J.R.D Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 I mean if he was pro-life then he wouldnt belive in the death penalty right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 The death penalty, as upheld by the Church, does not necessarily go against the dignity of the human person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.R.D Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 Why your killing someone and dsnt pro-life mean "respecting life no matter what"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 sometimes the dp is just and necessary it is a legitimate right of the state to defend society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 It means respecting the dignity of human life. Evangelium Vitae, the Catechism, and many other documents say that this does not disrespect the dignity of human life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.R.D Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 o ok i gusse It still a human life to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 It is a human life, you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 even when used unjustly, the death penalty is a far less heinous crime than abortion. plus, it can be used justly, whereas abortion cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Even Pope John Paul II, who personally opposes the death penalty, says that states have the right to use the death penalty. He just says there aren't sufficient reasons for it today's world. On the other hand, he has never said anybody at anytime has the right to have or perform abortions. The Church officially teaches (and has always taught) that abortion is wrong. It has no such official teaching on the death penalty, and has allowed it for 2,000 years. The current Pope doesn't beleive it's a good idea, but he hasn't taught ex Cathedra (infallibly) that it's always wrong. Abortion is always wrong under any circumstance. The death penalty (used justly) is open to debate. These things are on totally different levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 [quote name='J.R.D' date='Nov 1 2004, 01:13 AM'] I mean if he was pro-life then he wouldnt belive in the death penalty right? [/quote] Wrong. Pro-Life is protecting innocent lives. Sometimes, this could include ending a life to protect other lives. Pro-life mainly is ending abortion and ending euthanasia. The illogical left tries to call many pro-lifers "not pro-life" because of the death penalty, yet those from the left who are normally against the death penalty, have no problem killing innocent baby lives... they are a contradiction unto themselves. It seems that they do not know how to think. They will tell you that we shouldn't kill at all because the person "could" be innocent and there have been innocent men killed because of the death penalty... They use this logic with criminals such as Jeffrey Dohmer.... yet, they totally ignore the fact that a innocent child could be alive... and many even ignore the fact when there is no doubt that the child is alive. Moral of the story.... this is a red haring by the left, when the left's point of view is analyzed, it is full of contradictions and hypocrisy. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 [quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 31 2004, 10:30 PM'] ...he hasn't taught ex Cathedra (infallibly) that it's always wrong... [/quote] Actually, [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] is only for infallible definitions. The Pope has the potential to teach it infallibly (well, actually, it would be the Magesterium as a whole who does) if they want, without a council or [i]Ex Cathedra[/i] statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 (edited) [quote name='J.R.D' date='Oct 31 2004, 11:13 PM'] I mean if he was pro-life then he wouldnt belive in the death penalty right? [/quote] You need to read Romans 13. God ordains governments and it is his providence that they use "the sword" at times to keep order. That does not mean they have to of course but it is one of the tools allowed a government. Certainly in an ideal world the need for it would go away. From the CCC: 2267 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. If, however, 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 are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, 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 non-existent." So while it says that it should not be neccessary today, it does allow for it so your conclusion that somene who is pro-death penalty is not pro-life is not correct. Abortion is always intrinsically evil and must always be opposed. God bless Edited November 1, 2004 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 I would point out, however, that the Pope does teach that capital punishment is wrong in most circumstances: [quote name='Evangelium Vitae' date=' #56']This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence". Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated. It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".[/quote] A case can certainly be made, then, that President Bush's permissive attitude toward the death penalty is immoral. It is certainly true that those executed in the state of Texas while he was Governor, and even possibly those executed at the federal level while he has been President, did not need to be executed because there were bloodless means that were sufficient to defend human lives against them. We have to be careful not to defend all the actions of President Bush because we favor him over Sen. Kerry -- he still commits sins, and his permissive attitude toward the death penalty may well be one of them. We should pray that he will develop an attitude toward the death penalty that is more consistent with Church teaching and the dignity of human life. The case that [b]can't[/b] be made is that, because President Bush has a permissive attitude toward the death penalty, he is not in any way pro-life and it is all right to vote for Sen. Kerry instead of him because of his attitude toward the death penalty. The only way that it's permissible to vote for a pro-abortion candidate is if there are "proportionate reasons" for doing so. In the past sixteen months, abortion has killed 1,750,656 infants in this country, and counting. In the past sixteen months, capital punishment has killed 98 Americans in this country, and counting. [b]IF[/b] capital punishment had killed 1,750,657 people, and [b]IF[/b] President Bush were directly responsible for the legislation that allowed for their executions, and [b]IF[/b] these people were all as innocent as a human infant in the womb, [b]then and only then[/b] could one make a case for "proportionate reasons" to vote for a pro-abortion candidate instead of President Bush because of his attitude toward the death penalty. That said, this could never happen. Capital punishment will never kill almost two million people in sixteen months in our country; President Bush is [b]not[/b] directly responsible for the legislation that allowed for their executions; and these people are [b]not[/b] as innocent as a human infant in the womb, because many of these people have committed horrendous crimes -- and even those who may have been falsely accused are still not as innocent as the infant in the womb, because they have committed some actual sin whereas the infant in the womb only has Original Sin and no actual sin. So, my answer is that it may be immoral for President Bush to have such a permissive attitude toward capital punishment, but it still pales in comparison to Sen. Kerry's permissive attitude toward abortion, and President Bush's attitude toward capital punishment is not a proportionate reason to vote for Sen. Kerry over President Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 GF is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 amen, GF. That was concise, articulate, and well said! - Your Brother in Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now