myduwigd Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I have a very strong opinion on this and cannot understand how anyone can be against abortion and not against the death penalty (ahem....Bush!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetpea316 Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 True that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 from the Catechism: [quote]Capital Punishment 2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67] [b]2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. [/b] "If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should 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. "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68][/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonSlayer Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I'm very much against it in today's world, especially with so many innocent people being executed. It's just not necessary in most societies such as America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phazzan Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I have no problem with the death penalty as an instrument of lawful retribution. People who kill in cold blood, and feel no remorse forfeight their own right to life. Unfortuantly, the death penalty is probably mis-used so much that it should be abandoned. In that case, I say stick them in an empty cell and throw away the key.. literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I don't even think it should be abandoned in the modern world. people who commit grave crimes deserve death and the state is always justified if it enacts it. it should consider mercy and be prudential in its judgement, but ultimately if someone has committed a grave sin and the state enacts the death penalty the Catholic Church teaches that that is always justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 [quote name='Lil Red' date='Mar 21 2005, 05:16 PM'] from the Catechism: [/quote] [b]"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should 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. "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68][/b] Don't forget them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 [quote name='myduwigd' date='Mar 21 2005, 05:13 PM'] I have a very strong opinion on this and cannot understand how anyone can be against abortion and not against the death penalty (ahem....Bush!) [/quote] That would apply to most Popes and churchmen through history. Let's not pretend like the death penalty is something G. W. Bush invented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 a quote from Pope John Paul II revealing his opposition to the death penalty in the modern world. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified that the issue of the APPLICATION of the death penalty can have a variety of opinions amoung Catholics. I believe in using the death penalty in the modern world and really don't see our modern world as having too many MORE non-lethal means available compared to the ancient world... they had dungeons and prisons and islands that could securely keep prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 [quote name='Iacobus' date='Mar 21 2005, 07:08 PM'] [b]"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should 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. "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68][/b] Don't forget them. [/quote] gee, did i quote that part? yup, sure did. doesn't look like i forgot that part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 I'm not big on the DP though I honor the Church in these regards. I'm a bit irritated regarding all the buzz about the U.S. bishops coming together to crusade against the DP but they are not doing this against abortion. Like I said on the debate table, to crusade against the DP is a fashionable thing to do, while the other is apparently not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 [quote name='Lil Red' date='Mar 21 2005, 09:41 PM'] gee, did i quote that part? yup, sure did. doesn't look like i forgot that part [/quote] But you didn't BOLD it. Shame on you! *lash with a wet noodle* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 [quote name='Lil Red' date='Mar 21 2005, 09:41 PM'] gee, did i quote that part? yup, sure did. doesn't look like i forgot that part [/quote] You did quote it, but you builded the part saying it was allowed, but didn't call any attention to the fact that it is not fully usable, for lack of a better term. It is the the legal fine print when you bold one part and not the other. Either all or none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 [quote]I'm a bit irritated regarding all the buzz about the U.S. bishops coming together to crusade against the DP but they are not doing this against abortion. Like I said on the debate table, to crusade against the DP is a fashionable thing to do, while the other is apparently not.[/quote] I think the Bishops have been very vocal in their opposition to abortion. See, for example, their document "Living the Gospel of Life": "We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem. In other words, the choice of certain ways of acting is always and radically incompatible with the love of God and the dignity of the human person created in His image. Direct abortion is never a morally tolerable option. It is always a grave act of violence against a woman and her unborn child. This is so even when a woman does not see the truth because of the pressures she may be subjected to, often by the child's father, her parents or friends. Similarly, euthanasia and assisted suicide are never acceptable acts of mercy. They always gravely exploit the suffering and desperate, extinguishing life in the name of the "quality of life" itself. This same teaching against direct killing of the innocent condemns all direct attacks on innocent civilians in time of war." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 [quote name='Iacobus' date='Mar 21 2005, 08:15 PM'] You did quote it, but you builded the part saying it was allowed, but didn't call any attention to the fact that it is not fully usable, for lack of a better term. It is the the legal fine print when you bold one part and not the other. Either all or none. [/quote] oh whatever. i bolded the part that is important to me. you bolded the part important to you. don't lash out at me because they weren't the same thing. either all or none? gimme a break i can't be responsible for what people choose to read...if they choose to read just the bolded parts or not. 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