L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Ahh, the old “the death penalty is bad” argument.
Finding another wrong thing (the death penalty, arguably, in this case) doesn’t make the first wrong thing (abortion, in this case) unwrong.
- Status
Finding another wrong thing (the death penalty, arguably, in this case) doesn’t make the first wrong thing (abortion, in this case) unwrong.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
I didn’t say that it made abortion unwrong. I’m just saying that many people who are opposed to abortion nevertheless see nothing wrong with the death penalty, and yet in both cases, there is the possibility of an innocent percent being killed. I would think that all people who are against abortion would also be against the death penalty.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Amen.
CCC 1776 states our conscience is our most secret core and sanctuary where we are alone with God whose voice echos within.
CCC 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”
And then even after it goes on to talk about informing oneself, there is this.
CCC 1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.
And I believe God is more than capable on judgment day to understand our minds and our reasons for voting how we do in secular elections in a pluralistic society in good conscience and to understand our hearts.
Peace be with you.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Perhaps, but I don’t think it’s clear, let alone obvious.
When people are released from death row, it appears to me it’s always because of defect in the proceedings. I think those DNA/based releases are a long way from being the majority of the releases, and I don’t even know what effect the DNA evidence really had in any particular case. But in most cases, the defendant is not found “innocent”, it’s just that some inadmissible bit of evidence was erroneously admitted and the later court felt it was prejudicial to have let it in. Some reversals have been based on prosecutorial misconduct.
So, for the most part, we really don’t know whether any particular person released from death row was really innocent. We only know the proceeding was flawed or that some bit of evidence later discovered might have exonerated the accused, but didn’t necessarily do so. By that time, oftentimes, the witnesses are dead, evidence is gone, and the prosecutors have changed. So nobody follows up.
But do I oppose the death penalty? yes and no. The Church does not formally oppose it. But out of respect for John Paul II, I oppose it even though I am not sure of his premises. He felt it was “almost never” necessary for the protection of society. I seriously question that, because the perps sometimes kill in prison or order hits outside. But I have often thought he didn’t follow up; that he meant that in terms of saying an advanced society could provide truly secure incarceration and should.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
When posting on CAF and stating our moral positions to other Catholics we’re really not talking about our “most secret core” where we’re “alone with God”. We’re telling others what their “secret core” ought to hold and what God, through the Church, teaches. It’s not “conscience”, it’s “preaching” or “teaching”.
We could all keep it secret if we want to. But if we open it to others, we have an obligation to at least explain ourselves, and especially if what we’re saying appears to be contrary to the teachings of the Church.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
But shouldn’t the fact that there is sometimes uncertainty about whether all people who are on death row are really guilty be enough to make everyone against the death penalty? If someone is against the killing of innocent life, they should be just as opposed to the death penalty as they are to abortion because of this uncertainty. Even the possibility that one innocent person might mistakenly be put to death should be enough to make them oppose the death penalty.
Q
queenofheartscv
Guest
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think Hillary got in hot water with the NARAL folks for even saying “unborn”. Oops!
M
Monkey1976
Guest
Then we apply the same standards to abortion: To be aborted, the fetus must be convicted of a capital crime by a jury of 12 in a court of law, the jury must unanimously recommend execution, and that conviction must withstand appeal.
E
estesbob
Guest
- Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. 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.*
E
estesbob
Guest
You left out a bit:
745 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.** It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.**
1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Possibly you could address that to the Church, not to me. I do not purport to have the ability to determine Church teaching.
But there is one glaring difference that might be worthy of regard. Those on death row are at least thought, by 100% of a jury of their peers, and upon evidence, to be guilty. All death sentences are automatically appealed to Courts of Appeal. The Church’s rationale, as I understand it, is multi-faceted, but one of the bases is that the state may deem it necessary to prevent the person from threatening society. The purpose being to protect.
100% of children killed by abortion are innocent of any wrongdoing whatever, and they threaten no one. The purpose is always to kill.
One is inclined to think that’s why the Church does not consider the death penalty to be an intrinsic evil, leaving the issue to prudential judgment, (as with war) while it does consider abortion to be intrinsically evil.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Again, nope. In the case of the death penalty almost every single “victim” is guilty. In the case of abortion, every victim is innocent.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Yeah well it’s not my place to judge another’s prayer life or anyone’s ignorance or the state of their conscience even after they have informed it and are no longer ignorant.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Stop talking about me! :coffeeread:
I learn a lot on these threads.
Lurker Christine.
E
estesbob
Guest
I am just making sure people don’t buy into the “primacy of conscience” fallacy. Catholic teachings in this area is clear and if a Catholic does not follow them it is because they ether have not bothered to research it or have decided to ignore them. Neither excuses violating Church teachings
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
And yet Pope Francis says while Catholics are not to follow their egos, neither are their consciences to be “remote controlled”. So maybe it’s not as clear as some might think.
news.va/en/news/pope-francis-sunday-angelus-full-text-2
D
Darryl1958
Guest
I already explained my position.
It is your choice whether or not you chose to ignore those answers.
As it stands, I did take the time to discover many people here, like Trump, believe that women who abort are murderers and need to be punished as murderers.
And, for those who support Democrats, like Trump has done, I take that response about as seriously as I take Trump when he says anything.
P
Peter_J
Guest
To follow Thorolf’s line of thought, I think you’d need to take out “convicted of a capital crime, etc”. Instead, the jury would have to unanimously conclude that he/she isn’t a human being.
But since we don’t do that either, I agree with your underlying point.
- Status