Score One For Satan!!

[AmyS]

777:

It’s a metter of viewpoint. I didn’t say The Holy Ghost was pressured, but the church itself. The last thing me and my family want is to say herasy. Or words to that effect.

The point was that the Church is merely a tool, the Holy Ghost, the teacher, uses.

 

[777]

JHutch:

Is this the answer to all the worlds evil? Quit and become a Priest??? The Priesthood is a vocation, a calling not an act of protest against the Death penalty.

I have to believe that there are Priests who fully believe in the Church’s Catechism regarding the Death Penalty. What should they quit and become???

Members of The Vatican, or staffers and prolife members. It beats supporting abortion, mercy kills, porn and revenge muders. It ain’t a person that is evil, but the evil within the person.

 

[777]

So, if people want Scott and his ilk to feel the folly of murder, they should take it a step further–deny people like Scott EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CHANCE OF EVEN getting last rites, let alone even meeting a prison chaplin, or priest, not mention expell all priests and chaplins from all death row places forever. That way, without even a chance for repentance, let alone last rites, Scott and his kind can never have their sins absolved, and they can bear the guilt all the way to their revenger muder sessions, stright to Hell, , whithout even getting into heaven, and go through unbearable remorse for eternity, to fit their crimes. Would that be better for them?

 

[777]

AmyS:

The point was that the Church is merely a tool, the Holy Ghost, the teacher, uses.

I agree with that. But the members of the church, not the church itself, get pressured at times. Go figure.

 

[777]

porthos11:

The Church has not forbidden the death penalty, and even recognizes its necessity in limited cases. Whether this is one of them is for specialists to decide. But the since the Church hasn’t made a sweeping condemnation of the death penalty, the state is well within its legal rights.

Earthly legal rights? To the point of necessary evils? So much for two wrongs never making a right…

porthos11:

Judging from all your previous posts though, you are clearly one for political correctness and a pacifist, against any and all shedding of blood. You are entitled to your opinion, as pacifism is clearly your right. Not all of us here are pacifists though, and that is our right as well.

What does defending life have to do with politics?

porthos11:

What we ask is that you stop imposing your pacifism on us and on the Church, since your opinion is not superior to ours and our position is not morally wrong. We respect your position, you better respect ours.

Everyone’s got a POV.

 

[mlchance]

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[PaulDupre]

777:

So, if people want Scott and his ilk to feel the folly of murder, they should take it a step further–deny people like Scott EVEN THE SLIGHTEST CHANCE OF EVEN getting last rites, let alone even meeting a prison chaplin, or priest, not mention expell all priests and chaplins from all death row places forever. That way, without even a chance for repentance, let alone last rites, Scott and his kind can never have their sins absolved, and they can bear the guilt all the way to their revenger muder sessions, stright to Hell, , whithout even getting into heaven, and go through unbearable remorse for eternity, to fit their crimes. Would that be better for them?

The death penalty provides a great luxury - the murderer knows exactly when he’s going to die. That provides an excellent framework to inspire repentance, if one is so inclined.

“The gallows doth wonderfully concentrate the mind.” - Dr. Samuel Johnson

God bless,
Paul

 

[Exporter]

AmyS,

You wrote,“Wow, you must have been in that jury room… Or you have ESP… Sure they where emotional, why wouldn’t they be. But, there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to convict him, and that was all they needed.”

---

AmyS, if you were the accused would you want the jury to judge you based on emotion, or FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE COURT?

I heard three of the jurors talk after the verdict, the most important thing they could say was, “It was tough”. Gee Whiz, what a childish thing to say. Did they base their verdict on EVIDENCE, No! They had nothing but EMOTION. They were told to base the verdict on the evidence- they didn’t. It seems to me the mentality of the jury was equal to normal eighth graders in Public School. If I was being judged I would want rational people on the jury.

 

[AmyS]

AmyS,

You wrote,“Wow, you must have been in that jury room… Or you have ESP… Sure they where emotional, why wouldn’t they be. But, there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to convict him, and that was all they needed.”

---

AmyS, if you were the accused would you want the jury to judge you based on emotion, or FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE COURT?

I heard three of the jurors talk after the verdict, the most important thing they could say was, “It was tough”. Gee Whiz, what a childish thing to say. Did they base their verdict on EVIDENCE, No! They had nothing but EMOTION. They were told to base the verdict on the evidence- they didn’t. It seems to me the mentality of the jury was equal to normal eighth graders in Public School. If I was being judged I would want rational people on the jury.

You weren’t in there… You still have no proof of your statement. Many juries are very emotional after they make their decisions… Even when the decision is not guilty. Call me names, but, I can’t help for stick up for these people. They had a tough job to do.

 

[HagiaSophia]

AmyS:

You weren’t in there… You still have no proof of your statement. Many juries are very emotional after they make their decisions… Even when the decision is not guilty. Call me names, but, I can’t help for stick up for these people. They had a tough job to do.

Well, neither were you but I’ll warrant you have an opinon on things.

I have heard four interviews now: nowhere in any of them was EVIDENCE mentioned. They didn’t like his lack of overt emotion; they didn’t like that he exercised his right not to testify; they didn’t like the thought of Laci’s mother having to endure anymore; they didn’t think someone who showed so little emotion could be repentant. All of these are surmisions - not facts. Emotion has no place in the sending of anyone to a death sentence and mark my words some of these very statemets are going to be used as they try to throw out the verdict and go for another trial.

Frankly I would like cameras thrown out of all courtrooms and all jurors sworn to silence until all rights of appeal have been denied or granted.

We are turning into the Romans of old, - they went to the forum to watch life and death battles - we sit in front of our tv’s and tune into trials as if they were soap operas. It’s creating the ambience of “human zoos” for the titillation and entertainment of human audiences. It is a total desensitization of the legal process and the right to a fair and just trial. People vote now on the innocence of guilt of defendants. It’s tragic.

We need to get back to justice being a serious matter, not just fodder for endless talk and tv shows. We need to show respect for one another in how we handle such terrible, terrible circumstances.

 

[porthos11]

777:

Earthly legal rights? To the point of necessary evils? So much for two wrongs never making a right…

Legal rights which the Church concedes to legitimate states, for heavens’ sakes. I’m not even taking a position on the death penalty; I only acknowledge that the Church does not consider it an intrinsic evil. In other words, the death penalty, by itself, and in the necessary circumstances, is indeed a morally legitimate option. The Pope doesn’t like it, and neither do I, but the Pope’s opinions are only as a private individual, and he has never imposed it (because it would contradict the Magisterium). But the Church by her teaching authority says that it is morally acceptable in some cases. So therefore, the death penalty is by its nature NOT WRONG. Not my opinion. That’s the Church speaking, to whose judgment I defer.

You wanna be against the death penalty? Fine, there’s no problem with that. But there are those here who are pro death-penalty, and they’re no less Catholic or Christian then those who are not. The death penalty is a far cry from abortion and euthanasia, both of which are INTRINSIC evils.

You’re the one who seems to think otherwise, and therefore you present yourself as smarter than the Church. You should learn to respect the Church’s moral definitions.

 

[777]

All joking aside, I had never meant any hearsay against The Holy Ghost when I said The Catechism of the Council of Trent was uder pressure from the world. If I had said that The Vatican was falling apart, would that be hearsay too? For that matter, I didn’t know much knowlage in The Chuch’s tructure, knowing only from my research on reading up on the the church. If I said such pure hearsay, forgive me. I had never meant any offence, inasmuch as speaking against The Holy Ghost can never be forgiven at all. I dead the thought of anything happening to the church. Please forgive me all.

 

[777]

porthos11:

Legal rights which the Church concedes to legitimate states, for heavens’ sakes. I’m not even taking a position on the death penalty; I only acknowledge that the Church does not consider it an intrinsic evil. In other words, the death penalty, by itself, and in the necessary circumstances, is indeed a morally legitimate option. The Pope doesn’t like it, and neither do I, but the Pope’s opinions are only as a private individual, and he has never imposed it (because it would contradict the Magisterium). But the Church by her teaching authority says that it is morally acceptable in some cases. So therefore, the death penalty is by its nature NOT WRONG. Not my opinion. That’s the Church speaking, to whose judgment I defer.

You wanna be against the death penalty? Fine, there’s no problem with that. But there are those here who are pro death-penalty, and they’re no less Catholic or Christian then those who are not. The death penalty is a far cry from abortion and mercy kills, both of which are INTRINSIC evils.

You’re the one who seems to think otherwise, and therefore you present yourself as smarter than the Church. You should learn to respect the Church’s moral definitions.

All I know is from what my parents taught me.

 

[AmyS]

HagiaSophia:

Well, neither were you but I’ll warrant you have an opinon on things.

I have heard four interviews now: nowhere in any of them was EVIDENCE mentioned. They didn’t like his lack of overt emotion; they didn’t like that he exercised his right not to testify; they didn’t like the thought of Laci’s mother having to endure anymore; they didn’t think someone who showed so little emotion could be repentant. All of these are surmisions - not facts. Emotion has no place in the sending of anyone to a death sentence and mark my words some of these very statemets are going to be used as they try to throw out the verdict and go for another trial.

Frankly I would like cameras thrown out of all courtrooms and all jurors sworn to silence until all rights of appeal have been denied or granted.

We are turning into the Romans of old, - they went to the forum to watch life and death battles - we sit in front of our tv’s and tune into trials as if they were soap operas. It’s creating the ambience of “human zoos” for the titillation and entertainment of human audiences. It is a total desensitization of the legal process and the right to a fair and just trial. People vote now on the innocence of guilt of defendants. It’s tragic.

We need to get back to justice being a serious matter, not just fodder for endless talk and tv shows. We need to show respect for one another in how we handle such terrible, terrible circumstances.

You are right I wasn’t… And, I really don’t mean to come off so aburpt. I have met with many a jury after their verdicts are announced and I have heard more about emotions, and feelings than you want to know. And, it goes both ways… The thing is I feel they have the right to be emotional, and have the right to express it. No buddy on this forum was there, so we can’t make preconcieved notions either way. I am just the type of person who would like to give them the benefit of the doubt. Jurors have a real tough job.

I have actually worked on more than one case where the media was involved on them… People start to sensationalize them and forget that they are dealing with lives. It irrates me, you can tell it usually irrates the judges… Now the attorney’s, well I won’t go there. I always think to myself, well where was the Media, Mayor, Congress person on this one, or that one. I don’t like it.

I think you are right too… They will try and use this against them… We will see where that goes.

 

[AmyS]

AmyS,

You wrote,“Wow, you must have been in that jury room… Or you have ESP… Sure they where emotional, why wouldn’t they be. But, there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to convict him, and that was all they needed.”

---

AmyS, if you were the accused would you want the jury to judge you based on emotion, or FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE COURT?

I heard three of the jurors talk after the verdict, the most important thing they could say was, “It was tough”. Gee Whiz, what a childish thing to say. Did they base their verdict on EVIDENCE, No! They had nothing but EMOTION. They were told to base the verdict on the evidence- they didn’t. It seems to me the mentality of the jury was equal to normal eighth graders in Public School. If I was being judged I would want rational people on the jury.

Exporter, i apologize if I have come off too abrupt… You are entitled to what you feel… I have honestly had a really rough two weeks… I have delt with cases that juries used their emotions to go the other way and find a person not guilty despite overwhelming evidence… I know how frustrating that is. Again, I am sorry if I sound to harsh.

 

[porthos11]

777:

All I know is from what my parents taught me.

Maybe you should buy yourself a copy of the Catechism and read it. Keep in mind that it presents the Magisterium’s position, so you better be prepared to assent to it.

 

[777]

When I stated that The Catechism of the Council of Trent was underpressure from the goverment, (a), I meant that it may had been, but (b), I had no idea The Catechism wasn’t a council, but the beliefs. If I had said such a hearsay, maybe i should’ve been specific. I have NEVER meant, with any intent at all on saying agianst it, nor The Holy Ghost

 

[HagiaSophia]

AmyS:

I have actually worked on more than one case where the media was involved on them… People start to sensationalize them and forget that they are dealing with lives. It irrates me, you can tell it usually irrates the judges… Now the attorney’s, well I won’t go there. I always think to myself, well where was the Media, Mayor, Congress person on this one, or that one. I don’t like it.

I think you are right too… They will try and use this against them… We will see where that goes.

I wish there was a way to keep jurors names and information frm the press; they are hounded like sharks looking for lunch. It’s a pressure they don’t need and I resent the way the information about them is put out for it to happen.

And as I said before, cameras have nno place in the courtroom - it is ridiculous that Court TV and the rest can do this to people. It is hard enough be you on the prosecution’s side or the defense. This is not a zoo for peoiple to peer in and watch the “animals” at work.

We owe more to people and their dignity. And I do agree with you, jurors have a hard time - it’s a heavy burden.

 

[777]

The world is SO confusing these days…yet my folks stand by their beliefs, as I do…

 

[porthos11]

777:

The world is SO confusing these days…yet my folks stand by their beliefs, as I do…

What stinks is not your beliefs, but the fact that that you dare condemn and judge people because they don’t share your beliefs. Instead you present an air of moral superiority over others as if you’re the only one right and all the rest are wrong.