Flawed Perspective

[traillius]

During my lunch, I was listening a talk radio program, the topic was the Notre Dame Controversy. A ND alum called in and said she was happy that Obama was speaking there, also she called catholic groups hypocrites because they did not oppose pro death penalty GW Bush before, and now oppose pro-abort Obama. Apparantly, this person, who even acknowledged abortion as a higher order issue than the death penalty, still opposed the catholic teaching, or at least ignored it. And people wonder what’s wrong with american catholicism. Thank God, this person is a female and will never be a priest.

 

[Lizziebel]

Well, it is true that in abortion, innocent people are always put to death.

And in the death penalty, innocent people sometimes are put to death. This is also a tragedy. Yet the Church considers the death penalty acceptable as a means of protecting others from dangerous people who have committed horrendous crimes.

The caller may have gone too far in calling this hypocritical. After all, the Church has its reasons for deeming the death penalty acceptable. Reasons the caller obviously either wasn’t aware of or didn’t take into account. But the caller isn’t wrong to be concerned for the innocent, whether babies or people wrongfully accused and convicted of awful crimes.

 

[diggerdomer]

During my lunch, I was listening a talk radio program, the topic was the Notre Dame Controversy. A ND alum called in and said she was happy that Obama was speaking there, also she called catholic groups hypocrites because they did not oppose pro death penalty GW Bush before, and now oppose pro-abort Obama. Apparantly, this person, who even acknowledged abortion as a higher order issue than the death penalty, still opposed the catholic teaching, or at least ignored it. And people wonder what’s wrong with american catholicism. Thank God, this person is a female and will never be a priest.

Wow. What a sexist and intolerant comment regarding a caller on talk radio you heard and really know nothing about.

Are you implying that females are less capable of being faithful Catholics, or their witness less important?

Nothing in what you wrote leads me to believe the caller opposed or ignored Catholic teaching. If you have something more substantive to share rather than personal uncharitable and uninformed attacks on people you don’t know, please share.

 

[goofyjim]

This whole thread smacks of sexism. GW Bush’s obstinance in his approach to Iraq cost us this elction last time. If he had not been so stubborn and set with his own agenda, not the public’s BTW, he may have gotten the Republicans another term in the White House and we could have worked to end abortion and the war. As it is he handed the victory to Obama easily. I don’t like Obama but Bush has destroyed the Republican’s credibility for awhile now. We are being given slim pickings by both parties lately. But this comment of thanking God that the caller is female is just wrong. They are as intelligent, if not more, than any male on the face of the planet. Keep stupid comments like that oof screen and out of the public eye.

 

[rpp]

Wow. What a sexist and intolerant comment regarding a caller on talk radio you heard and really know nothing about.

Are you implying that females are less capable of being faithful Catholics, or their witness less important?

Nothing in what you wrote leads me to believe the caller opposed or ignored Catholic teaching. If you have something more substantive to share rather than personal uncharitable and uninformed attacks on people you don’t know, please share.

You mean like the personal and uncharitable you made in this post? Seems to me the OP certainly did describe statements that are opposed to Catholic teaching for expressing support for a politician who supports the unrestricted murder of babies.

Please cease attacking other members just because they do not agree with your leftist anti-Catholic heroes like the President.

 

[MDK]

You mean like the personal and uncharitable you made in this post? Seems to me the OP certainly did describe statements that are opposed to Catholic teaching for expressing support for a politician who supports the unrestricted murder of babies.

Please cease attacking other members just because they do not agree with your leftist anti-Catholic heroes like the President.

I second this, having seen this pattern from this individual in other threads. Charity must be at the service of truth, and this individual’s posts are neither truthful nor do they have the appearance of being done out of brotherly concern, but to promote corruption of Catholic teachings by watering down, etc.

 

[rwoehmke]

And people wonder what’s wrong with american catholicism. Thank God, this person is a female and will never be a priest.

Yes, thank God! Most priests are ignored by the majority of the populace and it is the hand that rocks the cradle that influences our culture.

 

[jc-servant]

Well, it is true that in abortion, innocent people are always put to death.

And in the death penalty, innocent people sometimes are put to death. This is also a tragedy. Yet the Church considers the death penalty acceptable as a means of protecting others from dangerous people who have committed horrendous crimes.

The caller may have gone too far in calling this hypocritical. After all, the Church has its reasons for deeming the death penalty acceptable. Reasons the caller obviously either wasn’t aware of or didn’t take into account. But the caller isn’t wrong to be concerned for the innocent, whether babies or people wrongfully accused and convicted of awful crimes.

The church does not permit the death penalty when a person can be safely removed from society so that they no longer pose a threat to others. We have that ability in the US to lock someone in a cell 24/7 where they could have no human contact. Instead, we choose to continue killing people, especially in Texas. GWB advocated killing even a mentally handicapped man, so I do not think that he was an appropriate speaker for a Catholic U. either if their positions need to all line up with church teachings. Personally, I would not invite any politician to speak since I’ve never met one who would pass the test of only advocating things in line with the church.

CCC
**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 are 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 non-existent."

Many so-called conservative US Catholics continue to pretend that we are OK on this point while they are disgusted by abortion. Both are wrong, abortion always and the death penalty as applied in this country. The Bible does not give us lesser mortal sins. All mortal sins separate us from God, so many Catholics need to really look at the catechism and all of JPII’s statements on the subject before assuming that the death penalty is OK.

 

[elts1956]

Yes, thank God! Most priests are ignored by the majority of the populace and it is the hand that rocks the cradle that influences our culture.

 

[elts1956]

Yes, thank God! Most priests are ignored by the majority of the populace and it is the hand that rocks the cradle that influences our culture.

During my lunch, I was listening a talk radio program, the topic was the Notre Dame Controversy. A ND alum called in and said she was happy that Obama was speaking there, also she called catholic groups hypocrites because they did not oppose pro death penalty GW Bush before, and now oppose pro-abort Obama. Apparantly, this person, who even acknowledged abortion as a higher order issue than the death penalty, still opposed the catholic teaching, or at least ignored it. And people wonder what’s wrong with american catholicism. Thank God, this person is a female and will never be a priest.

What’s FEMALE got to do with it? That is a sexist remark. Apology please?

 

[MDK]

Yes, thank God! Most priests are ignored by the majority of the populace and it is the hand that rocks the cradle that influences our culture.

Thanks to God for the priests who are faithful to the Catholic teachings. For the others, who is to blame? Is it partly on us for not praying and fasting enough for our priests and other religious? We must ask that while being rocked in the cradle, are we really learning true faith from our earthly mothers and fathers? Blessed are the mothers and fathers who are teaching true Catholicism. Truly Blessed is our true mother, Queen of Heaven, the Immaculate Conception, the Mother of God, whom we honor above all the Saints. In her we can trust as our true Mother who always leads us to her one and only Son, whether our earthly mother teaches the faith faithfully or not. We worship our true Father in Heaven, Who is our Creator, the First Person of the Blessed Trinity. He is our true and ultimate Father. In Him do we trust for He is all good. Blessed be Jesus, the Christ, our Redeemer and only begotten Son of our True Father. Blessed be the Holy Spirit of God Who proceeds from the Father and the only begotten Son. We honor our Mother with hyper dulia. We worship our Triune God above all.

 

[elts1956]

Thanks to God for the priests who are faithful to the Catholic teachings. For the others, who is to blame? Is it partly on us for not praying and fasting enough for our priests and other religious? We must ask that while being rocked in the cradle, are we really learning true faith from our earthly mothers and fathers? Blessed are the mothers and fathers who are teaching true Catholicism. Truly Blessed is our true mother, Queen of Heaven, the Immaculate Conception, the Mother of God, whom we honor above all the Saints. In her we can trust as our true Mother who always leads us to her one and only Son, whether our earthly mother teaches the faith faithfully or not. We worship our true Father in Heaven, Who is our Creator, the First Person of the Blessed Trinity. He is our true and ultimate Father. In Him do we trust for He is all good. Blessed be Jesus, the Christ, our Redeemer and only begotten Son of our True Father. Blessed be the Holy Spirit of God Who proceeds from the Father and the only begotten Son. We honor our Mother with hyper dulia. We worship our Triune God above all.

Yes, it is true we worhship our Triume God above all, but the Graces God sheds on our parents during our formative years help build a foundation for truth that is never forgotten. It is the obligation of the parents to use those Graces in the best way possible to lead their children to God.

Sensorially, spiritually, not intellectually, a child’s formation is almost complete by the age of five. This is not to say we cannot grow spiritually though additional Graces from God, but parents “are” the FIRST teachers. Quite a responsibility.

 

[MDK]

Yes, it is true we worhship our Triume God above all, but the Graces God sheds on our parents during our formative years help build a foundation for truth that is never forgotten. It is the obligation of the parents to use those Graces in the best way possible to lead their children to God.

Sensorially, spiritually, not intellectually, a child’s formation is almost complete by the age of five. This is not to say we cannot grow spiritually though additional Graces from God, but parents “are” the FIRST teachers. Quite a responsibility.

Yes, but why did you put your “but” in this post? I believe that if you understood my post better, I think the “but the Graces…” would be “and the Graces…”

For instance, my post included “Blessed are the mothers and fathers who are teaching true Catholicism.” I believe that alone takes care of the “but.” The context of my post should clearly do the rest. To continue, it was not a refutation or demeaning of parenthood, but blessing of good parenthood, not just all parenthood regardless of good or bad. Then my post continued to flow very nicely to our true and greater parents, lest we lose the context, as it seemed very appropriate to put it together. Therefore, parenthood is a shared or participation with our Heavenly Father and we have our Spiritual Mother. So, in short, it’s not either/or in my original post. It is all the above, and with proper perspective. And, you could have kept your “but” out of it to show the understanding was gleaned. Nevertheless, here we are, and I hope it makes more sense now with the light of further explanation.

 

[yellowbird]

I totally don’t understand why the OP is being called a sexist? I am VERY glad the caller was a female and therefore, cannot be a Priest. We already have our fair share of Priests who look the other way when it comes Obama’s pro-abort agenda… like the Priest from Notre Dame for example.

 

[MDK]

I totally don’t understand why the OP is being called a sexist? I am VERY glad the caller was a female and therefore, cannot be a Priest. We already have our fair share of Priests who look the other way when it comes Obama’s pro-abort agenda… like the Priest from Notre Dame for example.

I understood the meaning as well, and never thought of it as sexist, merely that we did not need another priest who thought this way, and the poster would not have to worry of that eventuality in this case.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Many so-called conservative US Catholics continue to pretend that we are OK on this point while they are disgusted by abortion. Both are wrong, abortion always and the death penalty as applied in this country. The Bible does not give us lesser mortal sins. All mortal sins separate us from God, so many Catholics need to really look at the catechism and all of JPII’s statements on the subject before assuming that the death penalty is OK.

The very fact that the CCC gives lee-way on the death penalty is what allows good Catholics to argue both sides of the issues. There are instances where the death penalty is useful and there are times when ‘innocent’ criminals are executed. However, it is the state’s right to protect the members of the state. If the state deems someone’s crime worthy of the death penalty (by way of a jury trial & stringent requirements), then there are most likely extenuating circumstances that make the state believe they will not be able to sufficiently control/contain the guilty party.

You’re also forgetting that the appeals process is tremendously long and rigorous. Most death penalty cases are actually life-in-prison in reality b/c the number of executions is far less than death penalty convictions. That is b/c the justice system’s wheels turn slowly and try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Since I believe that ultimately it is the state’s job to ensure that dangerous criminals are kept away from the rest of society, I stand by their decision to execute some criminals and/or impose the death penalty on them (as far as a sentence, but not as far as the execution).

You do realize that when the death penalty is taken off the table, even a ‘life’ sentence usually ends prior to the end of the person’s natural (or not-so-natural) life. That means these convicted criminals who are dangers to society are free to roam the streets again & wreak their havoc on society. If life sentences really were for life - ie the person only leaves the prison in a body bag/casket - the death penalty would not be necessary. However, that’s not the way the system works & its partly b/c people have gotten so concerned over the ‘rights’ of criminals that they forget the rights of society to be kept safe by their government.

Abortion is never committed against a guilty person - it is always an innocent victim that dies in an abortion. However, the criminals executed have been found guilty by a jury of their peers. While I personally would not want to be on a jury that had to make that decision, if the matter came up I would weigh the choices and hopefully make the best decision for all involved. To compare abortion to the death penalty smacks of ridiculousness and a misguided attempt at equality IMO.

 

[jc-servant]

The very fact that the CCC gives lee-way on the death penalty is what allows good Catholics to argue both sides of the issues. There are instances where the death penalty is useful and there are times when ‘innocent’ criminals are executed. However, it is the state’s right to protect the members of the state. If the state deems someone’s crime worthy of the death penalty (by way of a jury trial & stringent requirements), then there are most likely extenuating circumstances that make the state believe they will not be able to sufficiently control/contain the guilty party.

You’re also forgetting that the appeals process is tremendously long and rigorous. Most death penalty cases are actually life-in-prison in reality b/c the number of executions is far less than death penalty convictions. That is b/c the justice system’s wheels turn slowly and try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Since I believe that ultimately it is the state’s job to ensure that dangerous criminals are kept away from the rest of society, I stand by their decision to execute some criminals and/or impose the death penalty on them (as far as a sentence, but not as far as the execution).

You do realize that when the death penalty is taken off the table, even a ‘life’ sentence usually ends prior to the end of the person’s natural (or not-so-natural) life. That means these convicted criminals who are dangers to society are free to roam the streets again & wreak their havoc on society. If life sentences really were for life - ie the person only leaves the prison in a body bag/casket - the death penalty would not be necessary. However, that’s not the way the system works & its partly b/c people have gotten so concerned over the ‘rights’ of criminals that they forget the rights of society to be kept safe by their government.

Abortion is never committed against a guilty person - it is always an innocent victim that dies in an abortion. However, the criminals executed have been found guilty by a jury of their peers. While I personally would not want to be on a jury that had to make that decision, if the matter came up I would weigh the choices and hopefully make the best decision for all involved. To compare abortion to the death penalty smacks of ridiculousness and a misguided attempt at equality IMO.

There you go trying to justify the improper use of the death penalty by attacking the messenger. I am well aware of the legal appeal process and of the flaws in the legal system having been a practicing attorney for most of my adult life. You are entitled to your opinion, but what you stated is not what is in the catechism. It does not say the death penalty is OK if your country has the ability to lock up these criminals forever but chooses not to do it. Your attempt to justify killing based on our flawed laws is what is ridiculous, IMO. What you should do if called for a capital jury is state that your religious beliefs tell us that we cannot impose the death penalty based on our ability to lock up criminals for life without any possibility of parole, so you cannot serve on that particular jury.

Catholic schools should not invite any politicians to speak, regardless of party affiliation and regardless of which side is excusing their positions on life issues, the left or the right.

 

[elts1956]

Yes, but why did you put your “but” in this post? I believe that if you understood my post better, I think the “but the Graces…” would be “and the Graces…”

For instance, my post included “Blessed are the mothers and fathers who are teaching true Catholicism.” I believe that alone takes care of the “but.” The context of my post should clearly do the rest. To continue, it was not a refutation or demeaning of parenthood, but blessing of good parenthood, not just all parenthood regardless of good or bad. Then my post continued to flow very nicely to our true and greater parents, lest we lose the context, as it seemed very appropriate to put it together. Therefore, parenthood is a shared or participation with our Heavenly Father and we have our Spiritual Mother. So, in short, it’s not either/or in my original post. It is all the above, and with proper perspective. And, you could have kept your “but” out of it to show the understanding was gleaned. Nevertheless, here we are, and I hope it makes more sense now with the light of further explanation.

I guess what I was saying with my BUT is that the priests are NOT our FIRST teachers. The most formative years of a child is between birth and five. When they are most receptive to sensorial impressions. Therefore it is up to the parents to instill in them a devotion to the divine before priests can even begin teaching to the intellect. I am firmly of the opinion (only) that this is true.

I get the impression you thought I was challenging what you said. I wasn’t. All Grace flows from God. We receive it through the recepticle of His choice.

 

[MDK]

I guess what I was saying with my BUT is that the priests are NOT our FIRST teachers. The most formative years of a child is between birth and five. When they are most receptive to sensorial impressions. Therefore it is up to the parents to instill in them a devotion to the divine before priests can even begin teaching to the intellect. I am firmly of the opinion (only) that this is true.

I get the impression you thought I was challenging what you said. I wasn’t. All Grace flows from God. We receive it through the recepticle of His choice.

It was very easy to understand what you wrote in your first post, and even so, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t already understand that parents have the opportunity to teach before the priest gets his chance… so I don’t know why a humble Catholic would provide their “but” to contrast… as it’s obvious in nature. It was certainly open to “and” as there was a perfect lead in with my original quote blessing parents who teach about God faithfully. We Catholics know that people have free will to cooperate with God, or not. Therefore, it’s not that God simply overrides human will to make His will happen. The parent may get the opportunity, but if they do poorly, then they do poorly… sad but true. So, blessed are the parents who teach the Catholic faith faithfully… just like was said in earlier post, and still is true, and will always be true as long as there are parents.

 

[elts1956]

Sorry I’m not perfect, or don’t perfectly say what I mean to say. Let’s not beg the issue. I really don’t think a “but” is that detrimental to the statement.