Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[estesbob]

This is what confuses me the most about Catholicism - how is it that there are 21 pages discussing whether capitol punishment is acceptable when to me, in this day and age it is not necessary as there are other means to prevent someone from causing harm to society.

How can a catholic say that as being part of the jury you may sentence someone to death?!? Really?? Cant the catholic church clarify this?

I ask my friends who are in some chatechism groups and they all are divided on the issue. If a catholic is asking this question, there is something wrong with how information is being conveyed or how it is being interpreted, I am just disappointed - that’s all.

They have clarified it-the Church does now and always has allowed for Capital Punishment.

The problem i have in this are is that, although i oppose capital punishment in all cases, too many Catholics try and claim a moral equivalence between supporting captial punishment and supporting abortion. This is most often advanced using the bogus seamless garment argument and is often used to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians.

The other problem is that when we distort Church teaching on captial Punishment we weaken our abililty to explain other Church Doctrines. You can see this even in CAF where you will find people stateing that the Church should allow Female Clergy or Homosexual marriage because “after all they changed their teaching on Captial Punishment so they should be able to change their teaching on this also”

 

[David_Zampino]

i don’t believe that it is the church who has not made its position on this issue. Rather some catholics do not really know about that stand and some are not in agreement.

exactly!

 

[distracted]

i dont think any pope would have a problem with the death penalty for Ted Bundy or the Green River killer… or even for Scott Peterson who killed “only” 2 people…

what Peterson did was worse in many ways… than what the others did because he killed his own wife and flesh-andBlood child…

then there’s anderea yates…

i know I don’t have a problem with it… I woiuldn’t feel one bit of guilt being the one to throw the switch on any of them…

If i ever had to do that, I would just think of all the lives I was saving in doign so… and how much better off society would be…

 

[bloke916]

They have clarified it-the Church does now and always has allowed for Capital Punishment.

The problem i have in this are is that, although i oppose capital punishment in all cases, too many Catholics try and claim a moral equivalence between supporting captial punishment and supporting abortion. This is most often advanced using the bogus seamless garment argument and is often used to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians.

The other problem is that when we distort Church teaching on captial Punishment we weaken our abililty to explain other Church Doctrines. You can see this even in CAF where you will find people stateing that the Church should allow Female Clergy or Homosexual marriage because “after all they changed their teaching on Captial Punishment so they should be able to change their teaching on this also”

It is allowed yes, but can we agree that for all practical reasons in America it should not occur at this day and age?

 

[Ender]

It is allowed yes, but can we agree that for all practical reasons in America it should not occur at this day and age?

No; I do not agree. The primary purpose of punishment is justice and that has nothing to do with the condition of a nation’s penal system. The Church has always seen capital punishment as just or she would never have allowed it in the first place and if it was just before it is just now - and bear in mind that protection is not an aspect of justice.

I believe that capital punishment is necessary (in certain cases) for a state to meet its obligation to impose a penalty that is commensurate with the severity of the crime committed; that is the obligation of justice. It is also in keeping with what the Church has always taught - and teaches today - that death is the penalty for murder because man is made in God’s image. That is the command of Genesis 9:6, of the Catechism of Trent, and of section 2260 of our current Catechism; a command, it points out, that is true for all time.

Ender

 

[bloke916]

No; I do not agree. The primary purpose of punishment is justice and that has nothing to do with the condition of a nation’s penal system. The Church has always seen capital punishment as just or she would never have allowed it in the first place and if it was just before it is just now - and bear in mind that protection is not an aspect of justice.

I believe that capital punishment is necessary (in certain cases) for a state to meet its obligation to impose a penalty that is commensurate with the severity of the crime committed; that is the obligation of justice. It is also in keeping with what the Church has always taught - and teaches today - that death is the penalty for murder because man is made in God’s image. That is the command of Genesis 9:6, of the Catechism of Trent, and of section 2260 of our current Catechism; a command, it points out, that is true for all time.

Ender

Wait - your comment baffles me. 1. You are Catholic right? 2. Isn’t there a sticky in this forum referring to CCC 2267 , and if you read that it does not mention anything on punishing. The underlying principle is to defend society from harm, and it ends with stating that today reasons for punishing someone to death are practically non existent.

Why would you take someone’s life precluding them from the possibility of redeeming themselves??
So if you call yourself a Catholic and have no better answer than that which supports your craving for vengeance, then it undermines the teachings of the Catholic Church because you interepret things only to suit your needs.

 

[pnewton]

This is what confuses me the most about Catholicism - how is it that there are 21 pages discussing whether capitol punishment is acceptable when to me, in this day and age it is not necessary as there are other means to prevent someone from causing harm to society.

THose means work for most people. Whether we have alternative means to keep all from being a danger to others is debatable.

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

… it does not give you the right to declare countries of so-called false religions to be part of something terrible.

It is not I that declares anything, ma’am. Rather, it is the Church. There is no position of neutrality when it comes to the truth. Either you conform yourself to the truth entirely … or you reject it entirely. See James 2:10. Some reject what the Church teaches as being the only truth and some even go as far as to reject the entire notion of objective truth. This is the madness that one will eventually be lead into in rejecting the Holy Catholic Church … and it is reflected in nations that have this mindset as law.

JaneGrey:

Many countries were exposed to other older religions than Christianity so there was no rejecting of Christ on there part, when they never believed in him in the first place.

… and what is the excuse of any nation now? Have they not managed to receive news of the existence of Christianity just yet? Why do we have Missionaries? To be philanthropists or social workers? Wrong … to convert!

Every nation on Earth (and I do mean every nation) has, at one point, been the object of evangelization. All nations have been exposed to the one, true faith and all of them have either accepted it, rejected it, persecuted it or were indifferent to it.

JaneGrey:

I honestly think you are being too harsh in your judgment of your fellow Catholics.

You know, I really wish the current crisis was not as bad as I and many say it is … but it is. Can anyone here look at any nation where Catholics are the majority (or where Catholics have been historically the majority) and then be able to say that that nation’s laws reflect that presence of Catholicism?

Western Europe, United States, Latin America, Canada … all historically Catholic nations (or nations with at least an influential population of Catholics) that have fallen head over heals for secularism and governments that actively enforce laws that run contrary to Catholic teaching … and guess what? … They voted for it!!

JaneGrey:

By all means reject their accounts of religion if you think it wrong. But you might first want to take the time to listen to what they say so you know how they arrived at their positions.

… and what exactly has given you indication that I am not “listening”? Is it perhaps because you associate “listening” to errors with “tolerance” of errors?

JaneGrey:

Fine but condemning people to ‘‘apostasy’’ is just achieving nothing. Who’s the one getting melodramatic now eh?

Apostasy is not a condemnation. Condemnation implies eternal repercussions, but rather Apostasy is a state for those who are still living. If one dies in a state of unrepentant Apostasy than condemnation will take place. A sizable majority of Catholics have publicly advocated, funded and voted for laws that run contrary to the faith. These are Catholics in-name-only. Period. Calling attention to this fact does not merit criticism. Don’t kill the messenger, ma’am.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

 

[Ender]

Isn’t there a sticky in this forum referring to CCC 2267 , and if you read that it does not mention anything on punishing.

If all you’ve read about the Church’s position on capital punishment is 2267 then you are seriously uninformed.

*A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium *(Pius XII, 1954)

The underlying principle is to defend society from harm

No, the underlying principle, that is, the primary objective of all punishment, is retribution … justice.

The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (CCC 2266)

it ends with stating that today reasons for punishing someone to death are practically non existent.

Yes, that is how 2267 ends, but 2267 is basing its position on the perceived lack of the need for protection, but protection is only a secondary objective of punishment and it is the primary objective that must be satisfied in every case.

Why would you take someone’s life precluding them from the possibility of redeeming themselves??

Redemption is also a secondary objective.

*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. *(Aquinas, SCG Bk 3, 147)

So if you call yourself a Catholic and have no better answer than that which supports your craving for vengeance

Your rash and uncharitable judgment notwithstanding, what you call vengeance is in fact the obligation of justice.

The impartial and unchangeable justice of God metes out reward for good deeds and punishment for sin. … The law, nevertheless, is clear that for public prosperity it is to the interest of all that virtue-and justice especially, which is the mother of all virtues-should be practiced (Leo XIII, 1888)

it undermines the teachings of the Catholic Church because you interepret things only to suit your needs.

I have no personal opinion as such; my position is based on what the Church teaches which is why every single claim I make comes with a quote from some source supporting the comment. All you can quote is 2267.

Ender

 

[Portrait]

It is allowed yes, but can we agree that for all practical reasons in America it should not occur at this day and age?

Dear bloke916,

Although I reside in the United Kingdom, I think our societies nowadays are not that dissimilar and thus, I think, your question could equally be asked this side of the pond also.

By way of reply I think one must ask the following questions: does the whole concept of retribution have a proper place in our modern society? Should it be the primary aim of the penal system to deter further criminal activity, or to to only rehabilitate the criminal? How one answers such questions can have a huge bearing on ones stance on capital punishment.

If we are of the opinion that retribution is an outmoded and ethically repugnant concept, then there is the srong likelihood that we are equating justice with revenge. Properly understood, retribution is a satisfaction of the requirements of justice, or, if you please, a sort of restoration of a disturbed moral balance. Sacred Scripture clearly distinguishes between such a concept and feelings of personal hatred by forbidding such feelings and the actions which are engendered out of them.

One of the great merits of a retributive view of punishment is that it serves not only as a justification for punishment but also as a guide to the appropriate kind of punishment and a limit on its severity. The punishment should be commensurate with the crime, duly reflecting its weight and severity - no more and no less. Moreover such a balancing of crime and punishment is consonant with the basic moral instincts of mankind.

In light of the above considerations we must conclude that capital punishment is not barbaric and indeed does have a place “…in this day and age”, since it is manifestely obvoius that these arguments do not simply become obsolete and untrue with the passage of time; they transcend time and are therefore applicable in every generation.

The death penalty does not merely protect society from the hardened murderer, it is, most fundamentally, an appropriate and fitting punishment for the most heinous of crimes. Moreover, to answer another of your concerns, far from foreclosing the opportunity of redemption, the reality of the death penalty forces the one convicted to ponder his sinful state before God and, hopefully, to shock him by the immediate prospect of death and judgement to seek repentance and forgiveness by the Church. Therefore the death penalty can be seen positively as highly beneficial.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[JaneGrey]

It is not I that declares anything, ma’am. Rather, it is the Church. There is no position of neutrality when it comes to the truth. Either you conform yourself to the truth entirely … or you reject it entirely. See James 2:10

. Some reject what the Church teaches as being the only truth and some even go as far as to reject the entire notion of objective truth. This is the madness that one will eventually be lead into in rejecting the Holy Catholic Church … and it is reflected in nations that have this mindset as law.

Thank you for the politeness but you can drop the ma’am, im under 40. As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with you believing your religion to be the true one. However even in its dialogues with leaders of other religions, the Church and the Pope do nto spend their time condemning them. The Church has accepted that there are other religions in the world and wants to live peacefully alongside them, not accuse them of all the evil in the world today. Of course they want more people to convert but it is something that is strived for in a more quiet way. Missionaries for example are more of a Protestant thing nowadays. The truth is one thing, organized religion another. You cannot say the innocent people of a non-Christian country rejected something they were not part of in the first place. They might know God in their own way. By the way, in the RCIA program catechumenates who are in the last stage before officially converting to catholicism are repeatedly told not to let anyone coerce them into joining the religion, and to put off converting if they find it difficult to accept the religion until they are able to reconcile themdelves with christian teaching. It is not simply a matter of people being ‘‘naughty’’ and prideful and refusing to accept the truth. They have to see it as the truth for themselves.

… and what is the excuse of any nation now? Have they not managed to receive news of the existence of Christianity just yet? Why do we have Missionaries? To be philanthropists or social workers? Wrong … to convert!

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

However even in its dialogues with leaders of other religions, the Church and the Pope do nto spend their time condemning them. The Church has accepted that there are other religions in the world and wants to live peacefully alongside them, not accuse them of all the evil in the world today. Of course they want more people to convert but it is something that is strived for in a more quiet way.

The actions of the past 40-50 years on behalf of many prelates are a complete departure from the teachings and tradition of the Church. Our leaders are human and so many of them have succumbed to the world’s notion of “tolerance” and “political correctness”. This is not my personal opinion. Even a cursory glance at the teachings and writings of the Popes and Saints of time immemorial makes this painfully obvious.This subject alone merits an entire forum devoted to it so I don’t really wish to engage this here.

JaneGrey:

Missionaries for example are more of a Protestant thing nowadays.

… this has to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a very long time.

JaneGrey:

The truth is one thing, organized religion another.

“Organized Religion” … Ah, yes. Another one of these fuzzy little catch-phrases that are used so often now.

Religion is a fulfillment of the virtue of justice. God created us and sustains our existence and so it is just that He is worshiped according to precepts He has codified. “Organized Religion” is nothing more than a condescending term for what is really “coherent” religion … as in a religion that does not conform itself to the fleeting whims and fallible opinions of its members, but rather provides structure and nourishment for the soul and not simply emotional or hollow, laissez-faire drivel.

JaneGrey:

You cannot say the innocent people of a non-Christian country rejected something they were not part of in the first place.

As I said, all nations have been thoroughly exposed to the true Faith … perhaps having something to do with all those non-existent Catholic missionaries. When a man is presented with the truth he can either (1) accept it (2) reject it (3) persecute it or (4) willfully ignore it.

JaneGrey:

By the way, in the RCIA program …

That’s all I needed to see. Moving on …

JaneGrey:

Better for a person to believe in a God than to be an atheist.

Belief is inadequate. The devil and his fallen angels certainly believe in God. It is the worshiping of God in the manner He has defined that is of importance

JaneGrey:

I can only really speak for Western Europe here, but I think the same applies to the other regions you mention-it is ridiculous to attempt to sum up why they fell away from Catholicism in a few sentences. The history of WE regarding this spans centuries.

I haven’t even touched upon “why” they have fallen from the faith. All I am saying is that the majority of the countries that have always been historically Catholic or have had a substantial Catholic population have generally allowed their respective countries to fall into grievous error without so much as the slightest whimper of discontent … and many have even voted those errors into law.

I used my country as an example in that our current President harbors some of the most immoral and counter-Catholic views that this country has ever seen in a single candidate … and almost half of the entire U.S. Catholic population voted for him. Shameful, truly shameful.

JaneGrey:

So youre the messenger now are you? Do you really think you’re the most holy, perfect Catholic you can be?

I’m going to assume there’s a culture barrier here (versus my other theory of which I will not mention) and assume that you didn’t understand the common U.S. expression of “don’t kill the messenger”

---

In Corde Regis,***
Joshua

 

[severus68]

Religion is a fulfillment of the virtue of justice. God created us and sustains our existence and so it is just that He is worshiped according to precepts He has codified. “Organized Religion” is nothing more than a condescending term for what is really “coherent” religion … as in a religion that does not conform itself to the fleeting whims and fallible opinions of its members, but rather provides structure and nourishment for the soul and not simply emotional or hollow, laissez-faire drivel.

That’s all I needed to see. Moving on …

I haven’t even touched upon “why” they have fallen from the faith. All I am saying is that the majority of the countries that have always been historically Catholic or have had a substantial Catholic population have generally allowed their respective countries to fall into grievous error without so much as the slightest whimper of discontent … and many have even voted those errors into law.

---

In Corde Regis,***
Joshua

The actions of the past 40-50 years on behalf of many prelates are a complete departure from the teachings and tradition of the Church. Our leaders are human and so many of them have succumbed to the world’s notion of “tolerance” and “political correctness”. This is not my personal opinion. Even a cursory glance at the teachings and writings of the Popes and Saints of time immemorial makes this painfully obvious.This subject alone merits an entire forum devoted to it so I don’t really wish to engage this here.

With respect, you said it and we will respond. Now its personal opinion. Do you really think all the past popes and saints were infallible and had no sins. What about the popes with mistresses, what about those who were more interested in politics than Christ’s work.
Being charitable to others is the best way to show we are followers of Christ.

… I]very

long tithis has to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a **[me.

Not so ridiculous. In the last few centuries, Catholic missionaries were sent all over the world not only to evangilize but to teach, to set up hospitals. It is now the Mormon , the Jehovah Witnesses, the Pentecostal and born again churches who send their missionaries in droves around the world to evangilize.

“Organized Religion”* … Ah, yes. Another one of these fuzzy little catch-phrases that are used so often now.

There are many moral persons who believe in God and do not belong to any particular religion. That is a fact. The term organised religionis to distinguish who are spiritual while not necessarily religious.

Belief is inadequate. The devil and his fallen angels certainly believe in God. It is the worshiping of God in the manner He has defined that is of importance

Please don’t deliberately mis contrue. It is clear Jane was talking about spiritual, non religious believers in God.

As I said, all nations have been thoroughly exposed to the true Faith … perhaps having something to do with all those non-existent Catholic missionaries. When a man is presented with the truth he can either (1) accept it (2) reject it (3) persecute it or (4) willfully ignore it.

Surely you know that even the Church does not now take the view that only Catholics/Christians can go to heaven?

I used my country as an example in that our current President harbors some of the most immoral and counter-Catholic views that this country has ever seen in a single candidate … and almost half of the entire U.S. Catholic population voted for him. Shameful, truly shameful.

Did the Pope tell US Catholics not to vote for Obama on pain of excommunication? I am not American but I think Obama is America’s and the world’s best bet right now. He is pro choice but he is more than that. Your past president was against abortion, rightly, but did a lot to put the US in a bad light and more.

I’m going to assume there’s a culture barrier here (versus my other theory of which I will not mention) and assume that you didn’t understand the common U.S. expression of “don’t kill the messenger”

Jane understands the expression well and it is not an expression uses just by Americans.

 

[severus68]

The actions of the past 40-50 years on behalf of many prelates are a complete departure from the teachings and tradition of the Church. Our leaders are human and so many of them have succumbed to the world’s notion of “tolerance” and “political correctness”. This is not my personal opinion. Even a cursory glance at the teachings and writings of the Popes and Saints of time immemorial makes this painfully obvious.This subject alone merits an entire forum devoted to it so I don’t really wish to engage this here.

… this has to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a very long time.

“Organized Religion” … Ah, yes. Another one of these fuzzy little catch-phrases that are used so often now.

Religion is a fulfillment of the virtue of justice. God created us and sustains our existence and so it is just that He is worshiped according to precepts He has codified. “Organized Religion” is nothing more than a condescending term for what is really “coherent” religion … as in a religion that does not conform itself to the fleeting whims and fallible opinions of its members, but rather provides structure and nourishment for the soul and not simply emotional or hollow, laissez-faire drivel.

As I said, all nations have been thoroughly exposed to the true Faith … perhaps having something to do with all those non-existent Catholic missionaries. When a man is presented with the truth he can either (1) accept it (2) reject it (3) persecute it or (4) willfully ignore it.

That’s all I needed to see. Moving on …

Belief is inadequate. The devil and his fallen angels certainly believe in God. It is the worshiping of God in the manner He has defined that is of importance

I haven’t even touched upon “why” they have fallen from the faith. All I am saying is that the majority of the countries that have always been historically Catholic or have had a substantial Catholic population have generally allowed their respective countries to fall into grievous error without so much as the slightest whimper of discontent … and many have even voted those errors into law.

I used my country as an example in that our current President harbors some of the most immoral and counter-Catholic views that this country has ever seen in a single candidate … and almost half of the entire U.S. Catholic population voted for him. Shameful, truly shameful.

I’m going to assume there’s a culture barrier here (versus my other theory of which I will not mention) and assume that you didn’t understand the common U.S. expression of “don’t kill the messenger”

---

In Corde Regis,***
Joshua

My apologies for not placing your words within quotes.

 

[JaneGrey]

---

In Corde Regis,***
Joshua

The actions of the past 40-50 years on behalf of many prelates are a complete departure from the teachings and tradition of the Church. Our leaders are human and so many of them have succumbed to the world’s notion of “tolerance” and “political correctness”. This is not my personal opinion. Even a cursory glance at the teachings and writings of the Popes and Saints of time immemorial makes this painfully obvious.This subject alone merits an entire forum devoted to it so I don’t really wish to engage this here.

I think you know as well as I do what happens when one religion, however righteous it is, tries to impose itself upon the parts of the world it considers immoral.

… this has to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a very long time.

Can you give me evidence of how exactly this is ridiculous. I never said there were no Catholic missionaries, just that it is something very much emphasised in the Mormon and JW faiths in a very different way than it is in Catholicism. I d love to see you prove me wrong if you can.

“Organized Religion” … Ah, yes. Another one of these fuzzy little catch-phrases that are used so often now.

Religion is a fulfillment of the virtue of justice. God created us and sustains our existence and so it is just that He is worshiped according to precepts He has codified. “Organized Religion” is nothing more than a condescending term for what is really “coherent” religion … as in a religion that does not conform itself to the fleeting whims and fallible opinions of its members, but rather provides structure and nourishment for the soul and not simply emotional or hollow, laissez-faire drivel.

It is a privilege to be part of a religion and to have faith and know God. People who know no God and believe life is worthless are suffering, basically. However your arrogance is not going to warm anyone to Catholicism. You may not like the term organised religion, but no one means anything insulting by it. It is how those raised without an coherent belief system see Catholicism. No need to get so sensitive.

As I said, all nations have been thoroughly exposed to the true Faith … perhaps having something to do with all those non-existent Catholic missionaries. When a man is presented with the truth he can either (1) accept it (2) reject it (3) persecute it or (4) willfully ignore it.

Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said Catholic missionaries were non-existent. Since you brought them up however, maybe the missionaries did not do all they could to convert people to the ‘‘truth’’. You put too much faith in their abilites, if you think it was only the fault of the people presented with the truth. You conveniently leave out politics and other issues which have bearing on a nation’s religion.

That’s all I needed to see. Moving on …

If you are putting down the RCIA Id like to remind you that the program is a part of the ‘‘true’’ religion you claim to follow. By the way Im not in the RCIA or in the process of becmong a Catholic.

I haven’t even touched upon “why” they have fallen from the faith.

Yes you did, you mentioned voting. Though you must have been thinking more of your country at the time and having an emotional response.

All I am saying is that the majority of the countries that have always been historically Catholic or have had a substantial Catholic population have generally allowed their respective countries to fall into grievous error without so much as the slightest whimper of discontent … and many have even voted those errors into law.

Again it is dangerous to over simplify things the way you are doing. If you were genuine about wanting to Catholicise the world (and i for one would not stand in your way if you were) you would not make such assumptions which lead to nowhere. You are essentially just ranting without providing any substantial proof.

I’m going to assume there’s a culture barrier here (versus my other theory of which I will not mention) and assume that you didn’t understand the common U.S. expression of “don’t kill the messenger”

Nice try, but the English language and most expressions originated from the United Kingdom, which is located in Western Europe, FYI. Oh there are so so many cultural barriers wont argue with that, but I wouldnt recommend you try to teach me my language. Sorry but I dont think you used the ‘‘expression’’ correctly.

By the way, you are right about one thing. This discussion is way off topic and too influenced by our differing religious beliefs. You can go on by all means but I will wait till someone gets back on topic.
Ta!

 

[JaneGrey]

I’m going to assume there’s a culture barrier here (versus my other theory of which I will not mention)

Oh do tell!

 

[4elise]

Then Cardinal Ratzinger made it clear that catholics can support the death penalty.

My problem with this debate is that although i oppose the death penalty to often the issue is used as a stalking horse for disident Catholics to jusify supporting pro-abortion canidates. they use the bogus “seamless garment” analogy and try and draw a moral eqaivalenbce between supporting the death penalty and supporting abortion

Why do you say that the ‘seamless garment’ is a bogus analogy?
I find it to be supportive of the view in support of ALL life, protecting the unborn, care for the most vulnerable, protecting people facing end of life and the death penalty. So - I see this as a wonderful way to share the teaching of the Church in a way that is consistent and clear.

 

[4elise]

The trouble is, that’s as far as many pro-death penatly folks will go. They see that the church allows for it, but don’t understand that last bit…that it should not be used except when there is no other means of keeping the offender away from society. When you consider that it takes up to 30 years to execute a prisoner, we definitely have the means to confine them for their natural life, making capitol punishment unneccesary.

Well said.
I remember reading soemwhere also that it neither deters nor is cost effective - of course these aren’t the reasons Catholics should oppose it. - It is necessary to understand that if we can confine them for their natural life, this is what we should do to remove them as a risk to society.

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

Do you really think all the past popes and saints were infallible and had no sins. What about the popes with mistresses, what about those who were more interested in politics than Christ’s work.

Why do you feel the need to bring this irrelevant point up time and time again? Have we had sinful Popes? Yes, but their personal piety has no effect whatsoever on their capacity to address the faithful with infallible pronouncements. We’ve covered this already.

severus68:

Surely you know that even the Church does not now take the view that only Catholics/Christians can go to heaven?

The Church has defined that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. There are hardliner positions and milder positions when addressing this doctrine. However, even when the milder positions are professed (ones that believe you don’t need to profess the true faith) the constant fact is that if a non-Catholic is saved it is through him uniting himself mystically to the Church … not through false religions which have no salvific nature to them. Was this clear (I’m genuinely asking)?
serverus68:

Did the Pope tell US Catholics not to vote for Obama on pain of excommunication?

Does he need to? Pro-homosexual marriage, pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, refusing to acknowledge the Christian roots of the country, initially appointed a Communist as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican … The man is truly a vile and disgusting individual that will destroy my beloved country piece by piece, infant by infant.

Catholics need to have their consciences formed to the truth so that they make decisions in accord with Catholic teachings and Catholic common-sense, independent of Papal hand-holding … and not depend on infallible, papal edicts for everything including how to tie their own shoes.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

JaneGrey:

Can you give me evidence of how exactly this is ridiculous.

According to Vatican statistics (Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples) there are currently 85,000 Missionary Priests with 58,000 permanently assigned Priests in Missionary territories. Mormons claim a total of only 56,000 Missionaries and for Protestants … well … which of the 35,000 sects should I pull statistics from?

JaneGrey:

If you are putting down the RCIA Id like to remind you that the program is a part of the ‘‘true’’ religion you claim to follow.

It is nothing more than a commonly utilized program within the Church … nothing binding, dogmatic or sacred. Unfortunately, the RCIA programs I have seen seem to leave converts more confused than ever. Many revolve around solely social justice drivel, environmental issues, etc. I am certainly not saying this occurs across the board mind you. I am simply saying that whatever is discussed in them in not exactly a fool-proof litmus test for Catholic orthodoxy.

… just to give you another example. I’m not sure if this program has gone across the pond or not, but here in the U.S. there is a very widespread, banal youth program known as Life Teen … however their founder was excommunicated a year ago and yet the program continues completely unhindered in their activities.

JaneGrey:

Yes you did, you mentioned voting.

Their voting for immorality is a manifestation of an already existing departure from Catholic teaching … not its cause.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua