M
MarcellusW
Guest
No one here I believe disagrees that war is bad and should be avoided and that peace is preferential. That is not in argument. What we oppose is a unilateral pacificism.
- Status
M
Maxply
Guest
Great thread!
I think the major reason Catholics get considered “conservative” isn’t that Catholics are conservatives. . . it’s that secularism has pretty much worked to dump Christian teachings on many social issues, and while many Protestant denominations have acquiesced (or made themselves silent), Catholics still consider things like abortion and homosexuality to be evils.
Times have changed, but the church teachings have not.
Like any faith community, there are political differences in the membership. So you do get those who really like the death penalty, the Iraq War, etc. I think you’re very much on the right track to read carefully the church’s pronouncements on these issues, and your point is very useful.
I mainly agree with the church nowadays, except that I think the U.S. Bishops haven’t fully thought through the immigration issue.
I think the major reason Catholics get considered “conservative” isn’t that Catholics are conservatives. . . it’s that secularism has pretty much worked to dump Christian teachings on many social issues, and while many Protestant denominations have acquiesced (or made themselves silent), Catholics still consider things like abortion and homosexuality to be evils.
Times have changed, but the church teachings have not.
Like any faith community, there are political differences in the membership. So you do get those who really like the death penalty, the Iraq War, etc. I think you’re very much on the right track to read carefully the church’s pronouncements on these issues, and your point is very useful.
I mainly agree with the church nowadays, except that I think the U.S. Bishops haven’t fully thought through the immigration issue.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Your chances of actually being aborted are zero now.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Does this mean if we want to ban the death penalty we are going against an ecumenical council? If that is true then I will do so.Do you put Pope Benedict in that category?
This is what he wrote.
Actually, the Church is very clear on the Death Penalty. Here is the Council of Trent on re: the 5th Commandment
No Catholic may dissent from an Eccumenical Council. I certainly do not, do you dissent from the above?
Ah yes, dissenting from what the Church actually writes and promulgates. How terrible
Do you expect the Church to be inexact on a teaching?
D
dudleysharp
Guest
It would also mean that you were going against nearly 2000 years of biblical, theological and traditional support from the Catholic Church
However, as it is a matter of prudential judgement, you can still, in good consceince, oppose the death penalty.
Some references:
(1)“The Death Penalty”, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio,
Thoughtful deconstruction of current Roman Catholic teaching on capital punishment by a faithful Catholic Vatican insider and expert theologian.
domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
titled "Amerio on capital punishment "Friday, May 25, 2007
(2) “Catholic and other Christian References: Support for the Death Penalty”, at homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx
(3) “Capital Punishment: A Catholic Perspective”, by Emmanuel Valenza (Br. Augustine) at
sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/capital_punishment.htm
(4) “The Purpose of Punishment (in the Catholic tradition)”, by R. Michael Dunningan, J.D., J.C.L., CHRISTIFIDELIS, Vol.21,No.4, sept 14, 200
st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/lead.php?document=2003/21-4
(5) “A Seamless Garment In a Sinful World” by John R. Connery, S. J., America, 7/14/84, p 5-8).
(6) “The Death Penalty”, by Solange Strong Hertz at
ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEPAGES/REMNANT/death2.htm
(7) “Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says”, Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Abingdon Press, 1987. The definitive biblical review of the death penalty.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Well I’m bucking the trend and staying opposed to the death penalty regardless of any of the sources cited above. And I’ll wind up in the same eternal place as the conservatives, which may or may not be a good thing.
D
dudleysharp
Guest
Please read the first reference, at least.
You’re certainly not bucking the most recent trend, which is based much more on social liberalism than anything else.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Explain why the Catholic Bishops do not actively picket abortion mills.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
And my chances of recieving the death penalty are pretty much zero.
O
onetimeposter
Guest
The majority of Catholics are cradle Catholics, and I would guess that the majority in North America, pick and choose what they want to believe and rationalize as Ok, everything they don’t believe that the Church teaches.
It is quite simply, just the way it is imo.
It is quite simply, just the way it is imo.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Er . . . not really. You’re already here, so there’s zero chance of you being aborted
.
I definitely agree with all of this.
K
KingAlfred
Guest
The Catechism basically supports their positions. Just War doctrine takes care of the Iraq War. The Catechism says every country has the right to defend its borders and control the influx of immigrants. While Catholicism is a very social religion, it stands against collectivism (e.g., Communism), as stated in the Catechism. Therefore, from a technical standpoint, their views are just as defensible as anyone else’s. 
Y
YADA
Guest
But are those like Spirit Meadow and Ribozyme really opposed to the death penalty? … I would actually think not …
Because those who seperate out Abortion as different than the Death Penalty are in error …
Abortion is a court ordered [allowed, condoned, sanctioned] death sentance upon a person [the unborn child]. The only difference betweent he death sentences of the unborn and the convicted murderer is that the murderer was afforded his day in court, provided legal representation and oncce convicted was afforded the mandatory appeals [all death penalty cases are afforded and automatic appeal] plus any appeals warranted by the evidence and proceedings … all at the tax payers expense.
The un-born child on the other hand was not provided with an advocate, did not have a hearing, was not convicted by a jury of his peers, had no appeal rights … and his execuiton is carried out without any delay … thereby without the opportunity of any chance for mercy …
AND PLEASE - no lectures on the death penalty … I am against the death penalty and I work and lobby to have real life sentences without possiblilty of parole for dangerouss offenders…
I do, however, recognize [what the church also recognizes] that it is the civil authorities duty to protect society from those who do evil … and not just society but they have a duty and a responsibility to protect the other inmates and the prison staff who must control them …
JPII stated that the use of the death penalty should be rare … and avoided … and with modern abilities to incarcerate inmates the safety of society is achievable without recourse to the death penalty in all except rare cases … In no writings did JPII define what rare is nor did he definitively define the type pf crime or criminal that would constitute the threat so grievous as to warrant the death penalty … he leaves that to the civil authority to decide but in light of his teaching …
In the United States [as noted in an earlier post - though exagerated], the death penalty is exercised rarely [2007: 42 people were executed most in Texas (260 but only 10 States utilized this penalty]
Some other death penalty statistics:
Abortion Statistics:
Quotes from the Department of Justice and Guttmacher
Notice the same Texas that executed 26 inmates [with due process in 2006 … .executed 77,409 children in 2001 …
As a person who works to end the death penalty [for all citizens] I can see a distinct difference between the two …
Social justice is someting we are called to end … but we must also recognize that all issues are not equal …
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
If you look at the big picture, conception to grave, you do have a better chance of being aborted. Should have prefaced by saying this.Er . . . not really. You’re already here, so there’s zero chance of you being aborted
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
Yes, we’d all like to see the death penalty end, including myself.But are those like Spirit Meadow and Ribozyme really opposed to the death penalty? … I would actually think not …
Because those who seperate out Abortion as different than the Death Penalty are in error …
Abortion is a court ordered [allowed, condoned, sanctioned] death sentance upon a person [the unborn child]. The only difference betweent he death sentences of the unborn and the convicted murderer is that the murderer was afforded his day in court, provided legal representation and oncce convicted was afforded the mandatory appeals [all death penalty cases are afforded and automatic appeal] plus any appeals warranted by the evidence and proceedings … all at the tax payers expense.
The un-born child on the other hand was not provided with an advocate, did not have a hearing, was not convicted by a jury of his peers, had no appeal rights … and his execuiton is carried out without any delay … thereby without the opportunity of any chance for mercy …
AND PLEASE - no lectures on the death penalty … I am against the death penalty and I work and lobby to have real life sentences without possiblilty of parole for dangerouss offenders…
I do, however, recognize [what the church also recognizes] that it is the civil authorities duty to protect society from those who do evil … and not just society but they have a duty and a responsibility to protect the other inmates and the prison staff who must control them …
JPII stated that the use of the death penalty should be rare … and avoided … and with modern abilities to incarcerate inmates the safety of society is achievable without recourse to the death penalty in all except rare cases … In no writings did JPII define what rare is nor did he definitively define the type pf crime or criminal that would constitute the threat so grievous as to warrant the death penalty … he leaves that to the civil authority to decide but in light of his teaching …
In the United States [as noted in an earlier post - though exagerated], the death penalty is exercised rarely [2007: 42 people were executed most in Texas (260 but only 10 States utilized this penalty]
Some other death penalty statistics:
Abortion Statistics:
Quotes from the Department of Justice and Guttmacher
Notice the same Texas that executed 26 inmates [with due process in 2006 … .executed 77,409 children in 2001 …
As a person who works to end the death penalty [for all citizens] I can see a distinct difference between the two …
Social justice is someting we are called to end … but we must also recognize that all issues are not equal …
But the church states that:
Death penalty = Not wrong in all circumstances
Abortion = wrong in all circumstances
Now, the death penalty can be used in rare circumstances, and it would be better if we didn’t use it at all. Based on the nunbers you provided, and our court system, it is indeed rarely used. It is generally only used when the crime is henious enough, and when we are sure that that we have the right person.
Abortion, on the other hand, is wrong all the time, but is used more in this country than the death penalty.
I think this is what many of us argue to the types of SpirtMeadow and ribozyme. However, their sensationalism make the death penalty out to be worse than the Holocaust.
Y
YADA
Guest
Hello Computer Geek - Yes, I agree … I hope that was the point I was attempting to get across … I am not personally a death penalty proponant AND I do recognize the moral **unequivalance **between the two … I hope tht was clear … I hate it when people attempt to equate the two. I also wanted to point out that not all abortion foes are pro death penalty … we are not … and most pro-life people do not mistake the morality between the two either …
Pro-Abortion advocates use this argument as a strawman
- it is an attempt to silence the church on the greatest moral evil of our day - IMHO
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
Yes. Comes across loud and clearHello Computer Geek - Yes, I agree … I hope that was the point I was attempting to get across … I am not personally a death penalty proponant AND I do recognize the moral unequivalance between the two … I hope tht was clear … I hate it when people attempt to equate the two. I also wanted to point out that not all abortion foes are pro death penalty … we are not … and most pro-life people do not mistake the morality between the two either …
Pro-Abortion advocates use this argument as a strawman
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Actually, the above is a bit misleading. CCC 2309 gives proper local authority final say in determining rather certain criteria for Just War have been met. But that isn’t the only passage that applies. For example CCC 2313 discusses treatment of detainees with the standard being international law.The Catechism basically supports their positions. Just War doctrine takes care of the Iraq War. The Catechism says every country has the right to defend its borders and control the influx of immigrants. While Catholicism is a very social religion, it stands against collectivism (e.g., Communism), as stated in the Catechism. Therefore, from a technical standpoint, their views are just as defensible as anyone else’s.
Even George Weigel, one of the few theologians arguing that Catholic Just War doctrine could apply to what is, almost inarguably, a wholly “preventive war” (a war in anticipation of perceived future threat), publicly acknowledged that torture, as a matter of policy, would render a war unjust. We know know that specific violations of the Geneva Conventions were, in fact, directed as policy for the top of civil authority.
Also, the Catechism reaffirms the true position and authority of the Pope, and the college of Bishops teaching in communion with his will. Again, even Weigel acknolwedges that two popes have now strenously disagreed with Iraq meeting the criteria for Catholic Just War doctrine and continue to disagree with the US on critical matters like the treatment of refugees and the support of Sunni militias who, in turn, have been persecuting Iraqi Christians.
“Conservative” ideas on immigration, etc. are perhaps even more out of sync with the Faith. For example, the Pastoral Constitution of the Church lists deportation, along with things like abortion and torture, as specific examples of violations of the inalienable rights of the human person. Rights that no state or person has the right to abridge.
Pope John Paul II was almost inarguably the most pro-life pope in history. But if we look at his directives on pro life, critical documents like Christifideles Laici and Evangelium Vitae, we find that he directly related abortion and murder as a fundemental expression of this declaration of inalienable rights. In other words, for Catholics, deportation and abortion are not wholly seperate issues. In fact, they related, and abortion’s extreme importance of a teaching rests on the same foundation.
None of this should be surprising. Jesus conflicted with the Pharisees on these same issues in His earthly ministry. They were fierce nationalists an xenophobes, he used the most despised foreigners in his parables. The pharisees thought borders should be closed, Jesus listed treatment of the alien as a criteria for salvation multiple times.
Similiarly, the Pharisees were also war heros, but early Christians were extreme pacifists. Tertullian wrote that to be a Christain and a soldier meant either quiting the army, but being martyred for refusing to fight.
I think that one of the best examples of just what a poor fit Catholicism is for modern US conservatism are the differences between Rome’s view on voting and, say, Catholic Answers.
Our current pope, as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, prepared a Doctrinal Note on Catholics and Politics, including voting. Our previous Pope approved it:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFPOLIF.HTM
At #4, the document notes the critical importance of protecting human life. It also brings up the concept of “limiting the harm”, but it immediately warns:
One issue cannot be at the expense of other fundemental principles. The question then is, what principles? The document continues:
There are then nine broad examples given of ‘non negotiable’ (“do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”) issues.
There is little doubt that this remains the Church’s position. Pope Benedict referred to the note and described the principles as “non negotiable” in a Post-synodal apostolic exhortation. Indicating that their violation rendered one unfit for Holy Communion.
Compare this to the self-described “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics”. It lists 5 non negotiable moral principles. Only one fully overlaps Rome’s list, with the others being a subset of 3 more of Rome’s criteria. Then, having declared a smaller list of non negotiable principles, it goes on to recommend candidates who hold compromise positions on even the lower bar…
No wonder the USCCB could not recommend the document and had concerns about its seeming being more political than theological! The reality is that the Church’s list is a poor fit for either common political label in the US. This leaves Catholics with two choices, put your faith first, or rationalize the faith to fit the politics you hold more dear.
K
KingAlfred
Guest
Yeah…all of this is a matter of interpretation, isn’t it? Well…they have theirs, and you have yours. Who is to say who is right, from a ‘Catholic’ perspective? Personally, I tend to agree with them.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
But, as a Catholic, I don’t have that choice. They, by and large, are Evangelical Protestants. The latter means that they reject the Holy and Apostolic nature of the Church. The former, in it’s more extreme form, means that they also reject the signficance of Christ’s earthly ministry. That is, they believe that simply acknolwedging Jesus divine nature is all that matters. What our Savior actually said, in say Matt 25 or Luke 10, is apparently not perceived as important to them.
As a Catholic, I profess the Nicene Creed each Sunday. I profess, in unison with other members of my faith, a number of things. The Catechism even covers the meaning of the creed one line at a time. For me, Pope John Paul was the Vicar of Christ, so his opinion was dramatically more important to me than, say, Bill Kristol. In hindsight, the fact that JPII’s predictions about Iraq have all come to pass and Kristol’s record is one of 100% error just reinforces my belief.
Think about it, indvidual interpretation would be a wholly Protestant concept. I am not “Sola Scripture”, but a member of the lay faithful in a divinely created heirarchy.
Pope Benedict has also written on this. Faith and reason are not decoupled. So it is perfectly natural that the Church’s position is born out by reason and reality and Kristol’s is not. The fact that people still cling to Kristol’s ideas, in the face of daunting evidence at their disposal, also suggests that it is, in fact, a competing ideology, not a compatible one. Of course, as a Catholic, I see it as idolatry, belief in man over the power of God.
It is easy to look at social justice and argue that is the biggest rift between modern US conservatism and Catholicism. After all, the word Gospel is from the Greek for “Good News”, as in good news to the poor. But I actually think it is the organized rejection of our Christian obligation to truth that is the biggest divide.
Again, look to what Rome has to say in the Doctrinal Note referenced earlier:
In this, Rome is quoting John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et ratio, but it is a foundational value in our faith, see John, who declares that Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), or to the epistles of St. Paul.
Over the last week or so alone I can think of some horrific attacks on this concept. For example, as the push gain support for offshore drilling was underway, conservative spokepeople begain to consistantly assert that no oil was spilled during huricane Katrina. This “fact” was described as an “little known success story”. The only problem is that it is patently false. According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, 113 oil platforms were destroyed, 457 pipelines damaged, and 9 million gallons of oil spilled (the Exxon Valdez disaster was about 10.8 million gallons).
This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of public record, complete with satellite photos of the spillage effecting the gulf coast states. In fact, another government report described it as “amoung the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history”.
Over the last couple of days I have heard the following, virtually verbatim, from a bunch of conservative sources:
“The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.”
Again, the problem is that this is utterly false - here is the APS official response from today:
If you look deeper, it is even more deceptive. Basically, the APS has a forum which is not really a scientific journal in any sense, more like a free for all like here. Someone used that forum to spout nonsense (actually getting even the origianl citations used wrong), and then a systematic effort was made to steal legitimacy.
The list is almost endless. Saddam would not let the inspectors in? I could see them on TV, they asked the US to point to where they “knew” the weapons were, then left Iraq in anticipation of the US invasion…
Regardless of the merits of any ideology. If the tactics of promoting it include a concerted effort to make people ignorant and fearful, it is not an agent of Christ. Again, look to St. Paul and his explanation of the relationship between evil and the light.
- Status