More children torn from arms of asylum seeking parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By requiring evidence of a deterrent effect for an act of defense, you are confusing deterrence and defense.

Individual persons continue to have the right to use the level of defense necessary to defend themselves, even to death, regardless of whether that has a deterrent effect on others. The need, right, and sometimes obligation to defend oneself or others is unrelated to any potential for deterring others.
 
Annie said:
It is difficult to prove a negative,
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I am surprised by some of its content, in particular its the fuzziness on being and person-hood, versus “treated as a person”. I will have to read more.
 
Annie said:
WRT magisterial teaching, the fact that the bishops of the US meet together and decide something carries no more weight than one bishop saying something.

Here is a review of a book which examines the DP from several angles: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment

The review includes very quick explanations of the Church’s view on the DP.
Click to expand...
I took a look at the review at your link. Right from the start I had a problem with the way the argument was framed. The issue surrounding the death penalty isn’t about a clash between justice and charity, but about how to enforce justice with mercy. When you frame it that way, there is no conflict.

Frankly, the following sentence from that review is just plain ignorant.
“On the other hand, to say that this dignity invalidates the claims of justice and overrides the rules of the moral order is self- contradictory, for human dignity rests upon man’s ability to know and observe those rules.” [italics added]
Click to expand...
Says who? For the past 150 years, the Church has been moving in the direction of an ever greater appreciation of the revelation that every person is created in God’s image. That is the foundation of human dignity, not whether we “observe the rules of the moral order”. We killed Jesus. If he had given humanity what it deserved for that violation, the last day of human existence would have been Good Friday. It’s good for us that Christ is merciful and did not zap us into oblivion on Easter Sunday.

So we also must be merciful and NOT punish people as they deserve to be punished, because that’s what Jesus did. We are created in the image of God and need to act like it. This is the foundation of all Catholic Social Teaching. The revelation that we are created in the image of God and have a duty and responsibility to act like it ties together issues as diverse as abortion, the death penalty, immigration, workers rights and environmental protection into a consistent ethic of life with respect to how we behave and treat one another.

If you disagree with the Pope and Bishops about death penalty, then you need go back and read what they have written with an open mind and heart, and try very hard to understand what they are saying. The Pope and Bishops have stated very clearly and unanimously that the death penalty falls under the broader doctrine of the inviolability of human life from conception to natural death. Once a person is in the custody of the state and no longer a threat to society, no legitimate argument can be made to kill him. That is what the Church teaches today, and that is why Catholics in the United States cannot support the death penalty.

I understand that this is a hard teaching for you. I don’t know why, because it makes perfect sense to me. It’s really pretty simple and I think that if you tried to understand what the Pope and Bishops are saying, rather than looking for excuses to dissent, you will see how beautifully it fits the Gospel.
 
Last edited:
None of what the bishops of the US and the Bishop of Rome* (and, I grant, many others as well) can be considered magisterial because what they are saying goes against what has been taught before.

(*Let me say that I am not a Traditionalist and I do not mean this in a pejorative way. I simply want to emphasize that sometimes the Pope is speaking as a bishop rather than as Pope.)

I do not know what justice with mercy means except on a case-by-case basis. A blanket mercy seems to vitiate the ability to impose any sort of sentence for a crime at all: why put any one in prison at all?

Personally, I think there are crimes for which a straightforward execution would be merciful: the guilty person actually deserves worse.
 
Last edited:
Luke6_37 said:
I understand that this is a hard teaching for you. I don’t know why, because it makes perfect sense to me. It’s really pretty simple and I think that if you tried to understand what the Pope and Bishops are saying, rather than looking for excuses to dissent, you will see how beautifully it fits the Gospel
Click to expand...
This is kind of condescending. First you say it is inexplicable that I would disagree with with you. ???

“I think if you tried…”’ assumes that I have not, and then you flat-out state that I have a desire to dissent!

Really, people are so much more likely to listen to you if you at least pretend they have a brain, even if you don’t believe it.
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
None of what the bishops of the US and the Bishop of Rome* (and, I grant, many others as well) can be considered magisterial because what they are saying goes against what has been taught before.
Click to expand...
Nope. That’s not how it works. The Magisterium clarifies doctrine all the time. What matters is that they speak with a single voice, which is what they have done in this case.
By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10. 16). Now of course the promise of Christ cannot fail: hence when the Church presents some doctrine as definitive or final, it comes under this protection, it cannot be in error; in other words, it is infallible. This is true even if the Church does not use the solemn ceremony of definition. The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when the Bishops are in union with each other and with the Pope, and present something as definitive, this is infallible. (Vatican II, Lumen gentium # 25). It was precisely by the use of that authority that Vatican I was able to define that the Pope alone, when speaking as such and making things definitive, is also infallible. Of course this infallibility covers also teaching on what morality requires, for that is needed for salvation.

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm
Click to expand...
The doctrine of the inviolability of human life was defined by JPII in Evangelium Vitae and is now universally held by all the world’s Bishops. Clarification of what the doctrine morally requires has developed over the years to be ever more restrictive regarding the use of capital punishment. Last October, Pope Francis clarified it further and has ordered the Catechism to be changed to reflect this.

It doesn’t matter if it was once permissible. Slavery & torture were once permissible. With new insight, doctrines need to be updated so as to remain true to the Gospel.
 
Annie said:
40.png
Luke6_37:
I understand that this is a hard teaching for you. I don’t know why, because it makes perfect sense to me. It’s really pretty simple and I think that if you tried to understand what the Pope and Bishops are saying, rather than looking for excuses to dissent, you will see how beautifully it fits the Gospel
Click to expand...
This is kind of condescending. First you say it is inexplicable that I would disagree with with you. ???

“I think if you tried…”’ assumes that I have not, and then you flat-out state that I have a desire to dissent!

Really, people are so much more likely to listen to you if you at least pretend they have a brain, even if you don’t believe it.
Click to expand...
Point taken. I do want you to listen, but not just to me, to Pope Francis!

Here is the full text of the speech Pope Francis gave last October in which he clarifies Church teaching on the death penalty and the development of doctrine.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/franc...20171011_convegno-nuova-evangelizzazione.html
 
Last edited:
Catholics in the United States cannot support the death penalty"

I’m inclined to agree with you. But I am not inclined to agree when it comes to most of the world’s countries. While the U.S. does not presently prevent maimings, rapes and murders both inside prisons and outside them at the hands of convicted murderers, it could build more supermax prisons to keep them in. The U.S. has no excuse.

But in most of the world, they can’t afford such things, and prisons are a nightmare. Execution is the only way to prevent murders by some people. I don’t think this can be an absolute.
 
He doesn’t exactly say the Church’s teaching now precludes the death penalty, but he nearly does.

But he also says:
“In past centuries, when means of defence were scarce and society had yet to develop and mature as it has, recourse to the death penalty appeared to be the logical consequence of the correct application of justice.”

It wasn’t just in past centuries. It’s as true in some parts of the world today as it was in England in the 10th Century.

Wonder if he’ll clarify that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top