High Treason

[qfnol31]

Not really. What you posted was irrelevant to what I was saying.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31']Not really. What you posted was irrelevant to what I was saying.[/quote]

How do you figure? You said:

[quote]The state can, however.[/quote]
In regard to being the judge as to who deserves the death penalty.

I simply stated that in order to be consistent, the whole of CCC #2267 should be quoted. The reason being, the part that I bolded AND underlined.

[quote name='CCC #2267 (par. 3)']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."[/quote]

So, while the state does have the ability to judge in favor of capital punishment, IF it is the ONLY possible means to protect society; the part that you left out is the important part.....the possibilites which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering the one has committed an offense incapable of doing harm, is far more important than the part that you posted.

Why? Because what you posted is the last and worst case scenario. What you didn't fully post is what is the best case scenario. That the non-lethal means which render the aggressor incapable of doing harm DOES NOT take away the the possibility of redeeming himself.

[qfnol31]

Actually, that's innacurate. The state can choose death anytime there is a major crime that deserves such, but it is a better good to choose the life.

It doesn't change what I said though. All I said is that the state has the authority to choose to put a person to death, and regardless of the circumstances that does not change. Of course choosing to kill someone only happens in certain circumstances, but you didn't choose to name them all yourself. You only mentioned that one that it's the only means necessary to preserve a society...but you only mentioned the one criteria. That would be correct consistency.

However, my point here isn't to make a debate about that, because I really don't care so much here. I just wanted to point out that the Church holds that the state can (in certain circumstances) put people to death.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 07:43 PM']Actually, that's innacurate.  The state can choose death anytime there is a major crime that deserves such, but it is a better good to choose the life.

It doesn't change what I said though.  All I said is that the state has the authority to choose to put a person to death, and regardless of the circumstances that does not change.  Of course choosing to kill someone only happens in certain circumstances, but you didn't choose to name them all yourself.  You only mentioned that one that it's the only means necessary to preserve a society...but you only mentioned the one criteria.  That would be correct consistency.

However, my point here isn't to make a debate about that, because I really don't care so much here.  I just wanted to point out that the Church holds that the state can (in certain circumstances) put people to death.
[right][snapback]829132[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually it is not. The state can choose capital punishment anytime there is a major crime that deserves such AND IT IS A JUST REASON, but it is a better good to choose the life.

According to what you said, no it doesn't change what you said, however, when you add "just reasoning," it does change the meaning. And that is what you left out.

Yes, the Church does say the state can use capital punishment, if it is the ONLY POSSIBLE way of effectively defending human life. However, the Church is just as clear in stating that if non-lethal means are available, those should be used, because it is more in keeping with the dignity of the human person. And the Church teaches that the application of the death penalty, should be rare, if not practically non-existent.

You continually leave that out of your arguments though. It is as if the Church never said it, in your world, and that is your error.

[qfnol31]

Cam, I do put it in there.

You don't give me enough credit, I think.

[Cam42]

I give credit when it is due.

And you didn't put it in there. If you had put it in there, I wouldn't have to insert it and expand the understanding.

I also have not seen you discuss that in any post in the recent past, on this thread or any other. If you have, please show me.

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 16 2005, 11:55 AM']I study under the daughter of the second worst traitor in history.

I'm glad he's only in jail for a long, long time.  I think that's most appropriate. 
[right][snapback]828231[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Hey! I know who you're talking about! LOL : Good thing there aren't family reprocussions.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='TheoGrad07' date='Dec 17 2005, 11:20 PM']Hey!  I know who you're talking about!  LOL  :  Good thing there aren't family reprocussions.
[right][snapback]829269[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, she's awesome, isn't she? :

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 10:20 PM']Yes, she's awesome, isn't she?  :
[right][snapback]829273[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Absolutely! Loved that class

I think we need to discuss guidelines for determining just punishement. To say, as in the case of traitors, the penalty must fit the crime, is all fine and good. But how does one determine whether it fits?

I believe someone must make the judgement call about what penalty a person gets ... but who/what is to guide that person's decision?

[qfnol31]

I would think that the state should decide that more than persons...though the Bible gives good insight.

[quote]To say, as in the case of traitors, the penalty must fit the crime, is all fine and good. But how does one determine whether it fits?[/quote]

I use the phrase so as not to have to define. :

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 10:27 PM']I would think that the state should decide that more than persons...though the Bible gives good insight. 
I use the phrase so as not to have to define.  :
[right][snapback]829283[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes, the state is the one who should judge the lives of its citizens in matters of crime against the good of other citizens.

That's the easy way out and totally not acceptable, Zach! If you use a phrase, you must be able to define so the people you're talking to can understand you! Maybe that's where all the problems come from ...

[jasJis]

Carolou,
It may be hard to accept that God gives the State the power to take human life, but God has. Since Adam and Eve, it's been a disordered and imperfect world. With God's grace we do the best we can but the State is not the Church and is not infallible. The application of the DP would be imperfect.

Cam,
It is you who places too much emphasis on excerpts of the CCCC. Take the Catechism as a whole. The Church can suggest and recommend, but it isn't the sole arbiter of who recieves the DP. It is the State (a secular organism) that determines the threat to society and evaluates it. The Church is not the embodiment of ALL knowledge, but the embodiment of moral teaching.
You may be displeased with the evaluation of the threat, but the Church is not the only judge of that aspect.

[Cam42]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Dec 18 2005, 09:00 AM']Carolou,
It may be hard to accept that God gives the State the power to take human life, but God has.  Since Adam and Eve, it's been a disordered and imperfect world.  With God's grace we do the best we can but the State is not the Church and is not infallible.  The application of the DP would be imperfect.

Cam,
It is you who places too much emphasis on excerpts of the CCCC.  Take the Catechism as a whole.  The Church can suggest and recommend, but it isn't the sole arbiter of who recieves the DP.  It is the State (a secular organism) that determines the threat to society and evaluates it.  The Church is not the embodiment of ALL knowledge, but the embodiment of moral teaching. 
You may be displeased with the evaluation of the threat, but the Church is not the only judge of that aspect.
[right][snapback]829693[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

While the Church is not the only judge, the Church will always give a morally just evaluation of whatever judgment is being discussed. For all you've said, you still have not shown how the judgment to execute is justified in today's society, in light of Catholic moral teaching.

And that is what the conversation is about. Based upon Roman Catholic moral teaching, which I can apply, because I am a Catholic American (not an American Catholic) the state is unjust in applying capital punishment in today's society, because non-lethal means exist to protect society. The instances in which there is an absolute necessity for capital punishment is rare if not practically non-existent.

[jasJis]

Get off it Cam. Stop saying 'rare if non existent'. You don't mean it, you just say that when you really mean 'never', especially with you standard of being a danger to 'more than 200, less then 1,000,000,000,000. I have shown the judgement to execute is justified, you just don't accept it with you unreasonable standard, which is the crux of you entire argument.

[Cam42]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Dec 18 2005, 09:35 AM']Get off it Cam.  Stop saying 'rare if non existent'.  You don't mean it, you just say that when you really mean 'never', especially with you standard of being a danger to 'more than 200, less then 1,000,000,000,000.  I have shown the judgement to execute is justified, you just don't accept it with you unreasonable standard, which is the crux of you entire argument.
[right][snapback]829700[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, actually, I mean rare, if practically non-existent. Sorry to disappoint you jasJis.

I have clarified this way too many times. Try a new tactic.

For the record. I accept the catechetical position. End of story.