H
Hesychios
Guest
OK, instruct me.
Do you have citations?
I would like to know more.
- Status
Do you have citations?
I would like to know more.
C
clmowry
Guest
2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [68]
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
H
Hesychios
Guest
So then, does everyone agree that the state has the right to execute a person who may be a public danger? A threat to the physical safety of the community? That seems to be what the link says.
I could in principle agree to that, however I am not sure that society as a whole has a clear idea of what constitutes proportion between the taking of the life of the criminal and the benefit expected to the common good.
In other words, I could now see the theoretical possibility of a just execution, (however remote that may be) but I cannot conceive of any government that has ever sat in power anywhere that deserved the publics trust in such a decision, in that regard all fall short in my opinion.
The second part of my question is linked to the first: disagreement with the Catholic church in a matter of faith or morals could be sufficient reason for the state to execute an individual? In other words, are you stating that the individual who disagrees with Catholic doctrine may be considered in some way a public danger of sufficient criminal magnitude to merit execution?
I could in principle agree to that, however I am not sure that society as a whole has a clear idea of what constitutes proportion between the taking of the life of the criminal and the benefit expected to the common good.
In other words, I could now see the theoretical possibility of a just execution, (however remote that may be) but I cannot conceive of any government that has ever sat in power anywhere that deserved the publics trust in such a decision, in that regard all fall short in my opinion.
The second part of my question is linked to the first: disagreement with the Catholic church in a matter of faith or morals could be sufficient reason for the state to execute an individual? In other words, are you stating that the individual who disagrees with Catholic doctrine may be considered in some way a public danger of sufficient criminal magnitude to merit execution?
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
By this logic we should not trust any government to make decisions regarding war either.
Saint Paul recognized the right of pagan, Neronian Rome to execute criminals (see Romans 13); it’s silly of you to assume that the Church has just been plain wrong over 2000 years for acknnowledging the rights of Christian nations to do the same. Fallible humans really do have this right and duty.
Simply being a (private) heretic does not constitute a grave public danger. But in a Catholic state, a public heretic who leads so many souls to hell and works to subvert the Catholic faith does constitute such a threat, and the State should employ measures against him. I would argue that execution should be a last resort, only after other punishments have been exhausted (i.e. fines, imprisonment, exile, etc.).
People have a right to believe what they want. But in a Catholic state, they don’t have a right to publicly express and spread beliefs which endanger the salvation of souls and impede the mission of Christ’s Church.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Well stated!
H
Hesychios
Guest
It’s rude of you to pepper your posts with insults. Your posts usually contain some insinuations or judgmants about what other people think. You need to work on your writing style.
I Said:
Nothing presented so far has shown that the Holy Roman Empire has validly executed a criminal in the person of Jan Hus.
This should be abundantly clear since his Holiness the Pope has found it necessary to apologize for this. Unfortunately the corrupt Holy Roman Empire has collapsed under it’s own weight and is not available to apologize as well.
If the charge was treason, or some other civil crime they would not have had to execute him as a heretic. The charge was trumped up, a clear case of a state lacking the moral authority to make these judgments.
Your equating heretics with criminals is an extension of your own logic at work, and does not represent any church teaching.
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
If you even bothered to read my posts in their entirety (you obviously didn’t), then you would see that I made it abundantly clear that Jan Hus was, indeed, unlawfully executed, and hence murdered. This is because he was specifically promises a safe pasage and hearing to the Council of Constance, and this promise was violated.
This is not to say that heretics can never be considered criminals. The teaching of the Church is clear that they can be, when a state is Catholic. For this teaching, you need to consult every single Papal and Conciliar teaching on this subject written before Vatican II.
Y
yinekka
Guest
*he was specifically promises a safe pasage and hearing to the Council of Constance,/I
What was this document called and where can I find it?*
What was this document called and where can I find it?*
K
Katholikos
Guest
Can you imagine a thread entitled “ProtestantsMurderedMichaelServitus?” on a Protestant forum?
Calvin had Spaniard Michael Servitus burned at the stake in 1553 for his doctrinal heresies, according to a pamphlet published by Evangelical Outreach in Washington, PA., entitled “His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin.”
Are the Spanish still angry with the Calvinists? I doubt it.
JMJ Jay
Calvin had Spaniard Michael Servitus burned at the stake in 1553 for his doctrinal heresies, according to a pamphlet published by Evangelical Outreach in Washington, PA., entitled “His Ashes Cry Out Against John Calvin.”
Are the Spanish still angry with the Calvinists? I doubt it.
JMJ Jay
O
otm
Guest
One of the problems Europe has is its long memory. They can’t seem to get past anything that was done, never midn that it was 500 years ago. The U.S. doesn’t suffer from as much history, but we have the idiots who can’t let the Civil War go, either.
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
I have no idea. Just open up any book and/or encylopeida article and/or historical reference on the subject and read under “Jan Hus.”
Y
yinekka
Guest
Re post 32 in answer to my question as to the name and location of the document supposedly giving Hus safe conduct.
It is not good enough just to tell someone to look it up for yourself. If someone quotes a document it should be sourced properly if it is to be taken seriously. The person quoting the document must have read it therefore they should be able to give an accurate citing.
It is not good enough just to tell someone to look it up for yourself. If someone quotes a document it should be sourced properly if it is to be taken seriously. The person quoting the document must have read it therefore they should be able to give an accurate citing.
B
Bob_Baran
Guest
yinekka said:
T
tgdanne
Guest
Nonsense. Abortion is the killing of an innocent victim for no other reason than his existence is an inconvenience to someone. Hus was executed for his freely chosen actions. You may argue whether or not the execution was justified, but in no way is it equivalent to abortion.
W
Winters
Guest
Bob,
Would you recommend this book (Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church A 2,000-Year History by Harry Crocker. …) to me as someone who would like to know more about church history? Though I am college educated I’m definitely not a religeous scholar. The only reading I’ve done that could be considered somewhat in the same category is A Concise History of the Catholic Church.
TIA,
Winters
Would you recommend this book (Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church A 2,000-Year History by Harry Crocker. …) to me as someone who would like to know more about church history? Though I am college educated I’m definitely not a religeous scholar. The only reading I’ve done that could be considered somewhat in the same category is A Concise History of the Catholic Church.
TIA,
Winters
T
tgdanne
Guest
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), he was indeed lawfully executed:
This same article also explains why the safe passage did not invalidate the conviction and sentence. See
Council of Constance
R
RobedWithLight
Guest
Shadowboxing with the ghosts of the distant past simply prevents us from ever moving forward. If I would adopt such attitudes, then we shouldn’t even speak to the Jews either, since their ancestors crucified Christ.
Gerry
B
Bob_Baran
Guest
Yes, I would highly recommend the book. It is full of facts and very interesting.
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
When something is such a well-known, universally known fact, then it’s perfectly alright to do as I did.
Yeah, the *Catholic Encyclopoedia * does give a really convoluted defense of Hus’s burning, but I find it to be a load of B.S. So, apparently, does our Holy Father.
Do you honestly believe that Hus would have gone to Constance, if his “safe passage” only meant he wouldn’t be harmed on the way, but would be burnt once he got there?
Like I said, type in the words “Jan Hus” into a google search engine, and read several different things about him. All will agree: He was killed unlawfully.
Why are Catholics so loathe to admit whenever one of their own does something wrong?
- Status