R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Ha! Well you must have drilled quite a few holes because they are hardly unitary in their philosophies or policies.
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
I think the best indication that your assumption is wrong is the inability to find a conservative who agrees with you or find the writings of any that directly support your conclusion.
I completely disagree with this claim, but I don’t want to hijack this thread and turn it into a debate about capital punishment. Now, if you can cite something Kavanaugh said about capital punishment we can certainly debate that.
Yes it is, as is your assumption about right-wing Catholics. I think you would see the weakness of your conclusions if you tried to tie them directly to something that has actually been said instead of basing your position on your interpretation of their comments.
As you said, it is not an intrinsic evil. It involves the application of doctrine to a specific public issue, which involves prudential judgment, and as such we are each justified in reaching our own conclusions.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
He is a citizen of Indonesia.
Someone posted his student foreign ID card.
Someone posted his student foreign ID card.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Right. Like the wolf is going to take off the sheep’s clothing. Don’t be ridiculous.
I think Catholic Social Doctrine is pretty clear that the only valid use of the death penalty is if the state cannot contain the threat the individual poses to society in any other way. So the burden of proof is on death penalty supporters to prove this is true today in the United States or admit you dissent from Church doctrine. It’s not rocket science.
Also, you don’t get to set the parameters of this discussion. Gorsuch’s first vote as a Supreme Court Justice was a death penalty case - so it is perfectly reasonable that my “Thoughts on Kavanaugh” would include the issue of capital punishment.
I think you are actually agreeing with me here, and then repeated the point you made in your first comment, so I’m just going to refer you back to my first response.
No. When the Bishops condemn a government action that “destroys families, traumatizes parents, and terrorizes children” as immoral and demand that it be stopped, it is no longer a issue of prudential judgement for Catholics. Catholics cannot continue to support that particular action.
You can still use your prudential judgement to seek an alternative means of addressing the particular issue, but you cannot continue to support the action the Bishops condemned.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
This is your excuse for being unable to cite comments that support your conclusions? This is a claim that since conservatives never say what they mean you are justified in interpreting what they actually say as suits you. I must confess that my mind reading skills are inadequate for such purposes.
Catholic doctrine on capital punishment greatly pre-dates her social doctrines, nor do I dissent from it. I do, however, disagree with your interpretation of it.
That you have misunderstood my comment here reinforces my belief that your interpretation of what conservatives believe is seriously flawed as well. I said it is appropriate to discuss whatever Kavanaugh might have said about capital punishment, that is obviously relevant to the topic of the thread. A general discussion of capital punishment itself, however, is not, unless it relates to Kavanaugh’s comments.
Sure I can.
Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)
Nor do I accept that “the bishops” have said this. Let’s not suppose that a handful of US bishops actually speak for the church. “Some” bishops have called the action immoral. They are welcome to express that opinion, and, if I take their judgment seriously and not dismiss it out of hand, I am justified in disagreeing with it if I believe they are mistaken.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
How does this statement about God relate to you statement about limitations on the sanctity of life?
That is a great clue.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
I interpret what they do, the arguments they make, and the policies they support. Attacking labor unions and expanding the power of corporations are some examples.
That is totally irrelevant in Catholic theology. As times change, doctrines must develop in order to remain true to the Gospel. That is the entire point of having a living magisterium. Sometimes they entire reverse themselves. For example, torture was once permissible, but is now a grave and intrinsic evil.
Kavanaugh professes to be a devout Catholic. Therefore, Church doctrine on capital punishment is relevant to any discussion of what he thinks about capital punishment.
This does not apply, because the universal condemnation by the Bishops of Trump’s zero tolerance policy that resulted in the separation of innocent children from their parents at the border was not based on a prudential judgment, but on a moral judgment. It’s as binding on Catholics as their judgement about abortion.
To use your own words…
E
Ender
Guest
It related to your comment (in Russian?) - Hospodi Pomiluj - which essentially means Lord have mercy. I was pointing out that mercy is no barrier to punishment. Perhaps if you made your comments clearer there would be less guessing involved as to who meant what.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Perhaps, but by definition, mercy is not getting the punishment you deserve.
E
Ender
Guest
Your interpretations are nothing more than an expression of your biases.
Morality does not change with the times. It is fixed and universal.
First, it is Kavanaugh’s understanding of the church’s doctrine on capital punishment that is relevant, not yours or mine. Second, his moral obligation is to interpret the Constitution etc, it is assuredly not to ignore the Constitution and base his opinions on church doctrine.
“Universal condemnation?” What nonsense, not even a sizeable percentage of US bishops have spoken out, let alone the bishops in the rest of the world. As for this being a moral judgment rather than a prudential one, I don’t think you understand what a prudential judgment is.
“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning … It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances." (Cardinal Dulles)
That is exactly what those particular bishops have done.
I never suggested you have misinterpreted what those bishop have said, and being able to cite their exact comments demonstrates the strength of your position relative to them, just as your inability to cite specific comments of “conservatives” as to their beliefs demonstrates the weakness of position in their regard.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
True, that is the definition of justice.
D
dvdjs
Guest
In Slavonic.
I was asking God’s mercy in teh face of those who would claim that the Sanctity of Life is not absolute.
T
Trader
Guest
While not entirely wrong, your definition of mercy is not broad enough. Mercy is also seen in the warning not to commit sins deserving of punishment, like “You shall not kill(murder)” commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, or covet. It is also seen in the graces given to Mary, the Mother of God, who did not deserve punishment. Even more, all the attributes of God are not parts of God, but who God is. “God is Love” is just as true as, saying God is Justice, God is Mercy, God is Beauty, God is existence itself. If you think Mercy and Justice are opposed to each other, you do not understand either, because God cannot contradict Himself.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Given that Good Friday was not the last day of human existence, I have no worries about Divine Mercy or Divine Justice. I have faith in Christ’s judgement.
Not so much in human judgement.
E
Ender
Guest
Since the church teaches that it is not absolute I assumed that would be sufficient.
“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
What does the catechism say now? I can tell you that as a Greek Catholic that this idea of “lawful” killing in a just war is foreign. The ancient tradition is that those who kill in war are subject to a period of excommunication.
It is also worth contemplating this: are you suggesting that there is no sanctity of the lives of those killed in combat?
E
Ender
Guest
Essentially it says the same thing, certainly regarding war and self defense, and whatever one may believe about capital punishment, it also allows it (at least) in extreme circumstances.
No. I mean no more than I said: the sanctity of life is not absolute.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I do’;t see how this view, and your support of it does not imply some diminution of the sanctity of the lives of those lost in combat. Instead, I think that the sanctity of life is absolute - so much so, that certain situations require the awesome sacrifice of life.
E
Ender
Guest
Whatever you call it, there are times when life may legitimately be taken. I meant no more than that. Saying the sanctity of life is absolute implies otherwise.Ender:
I do’;t see how this view, and your support of it does not imply some diminution of the sanctity of the lives of those lost in combat. Instead, I think that the sanctity of life is absolute - so much so, that certain situations require the awesome sacrifice of life.
Last edited:
- Status