A
AndyF
Guest
Agree fully. If memory serves me, I think they also tried this in Ireland. It’s time for
the Vatican to outline to the clergy the consequences.
Not to mention the police come into our classrooms to paint themselves has a virtuous lot, giving a false impression to innocent minds.
I think the main problem with police work is in the category of sins of inaction.
They do a good job of portraying a hard working institution who brings in criminals, raise funds for the poor,etc. The police are taught, or are made aware, that legislation ignores precepts of condign punishment. This alone should see Catholic recruits in conscientious objection immediately. Those remaining have chosen honor among men within a secular world which distrusts God, rather than the God of scripture.
The offender is told by proclamation at trial of only a portion of the controlled sentencing he will receive. The nation knows he will be rejected from military service,public service jobs,etc. Arbitrary punishments metted out by a controlling institution have no place in the outline of the unambiguous procedural book of Mathew in regards to quick settlement with a victim. We note the victim(or rep) is to take an active part in ensuring closure and we have a sense in our reading that mutual involvement is required. The two have the same means to a mutual desired end(closure), and this way is the only one sanctioned by God.
The secular world deviates the roles here and the victim is encouraged to draw out indefinitely and play it for all it’s worth. Scripture does not agree. The court practice has an element of deceit outlined in De Mendacio 11, and is a practice disapproved by St. Paul who in 2 Cor 2,6 critiques perpetual sentencing by the collective, as well as the lack of proper collective discernment which must in all cases find an inherent purpose in order to be categorized as a sanctioned common good. Also officially, it is done this way for global self image in that it presents to the world the false impression of a nation who metes out fair judgements to it’s citizens.
Curiously, an undesired side effect arises from this cruel practice. We recall the constitution defines the citizen and his rights. For the common good, the nation has a right to reserve individual constitutional rights for punitive measures, but it only has this right so long has the debt is not payed, or in the exception where the person is so mentally a risk to society that he cannot be allowed freedom. The latter should prove out to be a minority case. If a nation withholds this liberty indefinitely, then the person is actually in a state of exile, and is questionable if he is indeed a citizen at all, as there is no such thing as a constitutional lessor class of citizen who in this class is held to it in perpetuity. Therefore the process creates a dangerous precedent, as he becomes a non-citizen who has restored friendship with God. Further, he actually becomes his own nation since the constitution has no classification for his new identity and can not count on it’s protection. We now give him permission to establish his own allegiances and alliances.
We can see that the system can actually create just the thing it tries to prevent, and it becomes a danger to our children. All these things remain strained as long has we have the weight of force. Personally, while I’m at the battlefront protecting both classes, who by the way end up being our babysitters while we are gone, I’d rather have the restored offender, not the one we hypocritically clean the friendship slate a few days before half the male population leaves the continent for war.
the Vatican to outline to the clergy the consequences.
Not to mention the police come into our classrooms to paint themselves has a virtuous lot, giving a false impression to innocent minds.
I think the main problem with police work is in the category of sins of inaction.
They do a good job of portraying a hard working institution who brings in criminals, raise funds for the poor,etc. The police are taught, or are made aware, that legislation ignores precepts of condign punishment. This alone should see Catholic recruits in conscientious objection immediately. Those remaining have chosen honor among men within a secular world which distrusts God, rather than the God of scripture.
The offender is told by proclamation at trial of only a portion of the controlled sentencing he will receive. The nation knows he will be rejected from military service,public service jobs,etc. Arbitrary punishments metted out by a controlling institution have no place in the outline of the unambiguous procedural book of Mathew in regards to quick settlement with a victim. We note the victim(or rep) is to take an active part in ensuring closure and we have a sense in our reading that mutual involvement is required. The two have the same means to a mutual desired end(closure), and this way is the only one sanctioned by God.
The secular world deviates the roles here and the victim is encouraged to draw out indefinitely and play it for all it’s worth. Scripture does not agree. The court practice has an element of deceit outlined in De Mendacio 11, and is a practice disapproved by St. Paul who in 2 Cor 2,6 critiques perpetual sentencing by the collective, as well as the lack of proper collective discernment which must in all cases find an inherent purpose in order to be categorized as a sanctioned common good. Also officially, it is done this way for global self image in that it presents to the world the false impression of a nation who metes out fair judgements to it’s citizens.
Curiously, an undesired side effect arises from this cruel practice. We recall the constitution defines the citizen and his rights. For the common good, the nation has a right to reserve individual constitutional rights for punitive measures, but it only has this right so long has the debt is not payed, or in the exception where the person is so mentally a risk to society that he cannot be allowed freedom. The latter should prove out to be a minority case. If a nation withholds this liberty indefinitely, then the person is actually in a state of exile, and is questionable if he is indeed a citizen at all, as there is no such thing as a constitutional lessor class of citizen who in this class is held to it in perpetuity. Therefore the process creates a dangerous precedent, as he becomes a non-citizen who has restored friendship with God. Further, he actually becomes his own nation since the constitution has no classification for his new identity and can not count on it’s protection. We now give him permission to establish his own allegiances and alliances.
We can see that the system can actually create just the thing it tries to prevent, and it becomes a danger to our children. All these things remain strained as long has we have the weight of force. Personally, while I’m at the battlefront protecting both classes, who by the way end up being our babysitters while we are gone, I’d rather have the restored offender, not the one we hypocritically clean the friendship slate a few days before half the male population leaves the continent for war.