Voting for pro death penalty president?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Emeraldlady said:
40.png
Mikeduke324:
Think about it like this:

Would you rather support a person who wants to kill the scum of society, or one who wants to kill the innocent and weak?
Click to expand...
America now has the great blessing of the American Solidarity party to choose, which supports neither form of killing.

Platform |
Click to expand...
I’ve heard of that, but I do actually support the DP for the most serious of crimes like rape and murder.
 
Why is it that some people who claim to be pro-life take positions that are pro-death instead?
 
Metis1 said:
Why is it that some people who claim to be pro-life take positions that are pro-death instead?
Click to expand...
You mean…like the Catholic Church?

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. (Catechism of Trent)
 
Maybe read the Catechism, plus there is something called “ongoing revelation” empowered by the Holy Spirit. Where there are prisons and jails, there simply is no moral reason whatsoever to have the death penalty, and Jesus implied as such when he said “Let he whom is without sin cast the first stone” when the stoning of a prostitute was about to be done.

So, do we believe in Jesus or in right-wing or left-wing politicians?
 
Last edited:
Metis1 said:
Maybe read the Catechism, plus there is something called “ongoing revelation” empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Do you seriously believe the revelation by the Holy Spirit now could contradict the revelation by the Holy Spirit before? There is no justification whatever for believing that. In fact that has been specifically rejected by the First Vatican Council.

And as the things which the Holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been wrongly explained by some, We, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
Where there are prisons and jails, there simply is no moral reason whatsoever to have the death penalty…
Click to expand...
This presumes that protection is the primary objective of punishment, but it isn’t. The moral justification for any punishment is that it is deserved, not that it protects. But according to your own argument the existence of prisons and jails is irrelevant. If you believe Jesus abolished capital punishment then what do prisons matter?
So, do we believe in Jesus or in right-wing or left-wing politicians?
Click to expand...
The question is not whether we believe in Jesus, but whether we should believe your interpretation of that particular incident is valid. Given that the church never argued that point or reached that conclusion it appears that the conclusion is your own.
 
Last edited:
Amen.

And the only way to justify capital punishment under our conditions here in the States is to play fast & loose games with Catholic theology, thus ignoring what the Catechism now says that is also supported by Pope Francis. Basically, it’s allowing secular political propaganda to be superior to what the Church now teaches and what Jesus rather clearly taught. However, granted that it’s each of our own choice as to what to believe and whom we wish to follow.

And, as Jesus also said, we “cannot serve two masters…”. If some prefer to serve the Secular Master, that’s their choice.
 
You misstated what I said, which was that, if your claim is valid, the church failed for 2000 years to discern the truth, taught evil as good, and was not “fully pro-life” until 2018. This is what your position implies.
I wonder if we need a new sense under “invincible ignorance” for the people who genuinely have a misguided belief that the death penalty is justified and for the common good, despite the Church saying otherwise.
Click to expand...
The determination of what’s best for the common good is a judgment. It is not doctrine and as such one may legitimately disagree with it. Beyond that, it is the right and duty of those who are responsible for the common good to make that determination with regard to the use of capital punishment.

Now, if you wish to debate Catholic theology on this subject with me I’m happy to oblige; I will just remind you that an insult is not the same thing as an argument. If you think I’m being fast and loose with Catholic teaching it should be a simple thing for you to demonstrate it. I’m ready if you are.
 
This is an assertion; you need to provide an argument to support it. I contend that determining what is best in a given situation is an opinion, a prudential judgment. That is, I agree with Cardinal Dulles in his characterization of the position expressed by JPII:

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.

This position is supported by Archbishop Gomez’s statement made the day after Pope Francis updated the catechism:

The Church is not changing her teaching. Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order. What the Church is urging now is that governments exercise their discretion
I accept that the Church can have development of moral doctrine as time goes on…
Click to expand...
Yes, we all accept that. The question is whether your interpretation of what has changed is consistent with what can be considered development. Since what your position includes is not an expansion of a doctrine but its outright repudiation, it could not be considered legitimate development.

“A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started” (Cardinal Newman)

“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” (Cardinal Dulles)
 
Last edited:
I’m using the formulation the church herself uses. The determination of what is the best action is the responsibility of those responsible for the common good. Yes, that right can be abused. It doesn’t make it any less a right.

CCC 1910 It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.
I would suggest that we not be legalistic about this…It makes evident one’s geist of disobedience…
Click to expand...
It is not a question of being legalistic, it is about forming a correct understanding. That can in no way be considered “one’s geist of disobedience.” I pointed out before that an insult is not an argument. I get the feeling this is not the last time I will make that observation.
 
Last edited:
Amen to that.

If one disagrees with the Catechism, that’s “kosher”, imo, but when one disagrees with what the Catechism says and then essentially claims that they don’t disagree, that’s another thing altogether.
 
This is an assertion on your part followed by a dismissal of the argument on my part. All you’ve done so far is attack me personally and make general observations about what other have sometimes done. Let’s start with the basics: is capital punishment intrinsically evil or not?

Answer that question and we’ll go from there.
 
John 8:7 “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

I do believe that this is pretty clear-- or at least it should be.
 
Ender said:
Yes, we all accept that. The question is whether your interpretation of what has changed is consistent with what can be considered development. Since what your position includes is not an expansion of a doctrine but its outright repudiation, it could not be considered legitimate development.

“A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started” (Cardinal Newman)

“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” (Cardinal Dulles)
Click to expand...
I agree. A development of a doctrine is often misunderstood and misrepresented. It does not mean a change/reversal from what it has always been. It means a clarification of what it has always been—while retaining its doctrine and principle. A development of a doctrine is often confused by the randomly usage of the ill-conceived concepts of the movements of the Holy Spirit, new scholarships, and enlightenment. They are very different and are often times contradicted.

It’s an impossibility to declare what once was a doctrine to now, all of a sudden, it’s not, or what once was an intrinsic evil and now it’s not—-unless one makes the case that the God (and therefore the Catholic Church) has always been wrong, and He now uses the so-called “movements of the Holy Spirit” to correct his errors.

Christ promised to leave us with the Holy Spirit. And that promise has been kept. But the Holy Spirit does not proceed to make liars out of Christ and God the Father.
 
Last edited:
Randolph said:
It’s an impossibility to declare what once was a doctrine to now, all of a sudden, it’s not, or what once was an intrinsic evil and now it’s not—-unless one makes the case that the God (and therefore the Catholic Church) has always been wrong, and He now uses the so-called “movements of the Holy Spirit” to correct his errors.
Click to expand...
The Church has had a long record of often acting slowly on various matters-- just ask Galileo about that.

In one sense, slow reactions are sometimes good in order to stop knee-jerk reactions, but sometimes acknowledgments of the reality may lag. Another case in point was the reluctance of the Church to accept the ToE as a viable concept under Catholic teaching.

At this point, with jails and prisons basically found in all societies, there simply is no need for capital punishment, especially since a great many homicides tend to be “crimes of passion” that often involve other factors.

People can change, which is why we’re encouraged to evangelize, thus it’s quite logical that even a murderer may change as well.
 
Metis1 said:
John 8:7 “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

I do believe that this is pretty clear-- or at least it should be
Click to expand...
Indeed, the living, eternal Word of God can not be changed. I trust that individuals don’t equate their opinions/feelings to the Word of God—or the will of God and proceed as such.
 
Metis1 said:
The Church has had a long record of often acting slowly on various matters-- just ask Galileo about that.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to get off topic with this, and I don’t want to turn this into another Galileo thread. There were were indeed mis-steps from the Church hierarchy. But there was no reversal in doctrine this case.

But facts be known… Galileo’s behaviors were not good, and he was also fundamentally wrong. He insisted that the Church should adopt his Heliocentric view of the universe—the sun is the center of the universe. Had the Church accepted his theory, there would have been much bigger disasters.

More on the Galileo controversy:

 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top