Chaput article (Denver Post)

[Richardols]

Maranatha:

I agree, people would see the intrinsic evil of abortion easier if we consistently uphold the sanctity of life. Yes he is guilty of horrible crimes but his life is still sacred.

You have it right - Sanctity of Life. You have it right - “consistently.”

All lives are sacred to God - all lives, those of the innocent and those of convicts. I’d rather that God decide when our lives begin and end, and that we respect God’s perogative in that regard.

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

Is it only a matter of numbers? Suppose there were 47 million executions and only 1,000 abortions. Would that make it acceptable?

No it would not. The question is where you need to spend your time as which is the biggest evil.

Guilty murderers still present a threat to society in that another person could be murdered by him in prison. The death penalty insures he is no longer a threat. I support this in extreme cases only.

Now if there were 47 million executions one would have to ask why. Lawlessness would abound for this to happen, a collapse of order and the rule of law. Not a good comparison.

 

[buffalo]

This is Catholic teaching and JPII did not suggest changing this teaching, he said countries that have the resources should seek other ways to remove the danger from society, which I agree with.

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 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 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

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

Guilty murderers still present a threat to society in that another person could be murdered by him in prison. The death penalty insures he is no longer a threat. I support this in extreme cases only.

As did JPII, to the extent that he doubted that there was any need for the death penalty, given the advances in modern security in prisons.

My case is simply for consistency in a pro-life ethic, relegating no life to worthlessness.

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

This is Catholic teaching and JPII did not suggest changing this teaching, he said countries that have the resources should seek other ways to remove the danger from society, which I agree with.

"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

I agree with your comment and with the Catechism.

 

[buffalo]

Richardols:

As did JPII, to the extent that he doubted that there was any need for the death penalty, given the advances in modern security in prisons.

My case is simply for consistency in a pro-life ethic, relegating no life to worthlessness.

I agree.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

A fair criticism, just as I consider most of you guys to be wrong about certain issues. No complaint here.

I avoid voting for pro-choice candidates, but we differ otherwise in that I consider pro-death penalty candidates as much Death candidates as the abortionists. Just because the Church barely tolerates the death penalty doesn’t mean that it’s not covered under the Death Camp’s umbrella.

In any case, that makes two of you. .

Hello Richardols,I am against the death penalty as well,but right now 4,000 unborn children are murdered everyday in the country,we have to keep that n mind.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Richardols:

Is it only a matter of numbers? Suppose there were 47 million executions and only 1,000 abortions. Would that make it acceptable?

It does not make it acceptable but thethe numbers to make one of the evils more common big time.

 

[Richardols]

Lisa4Catholics:

Hello Richardols,I am against the death penalty as well,but right now 4,000 unborn children are murdered everyday in the country,we have to keep that n mind.

And I do, too, Lisa. I want God to decide when the lives of people should end, not some pregnant woman and not some state executioner.

 

[Hildebrand]

Richardols:

You have it right - Sanctity of Life. You have it right - “consistently.”

All lives are sacred to God - all lives, those of the innocent and those of convicts. I’d rather that God decide when our lives begin and

end, and that we respect God’s perogative in that regard.

When the Catholic Church acknowledges the state has a right to execute criminals and wage war, one can see you missing something in your understanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church. From the Roman Catechism: “Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to [the Fifth] Commandment which prohibits murder.”

Ask Archbishop Chaput, he’ll clear you up on there being no comparison between killing a innocent child… and the trial, conviction, and execution of a murderer.

Saint Therese did not pray for the abolition of capital punishment, she prayed for the conversion of the convict and he was converted.

Distinguished Catholic Theologian and Prince of the Church, Avery Cardinal Dulles, points out: “Although Cardinal Bernardin advocated what he called a ‘consistent ethic of life’, he made it clear that capital punishment should not be equated with the crimes of abortion, euthanasia, and suicide.”

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html

I won’t speak for His Excellency Archbishop Chaput, but what I got from his reference to “conservative” is the rugged individualism preached by most conservatives of the libertarian mindset, which lacks the outreach to the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the undesirables/unwanted.

 

[Richardols]

Hildebrand:

When the Catholic Church acknowledges the state has a right to execute criminals and wage war, one can see you missing something in your understanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Not at all. I know that the Church says that there are very narrow circumstances where capital punishment might be permissible. But, the Catechism states in 2267, “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” (emph added)

To have a consistent life ethic, we must grant to God the perogative to decide when life should begin and end. The life of a convict is no less sacred than that of an infant especially if the necessity for killing the man is so close to nonexistent.

Avery Cardinal Dulles, points out: "Although Cardinal Bernardin advocated what he called a ‘consistent ethic of life’, he made it clear that capital punishment should not be equated with the crimes of abortion, euthanasia, and suicide.

"

Dulles ought to get out of his ivory tower and study the way the death penalty has been administered in this country - overwhelmingly to blacks and other minorities, and to the poor, pushed too often by overly zealous prosecutors who often hide exonerating evidence and by prejudiced juries . That is reason enough for its abolition and condemnation. A little exposure to the real world might possibly do the Cardinal some good.

I consider it rankest hypocrisy to oppose abortion and at the same time to be excited about the prospects of putting someone to death.

the rugged individualism preached by most conservatives of the libertarian mindset, which lacks the outreach to the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the undesirables/unwanted.

I see that sort of conservatism on this Forum, too.

 

[InnocentIII]

Richardols:

Hah! You got it dead wrong, Your Excellency!! You ought to visit this Forum where orthodox is perceived to mean conservative - without exception. Orthodox liberals like myself are perceived to be either liars or some sort of freaks of nature.

May I ask how you would define an orthodox liberal as opposed to orthodox conservative?? I would be interested to see where we differ if we are both orthodox? For instance, if you mean that you are orthodox in religion but liberal in politics, then I see no distinction as far as the faith is concerned. On the other hand if you mean orthodox and liberal in religion I think tehre is a problem as orthodox means accepting the teachings of the Church in their fullness and we can only disagree by one or the other rejecting some or all of those teachings, and that would make one of us a heretic I think.

 

[InnocentIII]

Richardols:

They shouldn’t fit, yes, but, the religious conservatives on this Forum do, in fact, almost universally presume that true Catholic equals Republican supporter.

Here in Ozland Catholics were in fact the strongest support base for the Labor Party (our Democrats) until that party started to promote abortion, secularism and anti-religious bias. Catholics have traditionally been strong supporters of social justice here in opposition to the political conservatives. It is the left that has driven them into the arms of the erstwhile opponents, they did not choose them.

 

[Richardols]

InnocentIII:

For instance, if you mean that you are orthodox in religion but liberal in politics, then I see no distinction as far as the faith is concerned.

You’ve got it. Too many people on this Forum presume that orthodoxy in religion presumes conservatism in politics. They are wrong, but I’m pleased that you recognize the difference.

On the other hand if you mean orthodox and liberal in religion I think tehre is a problem as orthodox means accepting the teachings of the Church in their fullness and we can only disagree by one or the other rejecting some or all of those teachings, and that would make one of us a heretic I think.

Here we differ a bit. I don’t separate being liberal from politics. The person you say is “liberal in religion” would simply be heterodox to me. Religious dissent is dissent from the Church to me whether it comes from a far rightist or an extreme left-winger.

I also don’t call anyone a heretic as (I think) that such judgment is reserved to the Church, and besides, I don’t regard myself as competent to determine actual heresy.

 

[InnocentIII]

Richardols:

Here we differ a bit. I don’t separate being liberal from politics. The person you say is “liberal in religion” would simply be heterodox to me. Religious dissent is dissent from the Church to me whether it comes from a far rightist or an extreme left-winger.

Agreed. I was just following on from your thought as a distinction between orthodox/liberal orthodox/conservative. And you have stated clearly what i was aiming at, namely if there is a distinction in religion then any disagreement between us must make one (or both) of us heterodox (I will avoid the word heretic). There is only one orthodoxy but many political paths.

 

[Richardols]

InnocentIII:

There is only one orthodoxy but many political paths.

Agreed. And, I agree that Catholics have historically always preferred the party that was most closely concerned with social justice, whether here or in your country. Catholic, coming as most have from the poor immigrant groups, previously have never been comfortable with the Establishment.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Richardols:

Agreed. And, I agree that Catholics have historically always preferred the party that was most closely concerned with social justice, whether here or in your country. Catholic, coming as most have from the poor immigrant groups, previously have never been comfortable with the Establishment.

The problem we have right now is that the particular party in this country,is supportive and protects the right to kill the most innocent and vulnerable:nope: In addition to that the very people they say they protect is where the groups that they cater to set up the abortion mills.Abortion is the number one killer of African Americans,that is NOT being an advocate.

 

[buffalo]

Richard, you might consider joining the GOP temporarily until the Dems return to tthe Culture of Life. We could use your help in solving this and then we can get back to the social justice issues.

 

[Richardols]

buffalo:

Richard, you might consider joining the GOP temporarily until the Dems return to tthe Culture of Life.

I don’t vote for all Democrats, just those who I believe represent the right values. Here, in Arkansas, for example, I voted for Senator Pryor, whose pro-life attitude is the same as Bush’s - “three exceptions.” And, I can even contemplate an election where no Democrat here would be suitable, forcing me to sit out the election. And, I do vote for the occasional local Republican candidate, mostly on the basis of a personal relationship. But there is a difference between neglecting my allegiance and switching it. I am tempermentally unable to contemplate becoming a Republican. Thanks for your sincere thought, however.

 

[Hildebrand]

Richardols:

Not at all. I know that the Church says that there are very narrow circumstances where capital punishment might be permissible. But, the Catechism states in 2267, “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” (emph added)

You still refuse to acknowledge the Church’s stance on capital punishment. You interpret that CCC quote as meaning the Church is opposed to capital punishment.

Richardols:

Dulles ought to get out of his ivory tower and study the way the death penalty has been administered in this country - overwhelmingly to blacks and other minorities, and to the poor, pushed too often by overly zealous prosecutors who often hide exonerating evidence and by prejudiced juries . That is reason enough for its abolition and condemnation. A little exposure to the real world might possibly do the Cardinal some good.

Do you know who Cardinal Dulles is? He is one of the best theologians of the Catholic Church and is aware of more things than you give him credit for.

After providing a survey of the complex question of capital punishment — including discussions of the practice of the Old Testament Jews; the teachings of Christ; the attitude of the early Christians; the position held by the Doctors and Fathers of the Church; Christian tradition; and current theological arguments in favour and against the practice — Cardinal Dulles writes that: "The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good."

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html

Richardols:

I consider it rankest hypocrisy to oppose abortion and at the same time to be excited about the prospects of putting someone to death.

I see that sort of conservatism on this Forum, too.

I know of no one on this forum who is excited about “the prospects of putting someone to death”.