The Vatican and the death penalty

[frommi]

I agree its not up for debate. The Cjurch accepts the legitimacy of capital Punishment as it has for its entire 2,000 plus years of existence

So why is the church speaking out against it with practically one uniform voice now?

When was the last time you heard a bishop or a priest stand on the altar and say “im glad were offing another criminal tomorrow”?

It DOES NOT HAPPEN

Timothy McVeigh killed hundreds…the bishops’ conference made a statement decrying his death…Sadaam Huissein was responsible for the death of thousands…the vatican was clear about their alarm over his death.

You can say the church finds it to be ‘legitimate’…but just because it is not clearly defined as a “no” does not automatically mean the circumstances exist for it to be a ‘yes’.

You’re pro-life or you aren’t…EVERY life.

 

[Adonis33]

The Catholic Church of 2007 is decidedly pro-life…and it works very hard to position itself in the world as such through her ministers and their statements and work to protect life.

Think of it this way…restricting ordination to Men is not an ‘infalible’ teaching…but its close…and opposition to the death penalty is the same thing.

The church is pro-life…some of her members are just anti-abortion.

Pope John Paul II satated that the Cathollic Church has no authority to ordain women. Pope Ben. XVI stated that Catholics may disagree on the death penalty.

To say the two are in any way similar shows a lack of understanding of Catholic Doctrine.

There is no such thing as “close to infallible”, or “ractically infallible”, or 'nearly infallible" either is is infallible or not.

I’s like saying your wife is “practically” pregnant.

I guess the Catholic Church has not been pro-life for the last 2000 years.

 

[frommi]

Pope John Paul II satated that the Cathollic Church has no authority to ordain women. Pope Ben. XVI stated that Catholics may disagree on the death penalty.

To say the two are in any way similar shows a lack of understanding of Catholic Doctrine.

There is no such thing as “close to infallible”, or “ractically infallible”, or 'nearly infallible" either is is infallible or not.

I’s like saying your wife is “practically” pregnant.

I guess the Catholic Church has not been pro-life for the last 2000 years.

Well…it’s a fact that the ordination teaching is not ‘infallible’ …it’s not on the level with the doctrine of the assumption or the immaculate conception.

And my point is that even Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a commentary on *Ad Tuendam Fidem *that specifically mentioned women’s ordination as something that was not ‘infalible’ but was a necessary teaching.

Jesus Christ was pro-life…that’s probably good enough for the rest of us…

 

[estesbob]

So why is the church speaking out against it with practically one uniform voice now?

When was the last time you heard a bishop or a priest stand on the altar and say “im glad were offing another criminal tomorrow”?

It DOES NOT HAPPEN

Timothy McVeigh killed hundreds…the bishops’ conference made a statement decrying his death…Sadaam Huissein was responsible for the death of thousands…the vatican was clear about their alarm over his death.

You can say the church finds it to be ‘legitimate’…but just because it is not clearly defined as a “no” does not automatically mean the circumstances exist for it to be a ‘yes’.

You’re pro-life or you aren’t…EVERY life.

Fortunately we dont have to depnd on your personal interperation. Chrurch teachings are crystal clear.If you have a problem with the teachings of the Church you should take it up with the magestrium.

BTW-as one who works in the pro-life ministry and works with many wonderful people who also happen to supprt the death penatly. the idea that would slime these people with your perverted views on what consitutues pro-life is beneath contempt.

 

[estesbob]

Pope John Paul II satated that the Cathollic Church has no authority to ordain women. Pope Ben. XVI stated that Catholics may disagree on the death penalty.

To say the two are in any way similar shows a lack of understanding of Catholic Doctrine.

There is no such thing as “close to infallible”, or “ractically infallible”, or 'nearly infallible" either is is infallible or not.

I’s like saying your wife is “practically” pregnant.

I guess the Catholic Church has not been pro-life for the last 2000 years.

Exactly-in the end many of those “Catholics” who distort the teachings of the Church on the death penalty do so as a way of rationalizing their supprt of pro-abortion politicans. I beleive that is the case here

 

[Adonis33]

Fortunately we dont have to depnd on your personal interperation. Chrurch teachings are crystal clear.If you have a problem with the teachings of the Church you should take it up with the magestrium.

BTW-as one who works in the pro-life ministry and works with many wonderful people who also happen to supprt the death penatly. the idea that would slime these people with your perverted views on what consitutues pro-life is beneath contempt.

I agree. I was very active of our campus pro-life group while I was in college( I was even president for about 1 1/2 years). I find it insulting far anybody would say I’m not pro-life due to my opinion on the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

…in *Ad Tuendam Fidem *JPII talked about doctrines that were not exactly ‘infalible’ but necessary to defend the faith…women’s ordination was one of those…

So my point is…similarly…the opposition to the death penalty is ‘practically’ infalible…its not really up for debate these days in the church.

This is simply not a credible assertion about the nature of the teaching on the death penalty. There is no possible way to rationalize this statement from Ad Tuendam Fidem: “Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, … is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate” with the statement from Cardinal Ratzinger that Catholics may legitimately disagree on the death penalty.

The death penalty teaching is prudential; I can think of no other way to interpret what Ratzinger has said. There is certainly no way to apply Ad Tuendam Fidem to this teaching.

Ender

 

[frommi]

Fortunately we dont have to depnd on your personal interperation. Chrurch teachings are crystal clear.If you have a problem with the teachings of the Church you should take it up with the magestrium.

BTW-as one who works in the pro-life ministry and works with many wonderful people who also happen to supprt the death penatly. the idea that would slime these people with your perverted views on what consitutues pro-life is beneath contempt.

I’m not sliming anybody…I’ve stated quite clearly that being anti-abortion is laudable and necessary and part of an overall fabric of respect for life that we are trying to build in society.

The term ‘pro-life’ is a political one…it’s not something that the church created…so it’s definition is certainly open to a good deal of debate.

I’m stating the truth…if you are ok with the taking of life…then you can’t be pro-life…it’s a simple matter of logic.

 

[frommi]

Exactly-in the end many of those “Catholics” who distort the teachings of the Church on the death penalty do so as a way of rationalizing their supprt of pro-abortion politicans. I beleive that is the case here

I’m not the one in this thread trying to rationalize taking life as a twisted version of justice.

 

[Peregrino]

Why now? I have often wondered why it is that the church is just now saying that the death penalty is hard to justify? Methods of life imprisonment have been pretty good for a long time. There is not much technology required to lock someone up and throw away the key if that is your desire…

 

[frommi]

Why now? I have often wondered why it is that the church is just now saying that the death penalty is hard to justify? Methods of life imprisonment have been pretty good for a long time. There is not much technology required to lock someone up and throw away the key if that is your desire…

It could be because technology has started showing us that we put some innocent people to death.

 

[Brad]

Timothy McVeigh killed hundreds…the bishops’ conference made a statement decrying his death…Sadaam Huissein was responsible for the death of thousands…the vatican was clear about their alarm over his death.

Some in “the Vatican”, not all. The mass media puts full focus on the some. Certainly those that think it was justice are not going to say “I’m glad he was killed” but will quietly pray for his soul - in the meantime thanking God that no others will be tortured or put to death by this individual again.

In this “no consequence live and let live” society, it is no surprise that criminal rights are supported so strongly. You cannot continually give severe criminals second chances AND be against the death penalty because we have other means of containing them at the same time. If you are against the death penalty, then you logically must support strict sentences that are not negotiable. Unfortunately, the media that is liberal never has to logically explain itself.

 

[frommi]

In this “no consequence live and let live” society, it is no surprise that criminal rights are supported so strongly. You cannot continually give severe criminals second chances AND be against the death penalty because we have other means of containing them at the same time. If you are against the death penalty, then you logically must support strict sentences that are not negotiable. Unfortunately, the media that is liberal never has to logically explain itself.

This has nothing to do with what you would do ‘in lieu’ of the death penalty…the basic premise is that the death penalty is just as much an affront to the plan of the creator (the author of all life) as an abortion, or a ‘mercy’ killing

 

[estesbob]

I’m not sliming anybody…I’ve stated quite clearly that being anti-abortion is laudable and necessary and part of an overall fabric of respect for life that we are trying to build in society.

The term ‘pro-life’ is a political one…it’s not something that the church created…so it’s definition is certainly open to a good deal of debate.

I’m stating the truth…if you are ok with the taking of life…then you can’t be pro-life…it’s a simple matter of logic.

Every one who is involved in the pro-life movenent who has read your comments have told you how insulting and crass they are. yet you persist in continuing to repeat them. like I said- beneath comtempt.

 

[frommi]

Every one who is involved in the pro-life movenent who has read your comments have told you how insulting and crass they are. yet you persist in continuing to repeat them. like I said- beneath comtempt.

I don’t see what is crass about this exchange…because it makes you feel uncomfortable? Because it challenges you to stretch you’re beliefs about the sanctity of life to places that it doesn’t want to go? To go somewhere that the gospels clearly want to take us?

What is crass about this?

 

[system]

Every one who is involved in the pro-life movenent who has read your comments have told you how insulting and crass they are. yet you persist in continuing to repeat them. like I said- beneath comtempt.

Are you saying everyone in the pro-life movement is OK with the death penalty?

 

[Brad]

This has nothing to do with what you would do ‘in lieu’ of the death penalty…the basic premise is that the death penalty is just as much an affront to the plan of the creator (the author of all life) as an abortion, or a ‘mercy’ killing

Who’s basic premise? Yours? It is not the Church’s.

Not many would equate the death of a convicted killer with the death of the guaranteed innocent.

 

[frommi]

Who’s basic premise? Yours? It is not the Church’s.

Not many would equate the death of a convicted killer with the death of the guaranteed innocent.

Not many people would’ve said that the death of an adultress was problematic in Jesus’ time either…but he did.

Forgive seventy times seven times…all that stuff…

That’s how it turns out that the death of an awful killer can and should be equated with the death of an innocent child.

Every life is valuable…because every life deserves a chance to know God’s mercy…not man’s “justice”.

 

[Ender]

I’m stating the truth…if you are ok with the taking of life…then you can’t be pro-life…it’s a simple matter of logic.

I agree it’s simple but I’m pretty sure it’s not logical. By this standard the Church isn’t pro-life either since she is OK with the taking of life in self-defense, just wars, and, however rarely, the “Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.”

It is a misunderstanding of what the Church teaches to believe she puts the preservation of all life ahead of every other consideration and it is a misunderstanding of what it means to be pro-life to make this claim in its name.

Ender

 

[Brad]

Not many people would’ve said that the death of an adultress was problematic in Jesus’ time either…but he did.

Forgive seventy times seven times…all that stuff…

That’s how it turns out that the death of an awful killer can and should be equated with the death of an innocent child.

Every life is valuable…because every life deserves a chance to know God’s mercy…not man’s “justice”.

According to the church of frommi you would be correct but that is a very strange view of justice.

Jesus was concerned about the injustice of the male partaker in adultery getting off scott free and showing no concern for the female. Your theology is rather simple.

Discarding man’s justice would mean eliminating all punishment for all crimes - a rather ridiculous suggestion.

I am not a big fan of the death penalty but until the majority of opposers come to a better understanding of justice and show more compassion for the victims of crimes, it is extremely difficult to eliminate it completely.

It is easy to be an armchair pardoner but not so easy to come face to face with the slaughter of the innocent.