M
Mannyfit75
Guest
abortion will never changed as far I as know. Second, the death penalty is another topic. You want to make one make a new thread.
- Status
V
VARC
Guest
How can you be so sure? If you can accept JPII changing traditional moral teaching on the death penalty, would you accept if BXVI changed traditional moral teaching on marriage or abortion? Y or Y not?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
This is for another thread I will not answer. You want to discuss this further, make another
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I also like to add this statement from the link I cited:
**
Indeed, the early Church (for example, in the writings of Clement of Rome [died 101 A.D.] and Justin Martyr [d. 165]) generally found taking human life to be incompatible with the gospel. Christians were not to participate in capital punishment. Later, after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, opposition to the death penalty declined. Augustine recognized the death penalty as a means of deterring the wicked and protecting the innocent. In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed this position.
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects this tradition, stating that the death penalty is possible in cases of extreme gravity. However, the Catechism adds: “If bloodless means [that is, other than killing] are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” (#2267). Clearly, then, the bishops’ opposition to the death penalty is in accord with universal Church teaching…**
Note the words, EXTREME GRAVITY.
**
Indeed, the early Church (for example, in the writings of Clement of Rome [died 101 A.D.] and Justin Martyr [d. 165]) generally found taking human life to be incompatible with the gospel. Christians were not to participate in capital punishment. Later, after Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, opposition to the death penalty declined. Augustine recognized the death penalty as a means of deterring the wicked and protecting the innocent. In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed this position.
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church reflects this tradition, stating that the death penalty is possible in cases of extreme gravity. However, the Catechism adds: “If bloodless means [that is, other than killing] are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” (#2267). Clearly, then, the bishops’ opposition to the death penalty is in accord with universal Church teaching…**
Note the words, EXTREME GRAVITY.
po18guy
Well-known member
Yes, such violent acts always detract from the truth, and must be avoided and condemned. They lead to martyrdom for the evil, when exactly the opposite is the truth.
If it were moral and legal to firebomb PP clinics, you could not beat me to the gas station. However, since it is a grave evil in response to another grave evil, how is this to be reconciled? One can “not repay evil with evil”.
As Christians, we who suffer, either spiritually or physically, have a better chance of obtaining Heaven. It becomes our purgatory on earth.
Christ’s peace.
If it were moral and legal to firebomb PP clinics, you could not beat me to the gas station. However, since it is a grave evil in response to another grave evil, how is this to be reconciled? One can “not repay evil with evil”.
As Christians, we who suffer, either spiritually or physically, have a better chance of obtaining Heaven. It becomes our purgatory on earth.
Christ’s peace.
V
VARC
Guest
You don’t have to answer but I think that JPII and his wishy washy view of the death penalty and criminal justice has influenced your views concerning these so called fundamentalists. Its not like their actions cannot be reconciled with “traditional” catholic princples such as using force to protect the innocent. But like I said before, if your objection is because of pragmatic reasons I agree. But I’m not shedding any crocodile tears for an abortionist anymore than a drug dealer who gets shot by a rival.
Also, I’m not proposing that “fundamentalists” who do these things go unpunished. I’m just suprised to read that some catholics would be just fine with excommunicating other christians who vote for Obama (sending them to hell presumably) but are outraged by clinic shootings at the same time.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
The excommunication is applied to Catholics only not Non-Catholic Christians or Non-Christians. Why would the Church excommunicate Christians who are not united with the Catholic Church.
What does execommunication do? Well, it denies Catholics from receiving all the Seven Sacraments. From my understanding not all Protestants have Seven Sacraments.
Execommunication does not mean “sending people to hell.”
R
RobHom
Guest
The “Church” isn’t throwing traditional moral teachings into outer darkness.
The real question is: Was the Pope speaking “ex cathedra” or was he expressing his opinion as Pope? There is a significant difference.
I seriously doubt that the “Church’s” position on abortion will ever change.
Catholics in general are widely split on the issue of capital punishment. Many are against it, and many support it. The Catechism says the state has the right to impose it. The Catechism states the Church’s actual teaching on the issue. This does not say that the Pope cannot express a different “personal opinion” on the issue.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Exactly. Finally someone got it right
A
AaronK88
Guest
This is just a question, and I am not advocating this at all, so no one take it that way.
But what if an abortion clinic was closed for the day, and no one was in the building, and someone set fire to it and burned it to the ground? Would this still be considered an act of violence?
Notice again: AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT ANYONE DO THIS!
But what if an abortion clinic was closed for the day, and no one was in the building, and someone set fire to it and burned it to the ground? Would this still be considered an act of violence?
Notice again: AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT ANYONE DO THIS!
V
VARC
Guest
Thank you. That was exactly my point. Good luck trying to convince Manny of that.
R
RobHom
Guest
Yes, it is still an act of violence and a crime. Felony Arson.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I am one of those who are against the death penalty. Just because I believe this, I do not contradict the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I held the same views of the death penalty as John Paul II. My expressions on the issue is clearly stated in his writings and speeches.
The more old school Tradition Catholic beliefs is the totally abolishing the death penalty. Many ECF like Clement of Rome said that the death penalty is contrary to the Gospel message.
A
AaronK88
Guest
I realize it is a felony. But besides the legalities of such actions, would this be morally wrong if no one was hurt?
Again: NOT ADVOCATING THIS!
V
VARC
Guest
It’s one thing to be “against the death penalty” because of circumstances. It is quite another to have a moral objection to it in all cases and in principle. So which is it?
R
RobHom
Guest
I am pretty sure he understands…
When it comes to discussing an issue like the death penalty and and statements made by Clergy…from a Sister, Deacon, Priest and all the way up to the Pope…it has to be taken that unless the person speaking or writing on the issue is quoting from an “ex cathedra” document…it is a personal opinion.
For instance:
I am a Catholic, I am a “lay” person, not Clergy. But…I do not have much problem with the death penalty. I do want that it should be applied only where and when the burden of proof is 100% positive in all forms, and only for “First Degree Murder”. I do not accept the penalty being used when “circumstantial” evidence is used to convict. Its 100% proof…or the death penalty cannot be used.
I affirm its use, because nowadays the death penalty is not meted out all that much, and the number of persons executed is not that great. Given the number of automatic appeals, and the rest…its not carried out that often…
On the issue of “rehabilitation”… Can anyone honestly think that Bundy could have been rehabilitated? He was eliminated as a threat to society. He forfeited his right to life. He like many other murderers chose his path. He placed his future in the hands of the law. He rolled the dice and lost.
The Church has a stance on the issue, and the State has another.
po18guy
Well-known member
How many times was Rodney King beaten? Now, how many times did you watch it? Dozens? Hundreds? That is the danger - incessant media replays. The demon of “file footage” used and re-used by an unfriendly media as propaganda.
Trust in the fact that it will come up again if something occurs. Can you say “Curtis Beseda”? He and associates were investigated under the RICO statutes, like the mafia. 'Nuff said?
R
RobHom
Guest
Would it be “morally wrong”?
What is “moral” about committing “Felony Arson”? Generally speaking…anything that is criminal is morally wrong. While one might argue that burning down an abortion clinic will save babies lives…that does not abrogate the wrongness of the illegal act of arson.
Further, if the building is not “owned” by the people who are using it…as in leasing it, all you do by the act is destroy the property of another party who may not have known what it was to be used for and was bound by a lease.
Again…two wrongs never make a right. While one may be “less wrong” than the other…wrong is wrong is wrong, etc…
H
Hajnalcsillag
Guest
How many of these boogeyman fundamentalists do you believe are out there who would condone acts of violence against said clinics or those who work at said clinics? Personally, I’ve never met one.
- Status