Executing Sadam

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1157820' date='Jan 6 2007, 10:51 PM']
This brings up an interesting question. Just evil and dangerous does a man have to be in order to deserve capital punishment?? ("Oh, he was only responsible for the genocide of thousands, not millions")

Hitler is really not so special and unique as liberals make him out to be. There have been and are many profoundly evil men, whose crimes truly deserve death.

There seems to be absolutely no sense of justice (the virtue of "giving each man his due") whatsoever in contempoprary liberalism. (Except "social justice" of course - "making those capitalist pigs pay!")
[/quote]

In today's society that question can be answered in this way.....

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others....The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. 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 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 nonexistent."
(cf. CCC #2265; 2267)

While the state must provide a legitimate defense, to safeguard the lives of society, the state also must limit itself to non-lethal means, precisely beause they are more in keeping with the common good and more in conformity of the dignity of the human person. Becuase today, since the state has possibility for effectively preventing crime by rendering the offender incapable of doing harm WITHOUT DEFINITELY taking away from him the means of redemption, the cases for execution of the offender as an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

So, Socrates, I am not a liberal, nor have I ever been. As a matter of fact, this is the only issue that I depart from the Republican platform. However, compassion and hope for redemption is never a trait that the Republicans will denounce.

So, before you start with the whole POLITICIZING of the issue....which by the way is departing from the previous tenor of this conversation, since until you through out the "L" word, was a MORALITY question.

I would love to see how you would answer my challenge......I notice that you attacked my person by using the "L" word rather than answer my challenge, from the points of fact that are presented in a moral manner.....

The challenge again: Show how anyone who has been executed in modern times has fulfilled the moral requirements of what the Church teaches today?

[mroger]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1157554' date='Jan 6 2007, 02:04 PM']
From the time that he was captured and incarcerated in 2004, he was not costing anyone, directly or indirectly, their lives. And since he was not doing that from 2004 to his execution, he could not continue to do so.

I disagree with your whole case that you made. Saddam was not nor could he be compared to the most dangerous man in modern times; Adolph Hitler.

How about concrete proofs using the catechetical model accepted in the Roman Catholic Church today.
[/quote]

#1 - That is absolutely not true. People lived out of fear of this man, even after this capture. As I said, which you seem to have dismissed. His very existence caused pain and grief and fear and death too. There were people plotting everyday for his release. You're right, I don't he would have ever escaped, but that is really not the point. There were still those poyal to Saddam until his death, and some even after death, who would kill for him, and have, and some who will continue to do so.

#2 - So, by this sliding scale that you argue so highly against. It seems that only Hitler would be deserving of death. Apparently, you have to begin a new Holocaust to be worthy of death. By your argument, whether you meant it or not, you said, in effect, that Hitler was deserving of death. Don't forget that you also noted that the CCC DOES, IN FACT, MAKE A CASE FOR DEATH, even though it is rare. That is YOUR argument, so the burden of proof will be upon you to prove - what "concrete proofs, using the catechetical model accepted in the Roman Catholic Church today" will merit a death sentence. You must first tell me what the parameters [limits] are. Then we can decide if Saddam did, indeed, merit a death sentence.

What you can't do is say there is a code, a code like the CCC, which establishes that there ARE grounds for death, and then not qualify what those grounds are and how they should be perceived and limited. To do so, you defeat yourself.

[Cam42]

[quote name='geistesswiesenschaften' post='1158276' date='Jan 7 2007, 05:35 PM']
#1 - That is absolutely not true. People lived out of fear of this man, even after this capture. As I said, which you seem to have dismissed. His very existence caused pain and grief and fear and death too. There were people plotting everyday for his release. You're right, I don't he would have ever escaped, but that is really not the point. There were still those poyal to Saddam until his death, and some even after death, who would kill for him, and have, and some who will continue to do so.

#2 - So, by this sliding scale that you argue so highly against. It seems that only Hitler would be deserving of death. Apparently, you have to begin a new Holocaust to be worthy of death. By your argument, whether you meant it or not, you said, in effect, that Hitler was deserving of death. Don't forget that you also noted that the CCC DOES, IN FACT, MAKE A CASE FOR DEATH, even though it is rare. That is YOUR argument, so the burden of proof will be upon you to prove - what "concrete proofs, using the catechetical model accepted in the Roman Catholic Church today" will merit a death sentence. You must first tell me what the parameters [limits] are. Then we can decide if Saddam did, indeed, merit a death sentence.

What you can't do is say there is a code, a code like the CCC, which establishes that there ARE grounds for death, and then not qualify what those grounds are and how they should be perceived and limited. To do so, you defeat yourself.
[/quote]

If we learned anything from warfare in the 20th century, we learned that those who carry out orders do so out of free will. This aspect you seem to dismiss pretty quickly. I have dismissed nothing, but rather I recognize the fact that it was not Saddam, but rather the leadership of insurgent Iraq after the capture of Saddam that is to be held accountable for the actions taken. Saddam was effectively "out of the loop" once he was captured.

There is no sliding scale. It is pretty clear cut. I don't think that the Holocaust was even enough to merit the death penalty. Again, this notion that a man is beyond redemption is foreign to me. I am quite aware that the Church allows for the death penalty, AS A TRADITIONAL TEACHING. However, it is also very clear that the absolute need for it in today's society is "rare if practically nonexistent." In other words, there is no need for it today, precisely because the offender can be rendered incapable of doing further harm. This action of incarceration allows for him to seek redemption and find forgiveness. Let's not forget that God will forgive even the most heinous of crimes, save one. And Saddam didn't commit that crime.

The burden of proof is not upon me. Nice try though. I have already put forth solid reasoning as to why Saddam SHOULD NOT have been executed. NOBODY, including yourself, has even addressed this issue, to an even elementary level. I would love to see it, however I doubt very seriously that anyone will be able to speak to it, because it is an issue that is, as I said earlier, clear cut.

I don't need to say there is some sort of "code." There is no need for one. There is what the Church teaches, IN RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIETY TODAY. The point of Tradition is to give us a basis to grow as a Church and as a moral people. Tradition is not something that is to tie is to the past and stifle any room to grow. That is the first step to two heresies, sola fide and sola scriptura.

When you can apply the current catechetical model to any capital issue, then you will see that there is no justification for the use of captial punishment in the world today. Does that mean that there is no situation will present itself in the future? Of course not, but we cannot predict the future any more than we can know the mind of God.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1158478' date='Jan 7 2007, 09:47 PM']
If we learned anything from warfare in the 20th century, we learned that those who carry out orders do so out of free will. This aspect you seem to dismiss pretty quickly. I have dismissed nothing, but rather I recognize the fact that it was not Saddam, but rather the leadership of insurgent Iraq after the capture of Saddam that is to be held accountable for the actions taken. Saddam was effectively "out of the loop" once he was captured.

There is no sliding scale. It is pretty clear cut. I don't think that the Holocaust was even enough to merit the death penalty. Again, this notion that a man is beyond redemption is foreign to me. I am quite aware that the Church allows for the death penalty, AS A TRADITIONAL TEACHING. However, it is also very clear that the absolute need for it in today's society is "rare if practically nonexistent." In other words, there is no need for it today, precisely because the offender can be rendered incapable of doing further harm. This action of incarceration allows for him to seek redemption and find forgiveness. Let's not forget that God will forgive even the most heinous of crimes, save one. And Saddam didn't commit that crime.

The burden of proof is not upon me. Nice try though. I have already put forth solid reasoning as to why Saddam SHOULD NOT have been executed. NOBODY, including yourself, has even addressed this issue, to an even elementary level. I would love to see it, however I doubt very seriously that anyone will be able to speak to it, because it is an issue that is, as I said earlier, clear cut.

I don't need to say there is some sort of "code." There is no need for one. There is what the Church teaches, IN RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIETY TODAY. The point of Tradition is to give us a basis to grow as a Church and as a moral people. Tradition is not something that is to tie is to the past and stifle any room to grow. That is the first step to two heresies, sola fide and sola scriptura.

When you can apply the current catechetical model to any capital issue, then you will see that there is no justification for the use of captial punishment in the world today. Does that mean that there is no situation will present itself in the future? Of course not, but we cannot predict the future any more than we can know the mind of God.
[/quote]
[quote]Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, [b]it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia[/b].[/quote]
~ Cardinal Ratzinger

There may be legitimate diversity of opionion regarding capital punishment, so it is wrong to treat those who say capital punishment may be allowed as heretics or disenters from Church teaching.

And one cannot dismiss all the Popes though the Church's history who supported capital punishment as heretics or ignoramuses.

And what happened to the concept of justice as part of punishment? Is the entire reason for punishment of criminals (by either death or incarceration) simply a matter of public safety? I do not buy that.

Some crimes are so heinous as to only be proprely paid for by death. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, a man who murders makes himself worse than a beast.

And what is more degrading to human dignity, to be lawfully executed, or to spend the rest of one's days living as a rat in a cage?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1158657' date='Jan 7 2007, 11:48 PM']
[quote]Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.[/quote]


~ Cardinal Ratzinger

There may be legitimate diversity of opionion regarding capital punishment, so it is wrong to treat those who say capital punishment may be allowed as heretics or disenters from Church teaching.

And one cannot dismiss all the Popes though the Church's history who supported capital punishment as heretics or ignoramuses.

And what happened to the concept of justice as part of punishment? Is the entire reason for punishment of criminals (by either death or incarceration) simply a matter of public safety? I do not buy that.

Some crimes are so heinous as to only be proprely paid for by death. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, a man who murders makes himself worse than a beast.

And what is more degrading to human dignity, to be lawfully executed, or to spend the rest of one's days living as a rat in a cage?
[/quote]

And yet again, as has been stated before ad nauseam, you are missing the point of what then-Cardinal Ratzinger was saying. Do we need to rehash this again? I don't think so. Since that is the basis for your post, it is moot, because you have missed the point, again.

I am not going to repost what has never been sufficently supported. If you'd like, go get it, but you are way off base. This is obvious, because the Holy Father's administration has denounced the killing of Saddam, yet you continue to use his statement out of context. Sad really.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1113249' date='Nov 6 2006, 09:39 PM']
Sadam deserves to die! And anyway, the death penalty is perfectly moral and acceptable as long as it is for a serious crime.

God have mercy on his soul.
[/quote]
My oh my, what a Christ minded attitude of you St. Thomas More. . .

Christ himself prevented an execution while he was on the Earth.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:3-11

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1158673' date='Jan 8 2007, 01:04 AM']
My oh my, what a Christ minded attitude of you St. Thomas More. . .

Christ himself prevented an execution while he was on the Earth.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:3-11
[/quote]



[b]Radio Replies Volume Two: Capital Punishment[/b]

[b]1231. You insist that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment?[/b]

The State possesses the right on the same principle as an individual who may kill an unjust aggressor, if there be no other efficacious way in which to preserve his own life. Those whose crimes gravely threaten the well-being of society may be put to death by social authority when lesser penalties prove inefficacious as a control upon them. God Himself sanctioned this law in Hebrew society, and it is entirely reasonable. If the extreme penalty could not be lawfully inflicted by the State upon enemies of the common good, much greater and more widespread evils would ensue.

[b]1232. Is not the executioner guilty of murder? He kills an individual per-son whom he knows by name, and intends to do so.
[/b]
He knows he is hanging an individual person, and the name of the person. But he is not guilty of murder. Firstly, he acts not as a private person, but as the agent of the State exercising lawful authority. Secondly, his intention is not one of per-sonal revenge but of doing a lawful act for the common good. His fulfillment of duty, far from being evil, could be quite meritorious. Motive makes morality.

[b]1233. I cannot admit your version of the commandment "Thou shalt kill," except by lawful authority.[/b]

The very Bible which gives you the commandment also records God's authori-zation of death as a penalty when inflicted by lawful authority.

[b]1234. Very often the voice of the government is not that of the people.[/b]

Even were that so, the question of capital punishment is not affected. The State right to inflict the penalty of death is an inherent right of society as such, in-dependently of those who are in actual authority. The government gets its mandate of ordinary temporal administration from the people. But the social right to self-protection does not come from the people. It is from God, and, therefore, is an inherent and natural right. The people can vote governments in and out of office, but this merely means that they decide who shall be the agents of social authority. The inherent rights of social authority remain unaffected.

[b]1235. A Nationalist Government applies the death penalty, whilst a Labor Government refuses to do so. It is a terrible thing that a man's life depends merely on a change of government.[/b]

You are viewing only one aspect of the case. The normal law of the land— and it is just a law—is that the penalty for a capital crime is death.

That is, a man's life normally depends upon his avoiding those crimes which are classified as capital, and it depends, therefore, upon himself. If a government applies the law and inflicts the penalty—that is normal procedure. If a government commutes the sentence of death, that is abnormal—and we may say that those whose sentences are commuted are fortunate; though they may not be—and may endure far more bodily and mental anguish over a long period than one who suffers the extreme penalty.

But whilst we may congratulate those whose sentences are commuted, we cannot regard one whose sentence is not commuted as having been deprived of any just right.

The accidental change of government is external to the question. A man does not commit a crime relying on an accidental retention of a favorable government in power. I suppose had I gone to Napier, in New Zealand, just prior to the accidental earthquake and been killed, my friend who did not go, could worry that an accident alone made such a difference between our fates. But if I knew that an accident was more than possible, and I deliberately courted the danger, he would rather speak of my folly.

[b]1236. Is it a crime to sympathize with the criminal going to his doom?[/b]

Not at all. Nor is anyone expected to be inhuman. But in this, as in many other cases, there are two sides to the question. It is quite possible to have great sympathy for an individual who encounters disaster, yet to experience a reasonable relief that other good ends have been attained; and that a sufficient sanction and deterrent has been upheld for the good of the community.

[b]Question Box: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT[/b]
Is not capital punishment murder? Why punish crime by committing another crime?

The Catholic Church has always taught that the State has the right to inflict death for grievous crime, and thereby to preserve public order and security. St. Thomas expressly states that "such killing is not murder" (Ha. Hae., Q. 100, art. 8, ad. 3). Pope Innocent III declared against the Waldensians that "the secular power could inflict the death penalty without grievous sin" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, No. 425). The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: "The magistrates who condemn to death ... are not only not guilty of murder, but eminently obey this law (i. e., the Fifth Commandment) which prohibits murder" (Part III., ch. 6, Q. 4).

The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for certain crimes (Gen. ix. 6; Exod. xxi. 12, 14, 23; Lev. xx. 2; xxiv. 17; Deut. xvii. 6; xix. 12). The New Testament takes it for granted tnat the State has the right to put criminals to death (John xix. 10, 11; Acts xxv. 11), because it is "God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil" (Rom. xiii. 4). While clearly asserting the right of capital punishment, the Church has never demanded its infliction as the only possible deterrent of crime, however heinous. That she leaves to the judgment of the individual citizens. Her Bishops have often called upon the State to be merciful to criminals, and her canon law inflicts irregularity upon all clerics who cooperate in the administration of the death penalty (Canon 984).

The one convincing argument for capital punishment is the State's right of self-defense. Just as the individual has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor, so the State has the right to defend itself against external (war) and internal enemies (capital punishment), who by their crimes undermine the very foundations of the social order. "The slaying of an evildoer is lawful," says St. Thomas, "inasmuch as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community" (Ha. Hae., Q. 64, art. 3).

Many to-day deny the right of capital punishment, because they deny the freedom of the will, and consider crime as a disease due to heredity or environment. They would segregate the criminal indeed as one segregates the man afflicted with smallpox in a pest-house, but they deem imprisonment ample punishment even for the most heinous murder.

Others will tell you that life imprisonment is more severe and more effective a punishment than the death penalty. We do not think this true with regard to the vast majority of criminals. There is no escaping death, which is the most striking of terrors, but "the lifer" can always look forward hopefully to a possible escape or a possible pardon. I was in St. Louis when the infamous murderer, Cole Younger, was welcomed home by thousands after having been freed from his "life" imprisonment in a Minnesota penitentiary! Logically, if one admits that the State has the right to inflict a severer punishment than death, one must likewise admit that it has the right to inflict death itself.

A few countries of Europe—Belgium, Holland, Italy, Portugal and Roumania, and some cantons of Switzerland—together with a few of our States—Rhode Island, Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa—have abolished capital punishment. Whether this policy has bettered conditions is an open question. It certainly in no way dispensed with the State's power to inflict the death penalty; it simply implied that certain countries temporarily suspended the exercise of their right. It is certainly more in harmony with the Gospel to limit the death penalty to certain grave crimes like murder, piracy or treason. Blackstone in his Commentaries rightly condemned the English laws of the eighteenth century which made one hundred and sixty offenses liable to capital punishment (Book VI., ch. 1).

[mroger]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1158478' date='Jan 7 2007, 08:47 PM']
If we learned anything from warfare in the 20th century, we learned that those who carry out orders do so out of free will. This aspect you seem to dismiss pretty quickly. I have dismissed nothing, but rather I recognize the fact that it was not Saddam, but rather the leadership of insurgent Iraq after the capture of Saddam that is to be held accountable for the actions taken. Saddam was effectively "out of the loop" once he was captured.

There is no sliding scale. It is pretty clear cut. I don't think that the Holocaust was even enough to merit the death penalty. Again, this notion that a man is beyond redemption is foreign to me. I am quite aware that the Church allows for the death penalty, AS A TRADITIONAL TEACHING. However, it is also very clear that the absolute need for it in today's society is "rare if practically nonexistent." In other words, there is no need for it today, precisely because the offender can be rendered incapable of doing further harm. This action of incarceration allows for him to seek redemption and find forgiveness. Let's not forget that God will forgive even the most heinous of crimes, save one. And Saddam didn't commit that crime.

The burden of proof is not upon me. Nice try though. I have already put forth solid reasoning as to why Saddam SHOULD NOT have been executed. NOBODY, including yourself, has even addressed this issue, to an even elementary level. I would love to see it, however I doubt very seriously that anyone will be able to speak to it, because it is an issue that is, as I said earlier, clear cut.

I don't need to say there is some sort of "code." There is no need for one. There is what the Church teaches, IN RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIETY TODAY. The point of Tradition is to give us a basis to grow as a Church and as a moral people. Tradition is not something that is to tie is to the past and stifle any room to grow. That is the first step to two heresies, sola fide and sola scriptura.

When you can apply the current catechetical model to any capital issue, then you will see that there is no justification for the use of captial punishment in the world today. Does that mean that there is no situation will present itself in the future? Of course not, but we cannot predict the future any more than we can know the mind of God.
[/quote]

I mis-spoke, then. It is not a burden of "proof". It is the burden of determining under what conditions, whether now or in the future, a death penalty is merited. You quoted the CCC saying that there is a condition in which it could be merited. How can I determine is Saddam met the condition, if you fail to provide the conditions to be met?

You also demonstrated that there are degrees of 'heinous' in crime. You alluded to that Hitler was worse than Saddam. I don't necessarily agree. Why should we say that 6 millions Jews killed is somehow worse than 1 million Kurds killed and 300,000+ Shiites? This, by the way, is not in contrast with my earlier comment that two lives are more valuable than one. This comment is not the same because of whom we are speaking. In the first case, we regarded the value of life. In this case, we are regarding the weight of the crime, not the same. One is victim oriented, the other is not.

In any case, it appears that you have confirmed moral equity. To wit: We should determine what, if any, is the limit when determing a life or death sentence, which, by having quoted the CCC, you have agreed should be used being that the limit has been met with accord.

One other thing - I think what then Cardinal Ratzinger said IS still valid. Your argument has not decisively urged the point toward moot.

Edited January 8, 2007 by geistesswiesenschaften

[rkwright]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1158665' date='Jan 7 2007, 11:56 PM']
And yet again, as has been stated before ad nauseam, you are missing the point of what then-Cardinal Ratzinger was saying. Do we need to rehash this again? I don't think so. Since that is the basis for your post, it is moot, because you have missed the point, again.

I am not going to repost what has never been sufficently supported. If you'd like, go get it, but you are way off base. This is obvious, because the Holy Father's administration has denounced the killing of Saddam, yet you continue to use his statement out of context. Sad really.
[/quote]

Cam would you mind explaining your reply to this? I realize you may have already answered this to Soc in a different thread at some point in time, but for some of us reading this thread I'm interested to know how one would explain that passage from Cardinal Ratzinger?

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='geistesswiesenschaften' post='1158276' date='Jan 7 2007, 05:35 PM']
#1 - That is absolutely not true. People lived out of fear of this man, even after this capture. As I said, which you seem to have dismissed. His very existence caused pain and grief and fear and death too. There were people plotting everyday for his release. You're right, I don't he would have ever escaped, but that is really not the point. There were still those poyal to Saddam until his death, and some even after death, who would kill for him, and have, and some who will continue to do so.

#2 - So, by this sliding scale that you argue so highly against. It seems that only Hitler would be deserving of death. Apparently, you have to begin a new Holocaust to be worthy of death. By your argument, whether you meant it or not, you said, in effect, that Hitler was deserving of death. Don't forget that you also noted that the CCC DOES, IN FACT, MAKE A CASE FOR DEATH, even though it is rare. That is YOUR argument, so the burden of proof will be upon you to prove - what "concrete proofs, using the catechetical model accepted in the Roman Catholic Church today" will merit a death sentence. You must first tell me what the parameters [limits] are. Then we can decide if Saddam did, indeed, merit a death sentence.

What you can't do is say there is a code, a code like the CCC, which establishes that there ARE grounds for death, and then not qualify what those grounds are and how they should be perceived and limited. To do so, you defeat yourself.
[/quote]

You don't get it. People may have still been 'loyal' to Saddam, but the different factions in Iraq are fighting for control over the country, for an Islamic state. They are NOT looking to put Saddam back on top. They continue to fight whether he is alive or dead. They may use him as a martyr, but they really have their own agendas. Always have.

[SJRod55]

Execution is never the answer. We must find other ways.

[qfnol31]

How certainly could we have kept Saddam contained without a threat to the lives of those who kept him incarcerated?

Simply put, how safe were they who kept him locked-up?

Edited January 11, 2007 by qfnol31

[Cam42]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1158777' date='Jan 8 2007, 01:53 AM']
Cam would you mind explaining your reply to this? I realize you may have already answered this to Soc in a different thread at some point in time, but for some of us reading this thread I'm interested to know how one would explain that passage from Cardinal Ratzinger?
[/quote]

Certainly, it really isn't all that hard to understand once you read the ENTIRETY of what what then-Cardinal Ratzinger had to say. The issue wasn't one of supporting the use of the death penalty in today's society. However, it has been misconstrued as being such.

[quote name='Socrates @ Dec 17 2005' date=' 07:44 PM']A legitimate diversity of opinion - that's a key phrase.
He says that diversity of opinion is legitimate on these issues (i.e. -that one is not morally bound to agree with aparticular Pope's opinion on the application of war and the death penalty.)
He is not simply saying that differing opinions on the application of the death penalty are less sinful or heretical, meriting less punishment.
If "diverse opinions" on this topic were in themselves wrong, he would never use the word "legitimate" to describe them.

Cam, while Card. Ratzinger said there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion on the death penalty, you declare otherwise, and seem to want to anathemize all those who disagree with you.

No Popes prior to John Paul II believed the death penalty to be almost always wrong, so this must be held as a matter of personal opinion, rather than dogmatic teaching.
If I am not Catholic or not "pro-life" for disagreeing, then I must join nearly every Pope and Catholic for nearly 2000 years of the Church in being such.[/quote]

I repsonded to that statement this way.....

[quote name='Cam42@Dec 17 2005' date=' 08:04 PM']And you totally misunderstand the point of the statement made by Pope Benedict. He was NOT speaking about the morality of the death penalty. He was speaking about the ability of one to receive Holy Communion. It is completely consistent with what I have been saying all along.

I agree that he is not saying that it is sinful or heretical to support the death penalty. Show me where I have said that. That is a misinterpretation and a misread of my position. This also speaks to Zach. Nowhere have I attacked the Catholicity of a person because they accept the death penalty. NOWHERE. However, you assume that I think that of you, I most certainly do not, nor do I to anyone who is Catholic and supports the death penalty.

However, you assume that I delcare one who does not agree with me to be such. That is flat out wrong and it goes to show that you have not read or paid attention to anything that I have written.

Again, I am going to ask you to show me where I have said that this is a dogmatic statement. Or that this is a matter of dogma. It is a matter of doctrine, but not dogma, again, you misrepresent my position.

Finally, you analysis is flat out wrong. It is not a matter of support for the death penalty, it is not even a matter of application of the death penalty. It is simply used as an example to show that capital punishment is not on the same level of morals as euthanasia or abortion. Something I have never denied nor have I ever expected to be discussed.

But to use this statement as a blanket acceptance of the application of the death penalty is taking it out of context. It is not. If you want to look to Pope Benedict's view on the application of the death penalty look to post #6. That is his view.[/quote]

Here is analysis on his statement:

[quote]Concerning the change in paragraph 2267 of the Catechism, which deals with the death penalty, one journalist asked if the revision reflected a shift in Church teaching on the death penalty since 1992. The cardinal {Ratzinger} said that the new text "does not categorically say that it [the legitimate imposition of the death penalty] is impossible, but it gives objective criteria which make it practically impossible for all of them to be met." He added: "This article follows what the encyclical Evangelium Vitae says in this regard."( Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger answered questions from journalists at the end of his presentation of the official Latin edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on September 9, 1997.)[/quote]

Here is the whole of the text that Socrates is misinterpreting:

[quote]Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was clear with Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, archbishop of Washington and the head of the "domestic policy" commission of the U.S. Catholic bishops´ conference. He was more than clear, he set it down in writing: no eucharistic communion for the politicians who systematically campaign for abortion.

Read: no communion for the Democratic candidate for the White House, the Catholic John F. Kerry.

Ratzinger´s memorandum is presented in its entirety below. It was sent as a confidential letter, during the first half of June, to cardinal McCarrick and to the president of the bishops´ conference, Wilton Gregory.

But the bishops of the United States made a different decision. After months of discussion, and after days of wrangling at their conference´s general assembly, held in Denver from June 14-19, they published a note entitled "Catholics in Political Life," which leaves to each individual bishop the decision of whether or not to give communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

The note was passed with 183 voted in favor and 6 against. During the previous weeks, out of 70 bishops who had expressed their opinion to the task force in charge of the matter, those against the idea of withholding communion had beaten those in favor by a margin of 3 to 1.

The question had been unleashed with Kerry´s nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate. Kerry is a professed Catholic and attends mass. But he is publicly aligned in favor of abortion, and in favor of other choices that go against Church doctrine. For this reason, some bishops stated that communion should be withheld from him. Particularly incendiary anti-Kerry comments came from the bishop of St. Louis, Raymond L. Burke, and of Colorado Springs, Michael J. Sheridan.

This provoked a highly spirited discussion, both within and outside of the Catholic Church. The bishops of the United States, who were coming to Rome in groups to meet with the pope for their periodical "ad limina" visits, came under pressure from the Vatican to be severe. But they also faced strong pressures - and justifications - from the other side.

The bishops´ judgments about Kerry were and are in harmony. It is no secret that he is a pronounced "secularist" on questions such as abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality, education, and the family. Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio, professors of political science at City University of New York, published in the May 2004 edition of "First Things" a ranking of senators according to their degree of "secularism," on a scale from 0 to 10. The Republican average is .95. The Democrat average is 8.9. Senator Kerry scored a round 10.

But what divides the bishops is what response they should give to "public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion," as Ratzinger writes. The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is wholly in favor of refusing the eucharist to Kerry and other politicians like him. Most of the American bishops are not.

Even many of the bishops and cardinals of "neoconservative" tendency are reluctant to censure publicly the Catholic politicians who are at odds with the Church.

One of these is the cardinal and theologian Avery Dulles. In June 29 interview with "Zenit", he maintained that by denying them communion the Church exposes itself to the accusation of wanting to interfere in political life.

Another of these is cardinal Francis E. George, archbishop of Chicago. In an interview with John L. Allen of the "National Catholic Reporter," he said that the limits that should be placed upon abortion within the realm of politics are "matters of prudential judgment about which there can be many discussions" even within the Church.

Cardinal McCarrick, speaking to the bishops gathered in Denver, made himself the spokesman of the concern "that the sacred nature of the Eucharist might be turned into a partisan political battleground." The real battles, he said, "should be fought not at the Communion rail, but in the public square, in hearts and minds, in our pulpits and public advocacy, in our consciences and communities."

McCarrick also told the assembly that he had had from the Holy See professions of their trust in the responsibility of the American bishops: thus they may judge whether the refusal of communion is a "pastorally wise and prudent" decision. But there is no trace of any such professions in Ratzinger´s memorandum.

In reading the two notes in parallel - the note of the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and that of the bishops - the impression is one of a clear divergence.

But it must be noted that the rigorism of Ratzinger and the Holy See have for years lived side by side, in Italy and the rest of Europe, with a more flexible praxis, even at the highest levels of the Church.

On January 6, 2001, at the concluding mass of the Jubilee, John Paul II personally gave communion to Francesco Rutelli, a practicing Catholic and a premier center-left candidate for this year´s planned elections in Italy.

Rutelli had been, as a member of the Radical Party, one of the most active supporters of Italy´s abortion law, which is among the most permissive in the world. And he continued, as a Catholic, to maintain publicly "pro-choice" positions.

In Italy during the 1970´s, other left-wing politicians even more closely connected than Rutelli with the Catholic sector, such as Piero Pratesi and Raniero La Valle, had given strong support to the introduction of the abortion law. But they were never denied communion. It was never even discussed.

Europe is full of analogous cases. On the Old Continent during the last few decades, the Catholic Church has never faced, much less created, an affair like that of Kerry, which is typically American. What made the news in Europe, on account of its singular nonconformity, was a contrary case: the gesture of the strongly Catholic King Baldwin of Belgium, who temporarily abdicated as king to avoid signing the abortion law. His gesture was completely spontaneous: no one in the Church´s hierarchy had asked him to do it.

Here, then, is Ratzinger´s previously unpublished memorandum, which he wrote in English expressly for the bishops´ conference of the United States:


Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

by Joseph Ratzinger


1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one´s worthiness to do so, according to the Church´s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ´take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it´" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God´s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. [b]For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.[/b] While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it [u]may[/u] still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There [u]may[/u] be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individuals´s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person´s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church´s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2000], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person´s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person´s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate´s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate´s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]


This particular statement, which I bolded, speaks to allowing them to Holy Communion, but speaks nothing to the prudence of supporting or not supporting the Catechetical position. It was after their "ad limina" visits in May and June, several bishops reported having conversations with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the vexing problem of dissenting Catholic politicians. Some claimed that the CDF cautioned bishops against "politicizing" Communion with "sanctions" and "penalties". Hence the statement sent to Cardinal McCarrick from then-Card. Ratzinger. The reason: The Church doesn't define a sacramental action through negative means. The Church says very clearly (and this is the answer to #3) in Can. 912:

[quote]Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.[/quote][/quote]

Then-Card. Ratzinger stated that there [b]MAY[/b] be a legitimate diversity of opinion. Notice that he didn't say that there [b]IS[/b] a legitimate diversity of opinon. And he also said that it is an issue of morality, it just does not hold the same weight as abortion or euthanasia, to which I completely agree.

[u]Even then-Cardinal Ratzinger has said that in modern society it would be "practically impossible" to fulfill the Catechism's criteria for a death sentence.[/u]

So, as you read what was put forth, you will see that this is not a document extolling the virtue of exectuing someone, but rather it is a document stating who is worthy and not worthy to receive Holy Communion.

In other words someone has missed the point, and it isn't me.

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1161207' date='Jan 10 2007, 11:42 PM']
How certainly could we have kept Saddam contained without a threat to the lives of those who kept him incarcerated?

Simply put, how safe were they who kept him locked-up?
[/quote]

He most certainly could have been contained. That is easily provable. Statistics don't support what you are implying.

And those who kept him locked up were in no more danger than anyone else. If they had been, then they would have been harmed long before the exection.

[qfnol31]

You're talking about a short-term incarceration. I'm talking about trying to contain him for years or decades.

How much more difficult is it to keep his location secret for years than for months?

Also, why did they execute him so swiftly? Our inmates here rest on death row for years, even once they've been convicted and have no chance for an appeal.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1162609' date='Jan 12 2007, 12:54 PM']
You're talking about a short-term incarceration. I'm talking about trying to contain him for years or decades.

How much more difficult is it to keep his location secret for years than for months?

Also, why did they execute him so swiftly? Our inmates here rest on death row for years, even once they've been convicted and have no chance for an appeal.
[/quote]


He could have been kept, BASED UPON STATISTICS, as safe as any other major criminal.

Why? You ask why? I have no idea why. The state ordered him executed within 30 days. I would posit that is the reason why. That question doesn't even really matter to the conversation though; other than to fuel speculation that there was a need for some sort of cover up.