Murder

[cooltuba]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 19 2004, 01:50 AM'] Ouch. Trent is one of the greatest councils that ever happened. The Latin Mass is still valid and in fact, the Novus Ordo should be said in Latin, according to GIRM. The Tridentine Mass is a wonderful tool. The Church did not end, nor did it begin with Vatican II. Vatican II did not change any teachings, nor has the Magisterium. The only people who have changed the Church's teachings are under-taught lay people.

[/quote]
I'm not questioning the validity of Trent, just the validity of it's teachings reguarding capital punishment. The times have changed, and the state (at least in non-third world situations) is capable of keeping violent criminals seperate from the general population. In the time of Trent, prisions were much less capable of holding ingenius prisioners. Vatican II gives a more current teaching taking into account the advances modern technology (not even modern by today's standards) has taken to reduce the likelihood of escape by violent criminals.

Of course there are certain situations where the Latin is still the best tool to worship (I sing the Ave Maria at Evening Prayer every Sunday night). But to fufill your Sabbath obligation with the Trinidine Mass every Sunday is not in line with Church teaching. I could be wrong, but that is the impression I got in Seminary.

Please don't insinuate that I am an "undertaught lay-person". I'm certainly a lay-person, but I am not under-taught.

[qfnol31]

I don't mean to insinuate that you're an under-taught layperson. That was a comment about most of the Church who blames the Magisterium for the problems today, which I cannot see you being.

Trent on capital punishment is dealing with faith and/or morals. It's not something that can really be changed.

Actually, the Tridentine Mass is perfectly acceptable with permission.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 19 2004, 03:32 AM'] I don't mean to insinuate that you're an under-taught layperson. That was a comment about most of the Church who blames the Magisterium for the problems today, which I cannot see you being.

Trent on capital punishment is dealing with faith and/or morals. It's not something that can really be changed.

Actually, the Tridentine Mass is perfectly acceptable with permission. [/quote]
Thanks for the clarification.

The Tridentine Mass is acceptable [i[with permission[/i]. I realize that permission is granted quite freely, but the fact remains that it is not the norm.

I'll comment more thoroughly tomorrow; I'm beat, and I've got to get up in a mere 5 hours for Mass.

Until tomorrow,

Tim

[Phatmasser777]

QF. You dont require 'permission' to go to a Latin Mass.

[Apotheoun]

The Second Vatican Council must be read in the light of the Church's living tradition; in other words, it must be read in the light of all that came before it, including the Council of Trent.

[RandomProddy]

Murder is illegal killing, so no. Killing an be perfectly ok. For example, it's ok to kill a fish if you intend to eat it.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Dec 19 2004, 06:17 AM'] QF. You dont require 'permission' to go to a Latin Mass. [/quote]
Parishes require permission to perform the Latin mass.

[Guest Aluigi]

the Mass you attend now in the vernacular is a translation from the Latin Novus Ordo Missae, and the norm for even THAT mass is Latin. Vernacular is an allowance. But yes, the Novus Ordo is the norm in the Roman Church (though technically the norm is it in Latin)

Trent still stands on Captial Punishment. Pius XII was pretty close to our times. Pope John Paul II and Vatican II affirm Trent. The Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says that we can have differing opinions regarding the application of the death penalty. We cannot have differing opinions on the doctrine about it, that it is justly reveived by anyone who has committed a grave crime, that the state [i]should[/i] consider mercy if non-lethal means are available to it, but because we can have differing opinions about the application of it we do not all have to agree that the cases are rare if non-existant. I donno, I think they might be somewhat rare, but not as rare as many people think and certainly they will never be non-existant because some ppl will remain violent even in prison and if you immobilize them for the rest of their life and feed them through a feeding tube so they can't be violent, that's cruel and unusual torture. there are always people who will continue to be violent even in prison, and technology will never get to the point (unless it gets to the point of giving them cruel and unusual punishment to keep them non-violent) where absolutely everyone can be practically and easily taken care of by non-lethal means.

The fact remains that I believe is a matter of Catholic Doctrine, that anyone who has committed a grave crime against the state would justly receive capital punishment if it was given to them by the state.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 19 2004, 09:44 AM'] [. . .] but because we can have differing opinions about the application of it we do not all have to agree that the cases are rare if non-existant.  [. . .] [/quote]
Correct. The traditional doctrine of the Church on this matter cannot be changed, because it is a [i]de fide tenenda[/i] teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The State has a twofold duty in protecting the common good of society: (1) it must render the criminal harmless, and (2) it must redress the wrong done by the criminal through punishment. As far as the first point is concerned, keeping a person in jail for life may suffice to protect society from further harm, but as far as the second point is concerned, the State may have a duty to execute a criminal in order to redress the wrong done by him. Moreover, if the criminal accepts his punishment willingly, the punishment inflicted takes on an expiatory value and may actually help to bring him to salvation in Christ.

God bless,
Todd

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 17 2004, 09:00 PM'] I agree. [/quote]
So do I.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cooltuba' date='Dec 18 2004, 10:21 PM'] Trent? Really? You're going to pull out Trent?! Still attending the Latin Mass, are we? [/quote]
Yes.

[quote]But to fufill your Sabbath obligation with the Trinidine Mass every Sunday is not in line with Church teaching. I could be wrong, but that is the impression I got in Seminary.[/quote]

You are wrong. But this has nothing to do with capital punishment.

[Mary's Knight, La]

first an observation:

the death penalty, and just war seem to be derivatives of the same teaching on self defence just adapted for the entity of the political body.

look at the requirements
1. it must be done with the purpose of preventing greater evil (harm to one's self or harm to the members of a nation)
2. it must be 'a last resort' (all other methods must have been exhausted)
3. it must be proportionate you don't kill a guy who slaps you, you kill someone trying to kill you

now for my question:

states are also called to be responsible, does anyone have a quote on the average per year cost of the state paying all the living expenses of a violent criminal. Seeing as how they were convicted of violent crime it is reasonable to assume they were to violent to be put to a work crew where some of the cost may be saved. I know it sounds harsh but it seems they either harm the state by harming its citizens or harm the state by forcing it to pay for their welfare in essence robbing the state.