Scott Peterson Death Sentence

[Apotheoun]

Although I will not express my opinion on whether or not the death penalty should be applied in this particular case; I will say this: if Scott Peterson repents and willingly accepts the punishment for his crime in communion with Christ, he can expiate his sin and redeem himself. The Church's doctrine, based as it is upon the immutable divine and natural law, does not forbid, nor can it forbid, the judicious use of the death penalty by the State.

God bless,
Todd

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 22 2004, 02:20 PM'] Though Catholics are not "required" to stick to it, a Catholic would be a fool to disagree with the official teaching.





[/quote]
It is precisely in my agreement with the official teaching (and realstic assesment of the modern prison system) that I am disagreeing with the Holy Father's opinion. If that makes me a fool then so be it.

[quote]Anyone who thinks Scott should die has a lot to learn about Christ.[/quote]

Again, I admit that I have a lot to learn about Christ, as do we all.

[quote]Understanding and wisdom grows with the Church... States do have the right to use the death penalty, and the Church has been guided to teach that the right is to protect society.[/quote]

This is partially true. Protection is not the only end of punishment. Redressing order is also an end.

[quote]
What do you think Christ would say? Do you really think Christ would say kill him? If so, you've got a lot to learn about Christ. Christ loves Him just as much as anyone else.[/quote]

I don't know what Christ would say, nor do you. What we do know is that Christ left the Catholic Church to speak for Him on earth. The Church has done so, and has consistently upheld the right of states to execute and, in fact, had even been employed by the Vatican itself which had the death penalty for certain crimes until 1969.

[quote]Would you execute Christ?[/quote]

Your argument has departed from sound reason. But I'll play along.

No I would not execute Christ. In fact I would not execute anyone (I am not the state). Come to think of it, I wouldn't throw Christ in prison for life either, or even for one second. Why?
Do I need to answer that question? It seems obvious enough to me. In any case, this has nothing to do with the right and/or duty of the State to punish criminals (of which Christ is most certainly not, just to make sure that question does not go unanswered), even to the extent of executing them. The Church has always defended that right. The Church will always defend that right.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 22 2004, 02:20 PM']
[i][color=blue]"When I was in on death row, you saved my life"[/color][/i]



[/quote]
That's interesting. You must have a different version than I do. I don't recall seeing that in there.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 22 2004, 03:40 PM'] That's interesting. You must have a different version than I do. I don't recall seeing that in there. [/quote]
I am truely sorry that I assumed you could comprehend the meaning of that.

I'll try to keep things very simple for you since you feel you are wiser than the Magisterium.

The teaching comes from the Magisterium.

Think about that the next time you wonder why phishy is your label.


Scott could be considered one of Christ's least brethern. We should see Christ in Scott, even though he might have sinned.

You've got a lot to learn... keep reading the new testament and writings from the saints.

Nothing more to be said on the topic... you are wrong.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Guest Aluigi]

is that also why Apotheon is a Church Scholar?

you ignore the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when it tells us we can have a legitimate diversity of opinion regarding the APPLICATION of the death penalty in the MODERN WORLD. However, the Infallible Teaching of the Catholic Church still stands that a just punishment to anyone who commits an actual grave crime against the society and the state is execution. You can believe that because non-lethal means are available the state should spare some that deserve this penalty, or most that deserve this penalty. John Paul II obviously holds this same opinion, you'd be in respectable and pius company in holding this opinion. But you cannot say that it is absolutely wrong when a state punishes a criminal with execution. That is stepping outside the boundries laid by the Church.

Read the Magisterium in the light of it's 2000 years of infallible teaching and then YOU will understand. On this issue, my friend, it is you who seem to have a lot to learn.

-Pax-

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 22 2004, 05:00 PM'] I am truely sorry that I assumed you could comprehend the meaning of that.

I'll try to keep things very simple for you since you feel you are wiser than the Magisterium.

The teaching comes from the Magisterium.

Think about that the next time you wonder why phishy is your label.


Scott could be considered one of Christ's least brethern. We should see Christ in Scott, even though he might have sinned.

You've got a lot to learn... keep reading the new testament and writings from the saints.

Nothing more to be said on the topic... you are wrong.

God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Friend, you are most entertaining. Everyone knows that I am phishy because I spent many years working on a fishing boat on the high seas.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 22 2004, 08:11 PM'] Friend, you are most entertaining.  Everyone knows that I am phishy because I spent many years working on a fishing boat on the high seas. [/quote]
What about the "Hello. I do not rep the Church" tag?

Edited December 23, 2004 by cooltuba

[Socrates]

Charity, people!

The death penalty is an issue Catholics can legitimately disagree on.

It has never been proposed as ex cathredra teaching that the death penalty cannot be used.

Plenty of Popes in the past have supported the death penalty.

Because someone is pro-death penalty does not mean he is a bad Catholic or goes against Church teaching.

I'm sick of the death-penalty issue being used to sow confusion and discord!

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cooltuba' date='Dec 22 2004, 09:37 PM'] What about the "Hello. I do not rep the Church" tag? [/quote]
What about it?

[Guest Aluigi]

correction: it is not an issue Catholics can legitimately disagree on.

it's application in the modern world can be legitimately disagreed on.

Catholics must accept the doctrines that the state has a God-given right and sometimes duty to execute criminals, and that it is a just punishment for some crimes.

They may think that nowadays with available non-lethal means the cases for it's necessity (when the state would have the DUTY) are rare if practically non-existant, or they might not.

Edited December 23, 2004 by Aluigi

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 22 2004, 06:00 PM'] I am truely sorry that I assumed you could comprehend the meaning of that.

I'll try to keep things very simple for you since you feel you are wiser than the Magisterium.

The teaching comes from the Magisterium.

Think about that the next time you wonder why phishy is your label.


Scott could be considered one of Christ's least brethern. We should see Christ in Scott, even though he might have sinned.

You've got a lot to learn... keep reading the new testament and writings from the saints.

Nothing more to be said on the topic... you are wrong.

God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Actually he is not.

and insulting him will not change that.

The Church has never excluded use of the death penalty, it cannot. The most it can say it shold be used rarely and prudently.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 23 2004, 01:43 AM'] Actually he is not.

and insulting him will not change that.

The Church has never excluded use of the death penalty,  it cannot. The most it can say it shold be used rarely and prudently. [/quote]
Yes he is wrong in this matter. There is no need to protect society to kill Scott.

The only acceptable use of the death penalty is to protect society. End of Story.

It is obvious he did not comprehend what was ment, therefore it is not an insult, it is an observation.

If you want to argue it, take it up with the Magisterium because of what the Catechism states.


God Bless.

Edited December 23, 2004 by ironmonk

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 23 2004, 09:22 AM'] It is obvious he did not comprehend what was ment, therefore it is not an insult, it is an observation.

[/quote]
Obvious? I understood quite well what you were attempting to say. I simply think you are dead wrong. I can assure you, friend, that there is no lack of comprehension. In fact, the only lack of comprehension would have to be on your part, as you do not understand what the Church actually teaches on this matter. This is not merely my opinion. In fact, several others on here have defended what I'm saying (including Apotheoun, aluigi, and Cmom). Are they having comprehension problems as well? That's not to mention the long list of saints, popes and councils who we are merely quoting. Furthermore, I have a pretty list of theologians today, all exceptionally intelligent, and exeptionally orthodox, who I am in agreement with on this matter. Three os which, in case you would like to know, are Fr. Rutler, Dr. William Marshner, Fr. Brian Harrison, and to some extent even Avery Dulles (though he seems to bounce around on the subject). But I am sure, Ironmonk, that they have comprehension problems. Perhaps I will pass on to them your e-mail address so that they can consult you when they are having comprehension problems, since you and you alone have it all figured out. Anyone who can't see such an obvious point is just plain dumb?

In any case, I know that I have much to learn. I don't have all the right answers. I think we are all in the same boat on that point. It would do us well to keep that in mind. Sometimes the answer is not as obvious or as simple as we would like to believe.

Have a glorious Christmas season!

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 23 2004, 11:16 AM'] Obvious? I understood quite well what you were attempting to say. I simply think you are dead wrong. I can assure you, friend, that there is no lack of comprehension. In fact, the only lack of comprehension would have to be on your part, as you do not understand what the Church actually teaches on this matter. This is not merely my opinion. In fact, several others on here have defended what I'm saying (including Apotheoun, aluigi, and Cmom). Are they having comprehension problems as well? That's not to mention the long list of saints, popes and councils who we are merely quoting. Furthermore, I have a pretty list of theologians today, all exceptionally intelligent, and exeptionally orthodox, who I am in agreement with on this matter. Three os which, in case you would like to know, are Fr. Rutler, Dr. William Marshner, Fr. Brian Harrison, and to some extent even Avery Dulles (though he seems to bounce around on the subject). But I am sure, Ironmonk, that they have comprehension problems. Perhaps I will pass on to them your e-mail address so that they can consult you when they are having comprehension problems, since you and you alone have it all figured out. Anyone who can't see such an obvious point is just plain dumb?

In any case, I know that I have much to learn. I don't have all the right answers. I think we are all in the same boat on that point. It would do us well to keep that in mind. Sometimes the answer is not as obvious or as simple as we would like to believe.

Have a glorious Christmas season! [/quote]
AMEN!

[Apotheoun]

The death penalty has a twofold purpose: (1) to protect society from further injury by rendering the criminal harmless, and (2) to redress the wrong committed by the criminal through a just punishment.

God bless,
Todd