punishment? LOL!

Is that what I said? Liberal policies are weak on crime and formulate policies and penalties that are not severe enought to dissuade criminals from stepping up the magnitude of their crime.

 

[Brad]

barnestormer:

Prison should be a punishment. Christ came to bring mercy, but also justice. How is it merciful to taxpayers to make them shoulder the complete burden of financing idle prisoners?

Certainly it should be a punishment. Without punishment, sin is accepted or even encouraged, threatening the welfare and soul of the imprisoned. We visit them to encourage and guide them as they go through their temporal punishment.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

Is that what I said? Liberal policies are weak on crime and formulate policies and penalties that are not severe enought to dissuade criminals from stepping up the magnitude of their crime.

You think that shoplifting leads to burglary leads to robbery leads to murder?

Rehabilitation is part of the reason we send people to jail - though it doesn’t always work. Overly severe punishments do no good.