How Can A Faithful Catholic Be A Democrat?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1337578767' post='2433199']
"Greated"? What kind of word is that?

The Pope is infallible on faith and morals, not military strategy.
[/quote]

i apologize for my incorrect SPELLING of the word. thanks for the insult, was it really necessary?

your second point doesn't address what i wrote at all. your just avoiding what i said. it would be nice if you address my response instead of giving a one sentance response that contributes nothing.

Edited May 21, 2012 by havok579257

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, as a practical matter. executing prisoners is settled as factually a more costly endeavor than keeping them in prison, lots more costly. granted, it's because of all the appeals etc, and these could be cut so that society can actually save money when an execution is done. but, in any case, it's save money to build more prisons if that were necessary. i think only a relative handful of people are actually executed per year... it'd probably only come out to a relatively low number being needed.
what essentially transpires is so society is willing to pay more so that they can exact their revenge or "justice" if that floats your boat when it's really just a euphemism for a fancy footed revenge.

[Winchester]

I believe it depends on the state. In some, you would have to register as a Democrat, but in others, you would merely need to vote in the primary. I believe you can join the party itself just by sending in a form.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337579599' post='2433201']
i apologize for my incorrect SPELLING of the word. thanks for the insult, was it really necessary?

your second point doesn't address what i wrote at all. your just avoiding what i said. it would be nice if you address my response instead of giving a one sentance response that contributes nothing.
[/quote]I'll try to give a brief response, but I hope it doesn't become overly technical.

You can divide an action into two aspects: general knowledge and specific knowledge. Under general knowledge is included basic principles, contingent statements, etc. Basic principles are like the Catholic Doctrine on Just War, also termed the "Just War Theory." These principles are things like:
[list]
[*]The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
[*]All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
[*]There must be serious prospects of success;
[*]The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
[/list]
The same is true for the death penalty. In this way the Holy Father is absolutely the highest authority, along with the total magisterium of the Church. (This statement is for precision's stake, but it's basically an affirmation of what you've said.)

These principles also include examples of contingency statements. If A happens, then B is acceptable. If A does not happen, then B is not acceptable. For example, if someone attacks you it's licit for you to repel them with violent force. If you must defend yourself against a would-be murderer by using a knife, then the knife is acceptable. Again, these criteria can be determined by the Holy Father (though not always are they done so).

These are just two aspects of the general overview of an act.


However, all actions also include specifics. That is, murder does not generally happen. Murder occurs in this manner, under these circumstances, between this killer and this innocent person. While you can speak generally about murder, the specific action is more important. In this case the Holy Father is not the final authority. In other words, though he gives the general aspects of an act, what he says must then be applied to a particular situation. In most cases, the person closest to the action is more aware of the particulars and will most likely be the best judge of a situation. The Holy Father (as far as we know), receives no sort of revelation presently and so the finality of his authority is based entirely on his knowledge of a particular situation.

In some cases the general rule is applicable to all situations. For example, abortion in all circumstances is wrong, period. The Holy Father does not need to know any specifics to say that. However, the Church has always understood the death penalty in light of due circumstances surrounding the act and contingent facts. That means that if A is true, B is licit. An example is the use of the death penalty to protect society. The Holy Father does not necessarily know when A has occurred and so he'll make the best determination based on the facts available to him. He cannot possibly know about the danger present in a particular person more than those who sentenced the person, unless he is privilege to the exact same (or better) information than they are.

The difference between contingency statements and general criteria is that general criteria can also include prudential judgment, which is always left to the person acting. In the case of prudential judgment, the person has a couple options and isn't necessarily wrong for not following the Holy Father. Such a person could have a different end in mind for his actions that the Holy Father does not recognize at the time, but if he did know of such an end himself (that is if the Holy Father had such an end in mind), he might also choose the same course of actions. Furthermore, the Holy Father is not infallible always in terms of means to an end. Sometimes means to an end may include determinations that are not moral, strictly speaking. Therefore, we can see instances in which the Holy Father's opinion does not extend to all aspects of a particular action.

Therefore, while the Holy Father can speak infallibly in matters of morals, his judgments do not necessarily extend to all specific actions. We must use our particular judgment in certain cases and apply the principles set forth.

I'm going to explain this with a concrete example to show my point more clearly. If a country decides to go to war, the Holy Father can speak infallibly about the criteria necessary for just war. However, he cannot possibly know in every situation whether all those criteria have been met. Sometimes it's obvious if one or another is missing, but as an individual, he cannot be aware of all the circumstances surrounding a country's decision to go to war.


Finally, I do want to clarify one last thing. I've been talking about the Holy Father speaking infallibly. I don't think he has spoken infallibly on certain moral issues, but as Catholics we owe a religious submission of mind and will to those cases in which he hasn't spoken infallibly.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1337619102' post='2433246']
I believe it depends on the state. In some, you would have to register as a Democrat, but in others, you would merely need to vote in the primary. I believe you can join the party itself just by sending in a form.
[/quote]You're right about the state-by-state deal. According to Wikipedia, people can vote in the presidential primaries in the following states without registering for a party:


Alabama
Arizona (Semi-closed, with primaries open only to unaffiliated or unrepresented voters, except for the Libertarian primary.)
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii (Open primary for state, local, and congressional races; caucus system for presidential races.)
Idaho
Illinois
Massachusetts (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin


See more fun stuff here: http://www.fairvote.org/congressional-and-presidential-primaries-open-closed-semi-closed-and-top-two#.T7qJ_nlYse4

[Anomaly]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337576076' post='2433187']
anamoly your not catholic so i don't expect you to undertsand catholic teaching and morals. killing in thename or revenge or as you call it "just punishment" just doesn't work with catholic theology.

also revenge is not only done through mob justice. if i kill my familys murder because he killed my family that is revenge also. revenge kills do not come in one size fits all and everything else is ok killings.

i know what justice is, although your not speaking of justice,your speaking of revenge. your saying because person A killed person B they deserve to die, end of story. that's societies way of dealing with so called justice,that is not the catholic churchs way of justice.
[/quote]LOL. I most likely was a faithfully practicing Catholic longer than you've been alive. Don't be so ready to close your mind to other opinions based on a label, but that's besides the point.

The specific articles in the Catechism are:

[b]<a href="javascript:openWindow('cr/2267.htm');">2267[/b] Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
[color=#0000FF][b]If, ho[/b][/color]wever, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today[color=#0000FF][b], in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."[sup][size=2]68[/size][/sup] [/b][/color]

What I highlighted in BLUE are the points that are debated. It is an '"IF" statement that lays out a second choice of action, or a new condition required to be met. The Pope/Magisterium may be speaking infallibly in a moral judgement if/when the second condition exit, however, they are not infalible authorities on evaluating all the social/political/sociological conditions within the society. I had posted previously studies about the conditions the 'Super Max' prisons inflict on prisoners, and those that work in them. It is not the clearly humane and safe conditions that would foster 'repentance' that many thought would exist, or hope exist. This is a legitimate point that can be argued and not be disagreeing with the Church/Pope/Magisterium on moral requirements.

And note, I don't think you labeling my thoughts on just consequences for a greviouss evil as being 'merely revengeful' very charitable or intellectually honest. Don't make me break out more Catechism on you now.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Anomaly

[qfnol31]

^ That post sounds an awful lot like what I used to argue. Did you ever get involved in those long, closed, CP threads?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337653026' post='2433452']
^ That post sounds an awful lot like what I used to argue. Did you ever get involved in those long, closed, CP threads?
[/quote]Yes. I had another username from 2000 to 2006. At one time I used to be against CP. I have visited prisoners, know prisoners (and murders) and a BiL was a prison psychologist for years. You can't close your mind to harsh realities. It's a horrific evil to take another human's life with no sense of remorse or recognizing the gravity of the act. It's also a horrific evil to incarcerate a violent person in conditions that may provide some physical safety, but destroy their cognizant mind at the same time. If a person has no sense of the gravity of their act, then are driven insane, what or how does that serve Society or the value of a human's free will?

[qfnol31]

I remember well, actually. It's just I haven't heard that argument articulated in a while; it's not very common, even amongst theologians, but I can't figure out why the "if" clause falls under moral judgments in the same way.

/Hijack

[havok579257]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337652827' post='2433450']
LOL. I most likely was a faithfully practicing Catholic longer than you've been alive. Don't be so ready to close your mind to other opinions based on a label, but that's besides the point.

The specific articles in the Catechism are:

[b]<a href="javascript:openWindow('cr/2267.htm');">2267[/b] Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
[color=#0000FF][b]If, ho[/b][/color]wever, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

And note, I don't think you labeling my thoughts on just consequences for a greviouss evil as being 'merely revengeful' very charitable or intellectually honest. Don't make me break out more Catechism on you now.
[/quote]

eliminate the part you say is debated and this is what your left with. as it pertains to america, i think it pretty clear on how often the death penalty should be used.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337653613' post='2433463']
I remember well, actually. It's just I haven't heard that argument articulated in a while; it's not very common, even amongst theologians, but I can't figure out why the "if" clause falls under moral judgments in the same way.

/Hijack
[/quote]Moral judgements are not made in a vacuum. Moral judgements (for non-omniscient humans, anyway) are based on the best understanding of the current circumstances, evaluating the possible courses of actions, and chosing the action that is most agreeable with your principles. That's not relativism, that's reality. Relativism would be changing your principles based on current conditions.

Humans have to have 'ifs', though things are much clearer when things are black and white, but that only exists on the innerwebz or in the overly confident world of the young and naieve. (but someone's got to temper the old and cyinical).

[Anomaly]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337653822' post='2433467']
eliminate the part you say is debated and this is what your left with. as it pertains to america, i think it pretty clear on how often the death penalty should be used.
[/quote]Ahh.. no. It's not clear. Please illuminate your assumption with some sort of facts?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337654159' post='2433472']
Ahh.. no. It's not clear. Please illuminate your assumption with some sort of facts?
[/quote]

would you say escapes from super max prisons are rampant?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337654324' post='2433478']
would you say escapes from super max prisons are rampant?
[/quote]They are not necessarily humane for the prisoners, do a little google searching. [url="http://www.aclu.org/blog/prisoners-rights/supermax-prisons-cruel-inhuman-and-degrading"]http://www.aclu.org/...n-and-degrading[/url]

Don't let me color all your ideas with my bias. Also do a little google searching on the safety of the guards as well.

It's fine to think they're safe, clean, effective, and a good place to work if you don't have to be in one or work in one.

Facts might not change your mind, that's a reasonable difference of opinion, but don't discount other opinions based on limited awareness.


It's not all about your personal safety. Read a bit more of the Catechism. [color="#0000ff"][b]in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - [u]without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself [/u][/b][/color]

[color="#222222"]A person who has mental problems to start with, is then put into an environment that causes more damage to his mental capacity, is pretty much taking away the possibiltiy of redeeming himself. That is something to consider.[/color]

Edited May 22, 2012 by Anomaly

[havok579257]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337654888' post='2433485']
They are not necessarily humane for the prisoners, do a little google searching. [url="http://www.aclu.org/blog/prisoners-rights/supermax-prisons-cruel-inhuman-and-degrading"]http://www.aclu.org/...n-and-degrading[/url]

Don't let me color all your ideas with my bias. Also do a little google searching on the safety of the guards as well.

It's fine to think they're safe, clean, effective, and a good place to work if you don't have to be in one or work in one.

Facts might not change your mind, that's a reasonable difference of opinion, but don't discount other opinions based on limited awareness.


It's not all about your personal safety. Read a bit more of the Catechism. [color=#0000FF][b]in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - [u]without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself [/u][/b][/color]

[color=#222222]A person who has mental problems to start with, is then put into an environment that causes more damage to his mental capacity, is pretty much taking away the possibiltiy of redeeming himself. That is something to consider.[/color]
[/quote]

by that logic putting someone with mental health issues in jail at all creates a problem. so does releasing people with mental health problems from jail since they are already at a disadvantage in finding employement being an ex-con. add to the fact they eventually run out of money, meaning no psych meds and we have a vicious cycle of mental health related homelessness. by this logic, letting anyone be homeless who suffers from mental health issues should not be allowed. homelessness adds to mental health issues and exacerbates their conditions.

the guards take the risk on themselfs. just like police do. just like emt's(my profession) and firefighters(my co-workers profession) do. these jobs are inheretly dangerous. same with a soilders. its our(society's) job to put in as many measures as possible to protect dangerous professions, but we can not completely protect them. it is a dangerous job and we all should have known when we signed up what we got ourselfs into.

I'm not disregarding your opinion onlimited awareness. i am basing it on the fact that it is not more humane to kill someone than to put them in super max prisons. just likeit would not be humane to kill the women in darfur because they could and possibly will be raped over and over. is it wrong? absolutly 100% and i wish it could be stopped. rape is one of the gravest(in my mind) offenses against another person. your essentially taking away their life. although i would never agrue that the person would be better off dead and so we shoudl kill her to be humane. i don't agree with assisted suicides for people with torturous cancer where they are in pain constantly. i don't ever believe killing another human is more humane then letting them livea full life.