The Self Contradicting 'catholic Church'

[thessalonian]

Your arrogance is telling. You only confirm what I said earlier.

I've studied Church history. Claims about errors in the Chruch and contradictions and not one of them has proven true. Now all of the sudden after 2000 years I am supposed to believe that you have found one. More likely the problem is your perspective. Your attitude is not one of submission. Further evidence. The gates of hell shall not prevail no matter how hard they might try and no matter how many johnny come lately detractors like you they send.

By the way, let it be known that I am not defending the Archbishops position, though I take it in to consideration. The desire for revenge in the execution is concerning. Abuse is not justified no matter who is being executed.

Edited January 11, 2007 by thessalonian

[Anomaly]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1161312' date='Jan 11 2007, 09:39 AM']
Your arrogance is telling. You only confirm what I said earlier.

I've studied Church history. Claims about errors in the Chruch and contradictions and not one of them has proven true. Now all of the sudden after 2000 years I am supposed to believe that you have found one. More likely the problem is your perspective. Your attitude is not one of submission. Further evidence. The gates of hell shall not prevail no matter how hard they might try and no matter how many johnny come lately detractors like you they send.
[/quote]What? The Church has never made a mistake? Moving priests was not a mistake? It's not all of a sudden. Read what the Church says about the Great Catechism. It admits the foibles of men of both sides caused it. But you claim the Roman Catholic Church acted perfectly in all aspects?

Did you even read the article? How do you rectify the President of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace stating “The death penalty is not a natural death,” Cardinal Martino said. “And no one can give death, not even the state.”

Attack my points with evidence, not me, if you can. If you can't, then say nothing.

[Jaime]

[quote] The 3rd point is a bonus. Has the 'catholic church' been historically consistent in it's stance that death penalty is only an option if life imprisonment is NOT a viable alternative. If so, please demonstrate that Society has not been able to keep people imprisoned 50 years ago, or 500 years ago, etc. (Point being, society has always been able to imprison people).
[/quote]

I'm with Thess on this one. Since your "conversion" you seem to just ignore valid points and continue to go with your victimized rant. Now all you do is whine. Not at all entertaining

For example the fact that mentioned about how correctional facility standards are exponentially greater then they where 50 years ago.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1161323' date='Jan 11 2007, 09:54 AM']
For example the fact that mentioned about how correctional facility standards are exponentially greater then they where 50 years ago.
[/quote]Sigh. I'll edit you for relevance.
If you use the improvement in prisons as an argument, you have to provide evidence that Iraq DOES have high quality prisons. You have to demonstrate that prisons 50, 100, or 500 years ago actually were unable to imprison people for life. You would also have to show that the Church has historically provided 'teachings' that choosing the Death Penalty is a secondary option subject to the State's ability to provide imprisonment.

After you accomplish that, we'll move on to the other points.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1161333' date='Jan 11 2007, 09:15 AM']
Sigh. I'll edit you for relevance.
If you use the improvement in prisons as an argument, you have to provide evidence that Iraq DOES have high quality prisons. You have to demonstrate that prisons 50, 100, or 500 years ago actually were unable to imprison people for life. You would also have to show that the Church has historically provided 'teachings' that choosing the Death Penalty is a secondary option subject to the State's ability to provide imprisonment.

After you accomplish that, we'll move on to the other points.
[/quote]


Really you need that demonstrated? I thought you built some jails son. Bush has dedicated $400 million to new jail construction in Iraq in rebuilding the infrastructure. These jails will meet with US standards (which by the way have been accepted in all asian and arab countries now. Asia was the last to get on board)

Oh and since they didn't have the technology 100 years ago to build jails like we do today, they were less likely to successfully inter dangerous criminals. That would fall under the "big duh" factor. The reasons these standards have been greatly enhanced is because jails weren't as effective at keeping people in.

So the Church has been consistent. Jails have improved. The death penalty is not as necessary as it was 100 years ago. And the Vatican is correct in its assessment that it can be abolished.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1161321' date='Jan 11 2007, 08:50 AM']
What? The Church has never made a mistake? Moving priests was not a mistake? It's not all of a sudden. Read what the Church says about the Great Catechism. It admits the foibles of men of both sides caused it. But you claim the Roman Catholic Church acted perfectly in all aspects?

Did you even read the article? How do you rectify the President of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace stating “The death penalty is not a natural death,” Cardinal Martino said. “And no one can give death, not even the state.”

Attack my points with evidence, not me, if you can. If you can't, then say nothing.
[/quote]


You seem to have difficulty grasping the difference between faith and morals, discipline, and errors. Above you claimed this was faith and morals and an error by the Church. I NEVER said the Catholic Church made no mistakes. I don't even say the Cardinal's words are inerrant. However I do understand how one can be agasint the death penealy in the modern age and still be in line with Church teaching. I am not against it.

Your last post complains because the cardinal said capital punishment is not a natural death. It's not. That's a simple fact. By natural it means, natural according to the original state of man in the garden. Neither is slavery natural to man but because of our fallen state, in some instances it has been allowed by the Church. More tolerated, because of the fallen state of man. The same is true with the Death Penalty. It is not natural or desirable. But sometimes neccessary. On face value I disagree with the cardinal's statement and believe it to be in error. I don't need to justify it. He's not infallible.

Blessings
+

Edited January 11, 2007 by thessalonian

[Anomaly]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1161359' date='Jan 11 2007, 11:06 AM']
You seem to have difficulty grasping the difference between faith and morals, discipline, and errors. Above you claimed this was faith and morals and an error by the Church. I NEVER said the Catholic Church made no mistakes. I don't even say the Cardinal's words are inerrant. However I do understand how one can be agasint the death penealy in the modern age and still be in line with Church teaching. I am not against it.

Your last post complains because the cardinal said capital punishment is not a natural death. It's not. That's a simple fact. Neither is slavery natural to man but because of our fallen state, in some instances it has been allowed by the Church. More tolerated, because of the fallen state of man. The same is true with the Death Penalty. It is not natural or desirable. But sometimes neccessary.
+
[/quote]
Great, we're making progress.
The problem with the Cardinal's statement is he said that the State CANNOT take a life.
The Cardinal is an official spokesman for the Vatican, speaking officially, within the parameters of his position. The Vatican spokesmen are saying the Church is & has been against the death penalty because the State has no right to take a life. They're very clear. So is the current Catechism.

Thank you for conceding the point that the Church is not inerrant in all things. I do not claim the Church is never infallible, but is infallible in only very limited circumstances.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1161357' date='Jan 11 2007, 11:04 AM']
Really you need that demonstrated? I thought you built some jails son. Bush has dedicated $400 million to new jail construction in Iraq in rebuilding the infrastructure. These jails will meet with US standards (which by the way have been accepted in all asian and arab countries now. Asia was the last to get on board)

Oh and since they didn't have the technology 100 years ago to build jails like we do today, they were less likely to successfully inter dangerous criminals. That would fall under the "big duh" factor. The reasons these standards have been greatly enhanced is because jails weren't as effective at keeping people in.

So the Church has been consistent. Jails have improved. The death penalty is not as necessary as it was 100 years ago. And the Vatican is correct in its assessment that it can be abolished.
[/quote]Can you provide any real historical evidence that compares the % of escaped convicted murderers? Or is that only in the book of ' big duh'?

How about any historical Church statements that subjugates the State's authority to mete the death penalty to it's ability to imprison people? What sort of emperical standard has the Church been using? The ability to successfully imprison 80%, 90%, 98%?

What about considering the higher standards in practicing law? Better forensic evidence, better lawyers and judges, higher standards to prove guilt?

[Jaime]

[quote] What about considering the higher standards in practicing law? Better forensic evidence, better lawyers and judges, higher standards to prove guilt?
[/quote]

before dancing to another subject, how about acknowledging that my point is valid?

[thessalonian]

Quite clearly you do not read things very carefully. I said at face value I did not agree with the Cardinals statement. But if he means by “take the life” an unjust taking of life and he sees things that happened in Sadaam’s execution such as it being out of revenge and hatred rather than the duty of the state to protect it’s people, then his statement may be agreeable to me. Currently I see it without it’s context and it may well be taken out of context. I asked you above if Sadaam was okay for exterminating the Kurds. You dismiss this argument as silly. If that was his biblically and doctrinally allowed right as head of state. I would sure hope you would not agree with that any more than the world should not have opposed Hitler for exterminating the Jews. The point is there are limits to the rigth of states to use the sword. I do not know on what grounds the cardinal is saying this is beyond those limits if that is what he said. In your mind the killing of Sadaam by the state was a just one. However taking the life of a head of state has it’s own theological pitfalls. I do not know that the Cardinal is not taking some of this in to consideration as well as the nature of the execution. I do not know that when he says “cannot take the life” he does not mean that phrase in a way consistent with the Catechism. If it is not then I disagree with it. I am not defending him. But sometimes we need to be very careful with accusations. I consider your accusation about the “nature” of the death penalty to be a misunderstanding on your part. The Cardinals statement may be a misunderstanding on both of our parts.

Edited January 11, 2007 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

These two statements indicate to me that the cardinal's views are not out of line.

[quote]In early November, Cardinal Martino told ANSA, the Italian news agency, that to carry out the death penalty against Saddam would be an act of “vengeance” and that the church teaches that societies have the means of protecting its citizens without restoring to execution.

"For me, to punish a crime with another crime, such as killing out of vengeance, means that we are still at the stage of 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,'" he said. [/quote]

He recognizes the right of the state to protect it's people just as the Catechism says.
He believes (right or wrong) that Sadaam could be adequetely incarcerated, providing that protection.
He believes that the capital punishment of Sadaam would be out of vengence, not out of the states obligation to protect it's people. Therefore he calls it unjust and a crime. Vengence is not a proper motive fore capital punishment. "Vengence is mine" says the Lord in Romans 12. While I may not agree with him on this, it helps to put it in context and I do not see him as a heretic as some would have it.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1161386' date='Jan 11 2007, 11:44 AM']
before dancing to another subject, how about acknowledging that my point is valid?
[/quote]Your point that the Church's "change" is solely based on the idea we have better prisons isn't valid, and I addressed that.
1- You haven't provided any evidence in what manner prisons are better. Better at preventing escape? Better at conditions to keep prisoners? Better at protecting the guards? Countries have been able to successfully imprison criminals for a very long time.

2- Provide evidence that the Church's position on the death penalty was qualified by the ability of the State to first choose to imprison for life. The Death Penalty is a moral choice based on just punishment for the crime of murder.

When and what part of the Church's stance on the Death Penalty is 'infallible' and un-changing?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1161440' date='Jan 11 2007, 12:55 PM']
These two statements indicate to me that the cardinal's views are not out of line.
He recognizes the right of the state to protect it's people just as the Catechism says.
He believes (right or wrong) that Sadaam could be adequetely incarcerated, providing that protection.
He believes that the capital punishment of Sadaam would be out of vengence, not out of the states obligation to protect it's people. Therefore he calls it unjust and a crime. Vengence is not a proper motive fore capital punishment. "Vengence is mine" says the Lord in Romans 12. While I may not agree with him on this, it helps to put it in context and I do not see him as a heretic as some would have it.
[/quote]
I think many would see the Cardinal as being heretical when he clearly says the State cannot take a life. Period. That's what the official spokesman for the Vatican said. This wasn't some aged priest in a remote parish having 'clown' Masses.

So in reality, the Cardinal is just voicing a human opinion based on his personal biases in his condemnation for the entire legal process in Iraq, his assumptions and then condemnation and dismissal of the motives of the judges, etc. He did not question the execution. He made the judgement the execution was solely vengance and was a crime. This was made within his authority and position as a representative of the Church.

Quite a conundrum to reconcile with the Church as being inerrant in all matters of faith and morals. What needs to be modified? The definition of the Church? The definition of inerrancy? The definition of 'all matters of faith and morals'? Something's amiss.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1161459' date='Jan 11 2007, 12:28 PM']
I think many would see the Cardinal as being heretical when he clearly says the State cannot take a life. Period. That's what the official spokesman for the Vatican said. This wasn't some aged priest in a remote parish having 'clown' Masses.

[/quote]

Once again you are not reading carefully and you put words in to the Cardinals mouth that he did not say. I even quoted you quoting him but can nowhere find the words "cannot take the life" associated with what the cardinal said. These words are not equivalent.

" the cardinal said that a government cannot compensate “one crime with another crime.” '

The Cardinal believes that Sadaam was executed out of vengence. That is not a proper motive for the state to execute someone. Quite clearly a state execution can be a crime or you wouldn't have been in favor of Sadaam being on trial in the first place. The Cardinal thinks this one is an unjust execution, the execution of Kurds was unjust, unjust executions are crimes, therefore this one is a crime according to the cardinal.


Then you mistate the Churches teaching on inerrancy. What is amiss it seems is you.

Edited January 11, 2007 by thessalonian

[Anomaly]

Breif and plain.

The Official Vatican Spokesman says:

“The death penalty is not a natural death,” Cardinal Martino said. “[u]And no one can give death, [b]not even the state[/b].” [/u]


The Catechism says:
2267 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.

Didn't the Cardinal, speaking for he Church, just exclude recourse to the death penalty?


Now that we've settled that. Please provide me some historical evidence that the Church has always said that the death penalty is contingent only upon defending human lives. Show me that that isn't an NEW thing.

[thessalonian]

Once again not all statements by all cardinals are infallible, no matter how high up they are in the Vatican. But it says "can give death". What does this mean? That is where context is needed. Further, to hold him cannonically accountable for something that might have been said off the cuff without giving him a chance to clarify his statement is ridiculous. You say the Church definitions have to change to accomodate this misstatement of the cardinal. Something is amiss you say. What is amiss is your understanding. I wish the cardinal had not spoken this, though once again I don't have context, only some phrases, the first of which is correct, the second questionable. Even if I showed you some statements, so what. Only statements by the councils and popes intended for the whole church on faith and morals in the capacity of their office are infallible. Further it seems you have no concept of developement of doctrine.

Edited January 11, 2007 by thessalonian