Voter's Guide

[SpiritMeadow]

I KNOW several here have spoken out against the death penalty numerous times. However, if you continue to use this disingenusous method of deflection, I will call you on it.

So you can get it right, I AM opposed to:

death penalty
euthanasia
SSM
Abortion
ABC
Women priests

Will you so readily post your views???

Please post where folks here have been pro-death penalty.

You may call me on what you wish. I no where stated that you were in favor of the DP. Some are, they have made their position known and have so stated on several threads wherein this subject has come up. You continue to bait me. I am not interested in playing this game. I have tried to straighten this out by PM to no avail. You make every reply a fight for reasons I cannot comprehend.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That is a very insulting and condescending statement. Do you always ridicule your opponents?

SpiritMeadow, you wrote

I do not want to take this overly off topic, and there are certainly death penalty threads where I have chimed in.

The death penalty is something that I struggle with. After learning of JP2’s reasoning - mainly that it adds to the ‘culture of death’ and makes life less sacred overall, I have a better understanding.

I don’t want to get into a debate on this thread, but I believe that the Pope’s analysis is faulty on this in terms of actual prison society. Even before the gulags, the prisons have been run by the violent and vicious inmates. Our system is so broken as to allow certain people to get out who should never be released, or who had been previously condemned to death.

Plus, we’re Ameri-centric. I cannot put the execution of someone like Timothy McVeigh as equivalent to the guy in China who was executed because of the food safety issue (was it the pet food issue specifically? I think so). He was executed right after the trial. Is the repeated taking of a bribe (in a government in which bribery is not uncommon) worthy of the death penalty? Certainly not.

We have no similar punishments. Our whole justice system is based on the fact that it is better to let 10 guilty men free than to imprison an innocent man. While it is a hard pill to swallow when you are watching the 10 guilty men get away with it, it is still the best approach.

Indeed, Christ didn’'t tell Pilate that he didn’t have the right (as a representative as a whole) to put him to death.

There is an older book that I was reading in the last couple of months that went into a very detailed look at punishment through a prism of Christianity. I will see if I can find that in the next few months.

While I would love to have a system in which violent people can be safely locked away forever, to never harm an innocent again, we’re not there. Will we ever be? Again, food for another thread.

If you can’t find your answer on a d.p. thread, I think you are not looking hard enough.

While I wish to follow the Church in all things faith and morals related, they are sometimes stepping outside those limits, I am not under an obligation to march in lockstep with all of the Church’s announcements and positions.

You see I can respect that. In the final analysis we must always follow what we belief. No one should blindly follow to be sure. This was more along the lines for me of chiding some of my more conservative friends here who like to tell me, you don’t need to understand, just do what the Church says. It seems to me that the Church is saying that it thinks the DP is no longer a viable option. So I am puzzled while some argue so viciforously that I am wrong. I can see their saying…Gee, I agree with the pope and the USCCB, but I think they perhaps have ventured too far off Church teachings. That would make sense…What I get is more…THEY are wrong and so are you…

But as I said, your arguments are serious ones to be sure. It is reassuring that you find it difficult to reconcile. I simply find it barbaric and so against Christian principles as I view them as to be a no brainer. Reasonable minds perhaps can disagree. I understand your position better now. Thank you.

PS…I think I answered other of your posts before I read this unfortunately. You should keep that in mind.

 

[iamrefreshed]

You may call me on what you wish. I no where stated that you were in favor of the DP. Some are, they have made their position known and have so stated on several threads wherein this subject has come up. You continue to bait me. I am not interested in playing this game. I have tried to straighten this out by PM to no avail. You make every reply a fight for reasons I cannot comprehend.

First off the CCC allows for the death penalty. So anyone who is in favor of the DP is within the guidelines of the church. You and I may not believe it should be used but that is just our opinion. It doesn’t make their position wrong.

Second, based on what you said about my mental makeup in your PM I hardly feel you were ‘trying to straighten this out’.

Feel free to PM your apology

 

[vern_humphrey]

First off the CCC allows for the death penalty. So anyone who is in favor of the DP is within the guidelines of the church. You and I may not believe it should be used but that is just our opinion. It doesn’t make their position wrong.

Second, based on what you said about my mental makeup in your PM I hardly feel you were ‘trying to straighten this out’.

Feel free to PM your apology

Don’t feel bad – you’re not the only one he has ordered not to respond to his posts.

Take heart – when people do that, it means they have run out of logic and are running on spite.

 

[fix]

You see I can respect that. In the final analysis we must always follow what we belief. No one should blindly follow to be sure. This was more along the lines for me of chiding some of my more conservative friends here who like to tell me, you don’t need to understand, just do what the Church says.

There is no “conscience clause” that allows anyone to reject magisterial teachings that bind us.

It seems to me that the Church is saying that it thinks the DP is no longer a viable option.

She may be saying that. I may agree. That does not mean we fail to reconcile the entire teaching. She says that the DP may no longer be needed; She also says the State has the authority to impose it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is no “conscience clause” that allows anyone to reject magisterial teachings that bind us.

She may be saying that. I may agree. That does not mean we fail to reconcile the entire teaching. She says that the DP may no longer be needed; She also says the State has the authority to impose it.

Indeed, she says the state has a duty to protect the citizenry.

Now **if **that can be done without the death penalty, then the death penalty should not be used. But that’s a big if. My limited experience with the penal system – and the much more extensive experience of others here, indicates we need the death penalty held in reserve.

How else are we to deal with those who kill or threaten to kill witnesses, police officers, corrections officers, prosecutors, jurors and judges?

 

[fix]

Indeed, she says the state has a duty to protect the citizenry.

Now **if **that can be done without the death penalty, then the death penalty should not be used. But that’s a big if. My limited experience with the penal system – and the much more extensive experience of others here, indicates we need the death penalty held in reserve.

How else are we to deal with those who kill or threaten to kill witnesses, police officers, corrections officers, prosecutors, jurors and judges?

I note the Church has not said the DP may never be applied or claimed every Catholic must oppose it in each circumstance.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I note the Church has not said the DP may never be applied or claimed every Catholic must oppose it in each circumstance.

Nice to see some folks get it!

Why some stoop to bending church teachings on the matter is beyond me. It makes me wonder what other church teachings they have aim on, SSM, women priesthood?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by fix
I note the Church has not said the DP may never be applied or claimed every Catholic must oppose it in each circumstance

.

Nice to see some folks get it!

Why some stoop to bending church teachings on the matter is beyond me. It makes me wonder what other church teachings they have aim on, SSM, women priesthood?

Indeed, the Church (in the person of Cardinal Ratzinger) has said just the opposite – that it is permissible to differ with the Holy Father on the death penalty or war, but not on abortion or euthanasia.

And the rationale for it is simple – if the conditions permit the state from carrying out its responsibility without the death penalty, it should not be used. But the Church – which runs no criminal justice system – cannot know what the conditions in such a system are.

We all agree the death penalty should be rare, but the more we know about the criminal justice system, the more we tend to see how we need the ultimate sanction in reserve – lest the whole system be dismantled by the most dangerous amongst us.

 

[iamrefreshed]

.

Indeed, the Church (in the person of Cardinal Ratzinger) has said just the opposite – that it is permissible to differ with the Holy Father on the death penalty or war, but not on abortion or euthanasia.

And the rationale for it is simple – if the conditions permit the state from carrying out its responsibility without the death penalty, it should not be used. But the Church – which runs no criminal justice system – cannot know what the conditions in such a system are.

We all agree the death penalty should be rare, but the more we know about the criminal justice system, the more we tend to see how we need the ultimate sanction in reserve – lest the whole system be dismantled by the most dangerous amongst us.

This goes to prove how the Holy Spirit moves within our church leaders. Minds much better than ours have left open the possibility for the extremely rare use of the death penalty.

That is why I’m obedient. People much brighter than me AND moved by the Holy Spirit, set the guidelines.

When you start questioning them aren’t you really then just a Protestant?

 

[vern_humphrey]

This goes to prove how the Holy Spirit moves within our church leaders. Minds much better than ours have left open the possibility for the extremely rare use of the death penalty.

That is why I’m obedient. People much brighter than me AND moved by the Holy Spirit, set the guidelines.

When you start questioning them aren’t you really then just a Protestant?

Now you’ve gone and laid yourself open to a charge of “blindly following the Church.”

It seems if you take positions like this, you are either a “heretic” or “schismatic,” or you’re “blindly following the Church” – I’ve been accused of** both** by the** same** person.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

First off the CCC allows for the death penalty. So anyone who is in favor of the DP is within the guidelines of the church. You and I may not believe it should be used but that is just our opinion. It doesn’t make their position wrong.

Second, based on what you said about my mental makeup in your PM I hardly feel you were ‘trying to straighten this out’.

Feel free to PM your apology

LOL…have a nice day.

 

[vern_humphrey]

LOL…have a nice day.

What a Christian and gentlemanly answer.

 

[iamrefreshed]

What a Christian and gentlemanly answer.

I’m guessing I may grow old waiting for the apology?

He’s a she. Her info is on her blog. Interesting reading, if you have the stomach for it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m guessing I may grow old waiting for the apology?

Or even for a fair response to your posts.

He’s a she. Her info is on her blog. Interesting reading, if you have the stomach for it.

No, I’m taurine intolerat – pure bull makes my stomach ache.

 

[SoCalRC]

.
Indeed, the Church (in the person of Cardinal Ratzinger) has said just the opposite – that it is permissible to differ with the Holy Father on the death penalty or war, but not on abortion or euthanasia.

Actually, that appears to be a false interpretation of his statement. Cardinal Ratzinger was writing to the Bishops and using two widely and strongly held beliefs among that audience to stress the importance of two particular teachings.

Basically, ‘Dudes, look, we can “even” allow disagreement on these important moral principles, but not on these two teachings…’

The audience, being Bishops, presumably understood the theological implications as well. The teachings in question are infallible because of the ordinary and universal Magesterium. That is, they are infallible because the Bishops universally hold them to be true.

YES, the Catachism leaves room for the death penalty, but CCC 2267 also states that suitable applications “are rare, if not practically non-existant”. It then uses a Papal Encyclical reference, which, per CCC 882, carries “a power of the whole Church”. It also happens to be the same Encyclical that declares direct abortion infallible…

I get it, people compromise. We all do. We profess this each Mass, we are all sinners, we all fail to fully follow God. But we are supposed to accept our failures and strive to do better, not try to lower the bar to justify our actions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, that appears to be a false interpretation of his statement. Cardinal Ratzinger was writing to the Bishops and using two widely and strongly held beliefs among that audience to stress the importance of two particular teachings.

Basically, ‘Dudes, look, we can “even” allow disagreement on these important moral principles, but not on these two teachings…’

Gee, I’ve only said that about a hundred times. Glad the message is finally getting through.

 

[SoCalRC]

It’s inflamatory comments like these that really prevent you from getting any respect about your views. Actually, it’s quite arrogant.

I think you are compromising church teaching for your own political agenda. There, you like it?

We all compromise, we are all sinners. This includes me.

But if you want to attack me, pick a real fault. I don’t vote pro-choice. But I also won’t compromise other Catholic teachings to ‘win’ elections.

Since I seldom vote for a ‘winner’ (and almost certainly won’t this time), what would my ‘agenda’ be? Hurting Republicans? I think that all the moral compromsing has been doing that very well without any help from me.

Look, I appreciate that people are anti-abortion, it is a horrible ill and reflects terribly on our society. But I’m not quoting political literature, I’m quoting the Church. It was a Pope that connected abortion to the death penalty and an ecumenical council that connected abortion to slavery and torture.

If you don’t like a broader definition of “the right to life” than Roe v. Wade, fine, but the broader definition is not mine, it is the Church’s.

 

[SoCalRC]

Gee, I’ve only said that about a hundred times. Glad the message is finally getting through.

You still don’t get it. It is ‘look, we can even let our sheep wander into these cess pools, but…’ You want interpret it as a lessening of the importance of the teaching on the death penalty.

But, yet again, the argument behind that teaching is the same as the one for abortion (presented together in the same Encyclical). Of course we can pick and choose, but our current Pope thinks that “moral relativism” is the greatest current threat to the Church and mankind.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You still don’t get it. It is ‘look, we can even let our sheep wander into these cess pools, but…’

Where did he say that?!? Give me a cite!

You want interpret it as a lessening of the importance of the teaching on the death penalty.

I’ll stick to what the Cardinal said, thank you.

But, yet again, the argument behind that teaching is the same as the one for abortion (presented together in the same Encyclical). Of course we can pick and choose, but our current Pope thinks that “moral relativism” is the greatest current threat to the Church and mankind.

Are you accusing me of moral relativism?