Death Penalty: Applause for Rick Perry’s ‘Ultimate Justice’ at Republican Debate

[estesbob]

One has to understand context. To Catholics who are faithful to the teachings of the Church, “prolife” means opposing abortion, generation of fetuses for experimentation and industrial purposes, government-permitted infanticide and euthanasia, because the Church does not oppose just war or capital punishment.

To someone else, and it appears you would be included in that number, the term “prolife” might also include “pacifism” and “opposition to capital punishment”.

Understanding as I do that you are protestant and do not feel yourself compelled to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, you can certainly define “prolife” in any way you choose. Jains, who oppose even swatting flies, could define “prolife” to include protection of all life of every kind.

But in the context of CAF, which has a largely Catholic membership, it is at least mildly distracting to the casual reader to see someone posit that being “prolife” includes things not taught by the Church.

One really does have to realize, though, that however one views “prolife” from the Church’s view to those of people who won’t even step on an ant, refusing to oppose those who promote abortion and infanticide is, itself, promotion of abortion and infanticide. So, those who refuse to oppose abortion and infanticide are complicit in the destruction of millions of lives every year. No way around that. We choose our battles in life and we live with the moral consequences.

Possibly you don’t know the Republican party never had a sufficient majority in Congress to reverse Roe vs. Wade and cases following it. Possibly you don’t know that every “prolife” member of the Supreme Court was appointed by a Republican president and that every Democrat appointee supports abortion on demand.

Great post!

 

[ProVobis]

7 of 9 justices were Republican appointees [one of the Democratic ones, Byron White, was also prolife].

Roe v. Wade Approved By Republican Appointees

 

[estesbob]

Roe v. Wade Approved By Republican Appointees

So? How many of the pro-life judges on the USC were appointed by Democrats?

Surely you are not suggesting that we can support abortion because 40 years ago judges appointed by republican Presidents of up to 60 years ago voted for Roe V Wade? Such would seen like the convoluted thiking Archbishop Chaput says would qualify for an Olympic gymnasitcs medall!!

 

[ProVobis]

Possibly you don’t know the Republican party never had a sufficient majority in Congress to reverse Roe vs. Wade and cases following it.

I believe that would take a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe vs Wade (unless the SC votes to let individual states decide on the matter). That means 2/3 (or 3/4?) of both chambers, a Presidential signature, and 3/4 of the states to ratify the amendment. But the question is how did our wonderful Roman system of checks and balances allow a Republican Supreme Court to even vote on matters which should have been decided by states in the first place. And since the states are the ones who carry out the penalties, what reason did the SC give for deciding a 10th Amendment issue? Seems as if they usurped their authority while Nixon watched.

 

[Ender]

You cannot argue with me and say we are not to obey the ordinary teachings of the church on faith and morals

Since I have already recognized that we are obligated to assent to ordinary teachings I have no reason to argue the point now. We have obligations to assent to infallible and ordinary teachings … but we have no obligation to assent to prudential ones and you have already admitted that the teaching on capital punishment is in fact prudential, therefore there is no obligation to assent to it.

I think you need to read Ludwig Ott’s book on the levels of doctrine and assent we must give. You seem to think there is only infalliable teachings and that’s it.

If you find anything in Ott’s book that says we must assent to prudential teachings, please cite it for us.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe that would take a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe vs Wade (unless the SC votes to let individual states decide on the matter). That means 2/3 (or 3/4?) of both chambers, a Presidential signature, and 3/4 of the states to ratify the amendment. But the question is how did our wonderful Roman system of checks and balances allow a Republican Supreme Court to even vote on matters which should have been decided by states in the first place. And since the states are the ones who carry out the penalties, what reason did the SC give for deciding a 10th Amendment issue? Seems as if they usurped their authority while Nixon watched.

There might be some way in which I support something Nixon did, but I can’t think what it would be at present.

 

[Ender]

Had Bork not been blocked by the ted Kennedy Led democrats Roe V Wade would have been overturned in 1990 in the Casey vs Planned parenthood.

This point needs to be made over and over until it sinks in. With Democrats in control Roe will never be overturned. With Republicans in control it will, eventually, happen.

Ender

 

[the_phoenix]

… . I prefer to go with the Pope:

• While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty*, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedcit XVI

I agree.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So? How many of the pro-life judges on the USC were appointed by Democrats?

Surely you are not suggesting that we can support abortion because 40 years ago judges appointed by republican Presidents of up to 60 years ago voted for Roe V Wade? Such would seen like the convoluted thiking Archbishop Chaput says would qualify for an Olympic gymnasitcs medall!!

I agree. This whole argument about Repub Court members voting for Roe somehow meaning the present ones are not prolife is like saying that since Democrats were responsible for slavery and Jim Crow, they would reinstitute them now if they could. Neither party is presently what it once was. If change of principle or focus of one political party is going to be accepted, then it has to be accepted for both.

 

[exnihilo]

One has to understand context. To Catholics who are faithful to the teachings of the Church, “prolife” means opposing abortion, generation of fetuses for experimentation and industrial purposes, government-permitted infanticide and euthanasia, because the Church does not oppose just war or capital punishment.

To someone else, and it appears you would be included in that number, the term “prolife” might also include “pacifism” and “opposition to capital punishment”.

You are using pro life just like I would. I do not oppose capital punishment. I do think far too many people who are innocent are executed. I do not oppose just war. The wars the US engage in are not even close to being just wars.

Possibly you don’t know the Republican party never had a sufficient majority in Congress to reverse Roe vs. Wade and cases following it. Possibly you don’t know that every “prolife” member of the Supreme Court was appointed by a Republican president and that every Democrat appointee supports abortion on demand.

Your facts are wrong. Both houses of the 108th US Congress were controlled by the Republican party. The 109th US Congress was also controlled by the Republians. The president for both, Bush, was a Republican. So you had four years when Republicans controlled two branches of the federal government. If electing Republicans is going to end abortion why didn’t it just six years ago?

If the Supreme Court is the key the Republican’s have controlled it for many years and their nominees had the opportunity to overturn abortion.

Joe Sobran recounts the failure of electing Republicans to nominate Supreme Court Justices:

It gets crazier. In 1993 the Court handed down one of the most bizarre decisions of all time. For two decades, enemies of legal abortion had been supporting Republican candidates in the hope of filling the Court with appointees who would review Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court finally did so. But even with eight Republican appointees on the Court, the result was not what the conservatives had hoped for. The Court reaffirmed Roe.

Its reasoning was amazing. A plurality opinion — a majority of the five-justice majority in the case — admitted that the Court’s previous ruling in Roe might be logically and historically vulnerable. But it held that the paramount consideration was that the Court be consistent, and not appear to be yielding to public pressure, lest it lose the respect of the public. Therefore the Court allowed Roe to stand.

Among many things that might be said about this ruling, the most basic is this: The Court in effect declared itself a third party to the controversy, and then, setting aside the merits of the two principals’ claims, ruled in its own interest! It was as if the referee in a prizefight had declared himself the winner. Cynics had always suspected that the Court did not forget its self-interest in its decisions, but they never expected to hear it say so.

The three justices who signed that opinion evidently didn’t realize what they were saying. A distinguished veteran Court-watcher (who approved of Roe, by the way) told me he had never seen anything like it. The Court was actually telling us that it put its own welfare ahead of the merits of the arguments before it. In its confusion, it was blurting out the truth.

How Tyranny Came to America

As I recall the SCOTUS was composed of 7 of 9 Republican appointees in the early 2000s and again reaffirmed the basic right to abortion.

So the evidence clearly shows electing Republicans will do nothing to undo abortion.

 

[yosupman]

As has been pointed out repeatdly the Pope specifically said Catholics could in good conscience support the death penalty. The problems with these discussions is when people try and raise support of the death penalty to the same moral equivalency as abortion and eunthanasia

Here is the Catechism on the death penalty:

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 non-existent.”

The church has laid out the main principle with the death penalty, which is if you can render someone incapable of doing harm, then you need not kill this person:

*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 are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. *

That is the churches teaching.

 

[ManOnFire]

“If you’re looking for a good clean media to watch in 2012 that won’t break up families and cause poverty, let me know when you find one.”

 

[yosupman]

Since I have already recognized that we are obligated to assent to ordinary teachings I have no reason to argue the point now. We have obligations to assent to infallible and ordinary teachings … but we have no obligation to assent to prudential ones and you have already admitted that the teaching on capital punishment is in fact prudential, therefore there is no obligation to assent to it.

If you find anything in Ott’s book that says we must assent to prudential teachings, please cite it for us.

Ender

Ender - Do you not understand? Lumen gentium 25 clearly spells out when the pope is not teaching infallibly, but presents a teaching on faith and morals, you must obey, if it’s a teaching of the authentic magisterium. Althought not the ascent of faith, the religious submission of intellect and will flows from this.

Below is the paragraph 10 from Professio Fide of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith taking into consideration the popes authentic magisterium when he is not teaching infallibly…read and weep:

1. The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.” To this paragraph belong all those teachings * on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect.18 They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.19

These teachings mentioned above have never been taught definitive by the ordinary magisterium, nor infallibly set forth. But you still have to obey them.

Ignorance is amazing.

 

[yosupman]

Roe v. Wade Approved By Republican Appointees

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre rocks!!!

 

[wondrousgnat]

The Republican party, the Tea Party and conservative talk show hosts are really not helping in the pro-life movement. They rarely make a noncommital comment like “we don’t support abortion” which means there is no real opposition.

Today there are about 1,500,000 abortions every year in merica alone. It seems as though we have a lost cause. But I have picketed abortion clinics. Some people arrive for abortions and get talked out of it. I have been suspicious of some cars that slow down then pass by (maybe they are rethinking heir decision). One time a clinic employee asked us to pray for her so that she could get a different job not in the abortion industry. She quit a few days later.

Sadly, we are not coming close to putting an end to abortion. But if we keep active we will be saving one baby, one life at a time.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Your facts are wrong. Both houses of the 108th US Congress were controlled by the Republican party. The 109th US Congress was also controlled by the Republians. The president for both, Bush, was a Republican. So you had four years when Republicans controlled two branches of the federal government. If electing Republicans is going to end abortion why didn’t it just six years ago?

So the evidence clearly shows electing Republicans will do nothing to undo abortion.

You do know, don’t you, that a bare majority in Congress cannot change a Supreme Court decision? It would take 2/3 plus the President, plus a constitutional convention requiring ratification by the states. Never, ever, ever did the Republican Party have a majority like that.

Otherwise, the only thing a Republican president and congress can do is appoint prolife justices to the Court. The decisions declaring abortion on demand to be a constitutional right came out of nowhere. Prior to Roe, it was not a national political issue of a kind that a president might see coming and vet his appointees accordingly.

But again, all prolife justices presently sitting are Republican appointees. Not a single Democrat appointee is prolife.

Again, you encourage despair among those who believe that political action can actually make a difference, based on outdated information. Does the Democrat Party STILL support slavery as it did in the past? Do we have Democrat governors standing at the front doors of schools barring entry by black students?

No, we don’t. The party changed. The Repub party is the only significant party in existence in the U.S. that is not pro-abortion. It is astonishing to me that people who counsel political despair do so on the basis of outdated information.

 

[exnihilo]

You do know, don’t you, that a bare majority in Congress cannot change a Supreme Court decision? It would take 2/3 plus the President, plus a constitutional convention requiring ratification by the states. Never, ever, ever did the Republican Party have a majority like that.

Yes I do know that. Which is why I dont get why people think electing Republicans is the answer. I do get why Republican politicians want to convince them it is.

Otherwise, the only thing a Republican president and congress can do is appoint prolife justices to the Court. The decisions declaring abortion on demand to be a constitutional right came out of nowhere.

Yes well again, at one time 8 of 9 were Republican appointees and they affirmed Roe. Another decision in the early 2000s affirmed Roe with 7 of 9 Republican appointees.

But again, all prolife justices presently sitting are Republican appointees. Not a single Democrat appointee is prolife.

Most of the Republican appointees are not pro life.

Again, you encourage despair among those who believe that political action can actually make a difference, based on outdated information. Does the Democrat Party STILL support slavery as it did in the past? Do we have Democrat governors standing at the front doors of schools barring entry by black students?

No, we don’t. The party changed. The Repub party is the only significant party in existence in the U.S. that is not pro-abortion. It is astonishing to me that people who counsel political despair do so on the basis of outdated information.

This time it is different? Those are the claims an abuser makes to his victim.

The problem with your comparison is at the time the Republicans appointed these Supreme Court Justices the party was supposedly pro life. The issue is not what they say but what they do.

Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor supported abortion

Reagan appointee and Catholic Anthony Kennedy supports abortion

Bush I appointee David Souter supported abortion

Bush II appointee and Catholic John Roberts does not think Roe should be overturned

I note that two are Catholics because if not even nominating Catholics will put an end to the tragedy of Roe than how can you expect electing Republicans to do so?

I am not encouraging despair. I am saying stop worrying about the political system which has proven beyond a reasonable doubt to you that it will not put and end to Roe. I’d say divert that energy to convincing people of the true horror of abortion. A majority of people being against abortion is not sufficient to stop it. Maybe 90% being against it will put an end to it. But personally I think what will put an end to it is faith in and devotion to the government that enshrined this as a right by means of judicial fiat. When you go the political route you necessarily accept the authority of the system.

 

[Joe_5859]

I am not encouraging despair. I am saying stop worrying about the political system which has proven beyond a reasonable doubt to you that it will not put and end to Roe. I’d say divert that energy to convincing people of the true horror of abortion. A majority of people being against abortion is not sufficient to stop it. Maybe 90% being against it will put an end to it. But personally I think what will put an end to it is faith in and devotion to the government that enshrined this as a right by means of judicial fiat. When you go the political route you necessarily accept the authority of the system.

I will never understand why it is unreasonable to expect to do both. There already is and has been a tremendous amount of energy, time, and resources spent --over the last forty years – on educating about the truth of abortion and attempting to change hearts. This is necessary and good and will continue.

It doesn’t mean we cannot also work to end things via political channels, too. We don’t have to choose one way or the other. We can and should try every moral method available to us to end the great scourge of abortion.

 

[estesbob]

Yes I do know that. Which is why I dont get why people think electing Republicans is the answer. I do get why Republican politicians want to convince them it is.

Yes well again, at one time 8 of 9 were Republican appointees and they affirmed Roe. Another decision in the early 2000s affirmed Roe with 7 of 9 Republican appointees.

Most of the Republican appointees are not pro life.

This time it is different? Those are the claims an abuser makes to his victim.

The problem with your comparison is at the time the Republicans appointed these Supreme Court Justices the party was supposedly pro life. The issue is not what they say but what they do.

Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor supported abortion

Reagan appointee and Catholic Anthony Kennedy supports abortion

Bush I appointee David Souter supported abortion

Bush II appointee and Catholic John Roberts does not think Roe should be overturned

I note that two are Catholics because if not even nominating Catholics will put an end to the tragedy of Roe than how can you expect electing Republicans to do so?

I am not encouraging despair. I am saying stop worrying about the political system which has proven beyond a reasonable doubt to you that it will not put and end to Roe. I’d say divert that energy to convincing people of the true horror of abortion. A majority of people being against abortion is not sufficient to stop it. Maybe 90% being against it will put an end to it. But personally I think what will put an end to it is faith in and devotion to the government that enshrined this as a right by means of judicial fiat. When you go the political route you necessarily accept the authority of the system.

So do you honestly believe a Catholic can vote for a pro-abortion canidate because pro-life candidates are either liars or not doing enough? Do you honestly believe that those of us in the Pro-life ministry are ignorant dupes using our votes to support people who dont really care about ending or limiting abortion? Or are you just looking to rationalize voting for pro-abrotion canidates?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes I do know that. Which is why I dont get why people think electing Republicans is the answer. I do get why Republican politicians want to convince them it is.

Yes well again, at one time 8 of 9 were Republican appointees and they affirmed Roe. Another decision in the early 2000s affirmed Roe with 7 of 9 Republican appointees.

Most of the Republican appointees are not pro life.

This time it is different? Those are the claims an abuser makes to his victim.

The problem with your comparison is at the time the Republicans appointed these Supreme Court Justices the party was supposedly pro life. The issue is not what they say but what they do.

Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor supported abortion

Reagan appointee and Catholic Anthony Kennedy supports abortion

Bush I appointee David Souter supported abortion

Bush II appointee and Catholic John Roberts does not think Roe should be overturned

I note that two are Catholics because if not even nominating Catholics will put an end to the tragedy of Roe than how can you expect electing Republicans to do so?

I am not encouraging despair. I am saying stop worrying about the political system which has proven beyond a reasonable doubt to you that it will not put and end to Roe. I’d say divert that energy to convincing people of the true horror of abortion. A majority of people being against abortion is not sufficient to stop it. Maybe 90% being against it will put an end to it. But personally I think what will put an end to it is faith in and devotion to the government that enshrined this as a right by means of judicial fiat. When you go the political route you necessarily accept the authority of the system.

You are, indeed, encouraging despair, just as the Democrat operatives do. I assume you do so in good faith. Democrat operatives do it in order to deflect prolife people from opposing them politically.

This “you have to convince the people first” is just one more way the pro-abortion people have of defending abortion on demand. The majority IS convinced. The Democrat party stands in the way, and “Republicans didn’t end abortion when they were in power” is one of the deceptive ways they manage that; by confusing the electorate and encouraging despair among prolife people.

And if you read the Carhart decision, Roberts does not actually defend the decision in Roe. He simply says it’s the law, which it is for now, and used it to buttress his vote against partial birth abortion. Carhart was a limited decision about partial-birth abortion only. In that case, the otherwise abortion-defending Kennedy went along with Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas in affirming a state ban on partial birth abortion. Every one of the Democrat appointees on the Court voted in favor of partial birth abortion. Every single one. But for the Republican appointees, the murderous “right” to conduct partial birth abortions would now ALSO be a “constitutional right”. Because of them, and them alone, it isn’t. No, it really does make a difference who we support for president, even if the progress is measured in small steps.

And it has been repeated on here many, many times, how many prolife actions George Bush took, most all of which have been reversed by Obama. It does matter who is in office. Until the Democrats realize their devotion to killing the unborn (and even the born for some) is going to lose them election after election, they will not change. Prolife Democrats, most of all, should oppose their candidates until the party abandons its wedded devotion to killing the unborn millions. That’s precisely why I, born and raised Democrat, a former party official, now oppose the party’s candidates. There might be a prolife Democrat somewhere, but never on my ballot. So I oppose them without exception. I take plenty of heat for it too, but right is right and wrong is wrong.

Until prolife people stop buying into the Democrat party line about how “Republicans didn’t stop abortion”, and similar deceptions, nothing will change, and those who refuse to oppose the pro-abortion politicians without exception, are complicit in the deaths of millions.

Even if one views with total cynicism the actual personal devotion of Republican candidates to the prolife cause, one still has to acknowledge that the Republican constituency is now so full of prolifers that a pro-abortion Republican presidential candidate has virtually no chance of nomination or, if elected, of re-election if his colors prove false.