I'm not trying to be needlessly offensive, (Evidently I can do that without trying.) But if there is EVER a legitimate use of the death penalty (and I concede that that's a tough one) I think this would be an instance.
Posted on 12/28/2006 7:03:50 AM PST by TaxachusettsMan
ROME (Reuters) - A senior Catholic cleric has said he hopes former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein will be spared execution, citing the Church's opposition to the death penalty.
Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Justice and Peace department, was quoted in Italy's Repubblica newspaper on Thursday saying there was a chance for last-minute clemency for Saddam after an appeals court upheld his death sentence.
"There's still a period of 30 days (before the death sentence must be carried out), the president's signature is required, things can happen," Martino was reported as saying.
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi has also condemned the decision to impose the death penalty.
Martino criticized the U.S. authorities at the time of Saddam's capture in December 2003 for releasing TV pictures of soldiers checking his teeth "as if he were a cow", images that he said needlessly humiliated the man.
The former papal envoy to the United Nations said there was "no doubt" that Saddam was responsible for mass murders, but that did not change the Church's opposition to capital punishment.
"You can't think of compensating for one crime with another one," he said. Saddam was sentenced in November for crimes against humanity and the death penalty was upheld on Tuesday.
Martino said he backed the idea of holding a peace conference aimed at solving all the major conflicts in the Middle East and reiterated the Vatican's position that invasion of Iraq by U.S.-led coalition was wrong.
"(Pope) John Paul II did his duty. He said it would be an adventure from which there was no return. Now that is what we are seeing."
Forget all the whining and bellyaching about getting rid of the Pope's liturgists . . .
WHEN IS POPE BENEDICT GOING TO SEND THIS ANTI-AMERICAN NITWIT INTO PERMANENT RETIREMENT.
Paging Archbishop Milingo: we think we've found you a worthy assistant!
The execution of Saddam is now nothing more than a footnote to the anarchic morass which is present day Iraq. The secular dictator is altogether irrelevant to the Islamic militants who now wage war against the US and their fellow Iraqi citizens, including Iraq's dwindling Christian minority.
The Church's opposition to the death penalty was not invented by Cardinal Martino. It's written in black and white in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The church should never be for killing someone, even if the legal system feels its justified.
Frankly personally I'm all for letting him hang, but I'd be very disconcerted if my church concured.
I'm not trying to be needlessly offensive, (Evidently I can do that without trying.) But if there is EVER a legitimate use of the death penalty (and I concede that that's a tough one) I think this would be an instance.
What part of Justice does he not understand? Another reason-impaired Lib who happens to be a Vatican Cleric. . .and one that needs to go, not sooner. . .but now.
Perhaps he would like to join Cindy Sheehan's road show. . .
You need to re-read the Catechism---it says no such thing. The Catechism says, as it always has, that the death penalty is acceptable "if necessary to protect society".
The last couple of popes have weasel-worded it as follows--"in modern societies, the death penalty should be applied rarely, if at all, because other means to protect society are sufficient".
I see no evidence that the latter statement is true. No current society has taken the steps necessary to protect all of society from depraved individuals (life imprisonment IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT without benefit of parole). Current prisons do NOT protect the prison guards and other inmates.
And no Middle Eastern country qualifies as a modern society.
Saddam should be executed ASAP.
Right. That's exactly what the Catechism says. No need for qualifiers or spin from you. It says what it says.
It's a grave mistake to dismiss those parts of the Catechism with which you disagree as "weasel-words". Parsing and equivocating with regard to this document is sheer foolishness.
Saddam will be executed of course, don't worry.
And it will make zero difference to the current carnage in Iraq.
They ARE weasel-words. Nothing foolish about it. Modern society does NOT have an effective method of preventing sociopaths from doing harm again. They "could" have, but they don't. There are at least two possibilities--permanent incarceration in solitary confinement, or surgically severing the spine so the sociopath has no use of arms or legs. In both cases, the individual can still repent and save his soul.
"Rarely" is not "never".
But the Church doesn't oppose the death penalty. She has always taught that it is within the state's right to take life to protect society, the Catechism taught that this taking of life should be done as a last resort, when there is not other way to protect society. Nowhere is there anything that would indicate in any way that the Church opposes the death penalty.
I think Saddam is a very clear example of where there will be no way to protect society from him if he stays alive. He still has many active loyalists and he creates a figure that the terrorists can allege they want released. He is just one more excuse for violence at this time.
The Church, we might remember during heresy trials etc., frequently handed people over "to the secular arm to be burned"...she could not have done that if the death penalty were immoral.
FWIW, I think Saddam should be executed...humanely of course.
Would you concur also with Martino's (and Sodano's before him) sponsorhip of Fr. Jean-Marie Benjamin: the former UNICEF official who was ordained a priest in record time, became a constant fixture of the Secretariat of State's on-the-road-show, produced anti-Bush "rap" CDs sold all over Europe, and who was - last we heard - holed-up in Assisi running a "peace institute" whose principal function was to provide a legal defense for Saddam's right-hand man, Tariq Azziz? We'll leave aside that nasty little matter of the Duelfer Report which has dear little Fr. Benjamin receiving vouchers for MILLIONS of barrels of oil!
Was it wise for Martino (and Sodano) to arrange for Tariq Azziz to visit John Paul II before the invasion (some of us prefer "liberation") of Iraq in the company of Melkite-rite Archbishop Hilarion Cappucci, who was arrested in the 70s for using his personal vehicle in the service of gun-running for the PLO and who was released from Israeli prison on the word of Paul VI that he would spend the rest of his life in a monastic retreat somewhere in South America?
It's all very well to appeal to the Catechism (and, remember, there were PREVIOUS catechisms and a whole body of moral theology that had quite a different take on capital punishiment than the one proposed by the EUROPEAN authors of THIS latest Catechism) - but the anti-USA rhetoric of folks like Martino, Tauran and Hmao (interesting nationality-mix there, don't you think?) was nothing less than despicable at the time of Saddam's overthrow. The first of those three stooges apparently forgot which side his country was on when WW II began and who had to bail them out; the second - well, really, what would you expect; and the last: lovely to issue anti-USA statements on the anniversary of Hiroshima when you apparently don't remember that your own country gave the world Pearl Harbor.
Finally, when the young Joseph Ratzinger - courageously and in peril of his life doing the right thing - deserted the Nazi military, he made sure he got to a POW facility run by Americans. Perhaps this is one of the reasons he spoke so beautifully about the United States to our new Ambassador: "Your nation's generosity to those in need is known to the peoples of every continent on earth."
Martino for Vatican librarian . . . or let him work under Marini as candle-changer at St. Peter's.
My primary point of reference is the lives of those who follow Jesus Christ. The Christians. How many of them feel "liberated", I wonder? Most have fled the country and those that remain are congregating in small enclaves for protection. If the US were to depart it's likely that many would be transformed into martyrs.
On this feast of the Holy Innocents, America has some "liberation" which needs attending to closer to home, in the form of millions of slaughtered unborn. Bringing elections and ballot boxes to Iraq is a non-starter, in terms of the issues which this nation needs to address.
If memory serves, that was a common turn-of-phrase directed at JPII when he warned us of the Iraq misadventure. Right now, his words appear prophetic. Let me know when you (or anyone who's currently trumpeting Iraqi liberation) are planning a move to or even a vacation in Baghdad.
Saddam is yesterday's news. Irrelevant. Totally and utterly. He is a total non-factor in the jihad against America and the wider Islamic resurgence.
In fact, I'll go even further. His execution will aggravate the present Iraqi anarchy.
The death penalty is, in some cases, necessary. The campaign by some (not all) of the Church hierarchy to eliminate it goes against 2000 years of the Church's teachings, and the clear statement in the catechism.
Last I heard, neither JPII or B??? were experts in criminology, and, since the topic of civil application of the death penalty is not a "matter of faith or morals", their opinions on the subject are no better than yours and mine.
Oh, and no, I don't think Saddam's execution will aggravate anything.
The sooner the better...
He isn't. He's a washed-up old man who would be swallowed up by present day Iraq were he to be released. The mullahs and Islamic radicals now call the shots. Hussein's power structure is in ruins. We saw to that. The danger is radical Islam. Saddam's execution will not alter this one iota and I'm citing the present situation in Iraq as evidence of this, not "changing the subject."
Your Catechism spin is tortured. It's no better than your tortured reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium to mean that Latin is to be eliminated, when it says precisely the opposite. And quit putting words in my mouth. The truth is that the Catechism makes provision for use of the death penalty as a last resort when no other alternatives are available. Got it? Call them "weasel words". Call them whatever you want. But that's what it says.
Last I heard, neither JPII or B??? were experts in criminology, and, since the topic of civil application of the death penalty is not a "matter of faith or morals", their opinions on the subject are no better than yours and mine.
The application of the death penalty is not a matter of "faith or morals"? Really? If matters of life and death have nothing to do with faith or morals, then nothing does. If you think the present and former Pope's opinion on this subject are no better than yours then you're mistaken. A constant characteristic of saints and holy men and women is that they see with the eyes of God. All of human affairs is within their jurisdiction, especially human conflict and matters of life and death. Those inspired by the Holy Spirit invariably have insights into matters into which they have no secular training. The lives of the saints speak to this very clearly.
Anyway, I'm done here. Have the last word and enjoy the execution. We'll all be so much safer when he's gone.
Would seem if the pope disagreed, the 'nitwit' would be gone...
Never made any such argument. Saddam is a danger to IRAQIS, and should be executed for that reason.
"It's no better than your tortured reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium to mean that Latin is to be eliminated, when it says precisely the opposite.
Again-I never made any such argument. What I actually said was that saying the Mass in the vernacular has advantages in faith and understanding, which is what Vatican II said.
Neither Scripture nor Tradition support the idea that the Mass should be said in any one supposedly "sacred language".
"And quit putting words in my mouth. The truth is that the Catechism makes provision for use of the death penalty as a last resort when no other alternatives are available. Got it? "
So, what are those "alternatives", genius boy?? Right now, none exist, as I pointed out previously.
"The application of the death penalty is not a matter of "faith or morals"? Really? If matters of life and death have nothing to do with faith or morals, then nothing does.
Faith and morals apply to individuals--not to the actions of society taken according to law, which is what this is all about.
"{If you think the present and former Pope's opinion on this subject are no better than yours then you're mistaken. A constant characteristic of saints and holy men and women is that they see with the eyes of God.
In certain narrow areas at certain times, yes. But no saints nor any popes are infallible in all of their statments and opinions, which is what you are implying.
"All of human affairs is within their jurisdiction, especially human conflict and matters of life and death. Those inspired by the Holy Spirit invariably have insights into matters into which they have no secular training. The lives of the saints speak to this very clearly."
"Invariably" covers a lot of ground. At root, you're saying that all of their judgements are infallible. The Church teaches differently.
It's hard for me to believe that anyone as smart as Pope Benedict XVI would have much use for an interior decorator (which is what Martino spent his time at the Holy See's UN Mission doing), a CD-rapper-priest with oil-for-food vouchers' toady of Saddam and a gun-running archbishop in his entourage (which is what Father Benjamin is), and an assorted gang of anti-USA ideologues (which are what Tauran and Hmao are/were) . . .
hard for ME to believe, as one who loves and is proud of our Pope, but you go to it if that works for you.
Martino, Tauran, Hmao, Benjamin, Cappucci, geeeesh!
Let's put Pope Benedict over the top!
http://www.islamonline.net/polls/english/24-12-06/Survey.asp
Pass it on.
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. If, 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.
(whisper) stop.....please stop....oh please don't do that.....please?....oh you already did so? Darn, guess you didn't hear me. (grins)
Why do I believe Papa Benedict isn't going to lose much sleep after Saddam dances at the end of his rope?
"Please tell him Ve vant to send a message to an old 'friend' of mine. Give Herr Hitler mein WARMEST regards, Herr Sad-damn!"
The Church would have been opposed to the execution of the other tyrant Hitler?
Also bear in mind that two teenage highwaymen were hanged (for mere armed robbery of a coach and no more) from the rafters until dead at the coronation banquet of Pope Sixtus V, one of the most remarkable (in a positive sense) of all the popes, that Catholic doctrine is not a trend of the week matter and that we may be allowed to make history but that we are not allowed to REmake history. What is right and what is wrong is not dictated by the calendar.
It just may be that John Paul the Great of happy memory had seen more than enough slaughter in his lifetime in mid-century Central and Eastern Europe and was nudging policy. We can always count on the ever anti-American Cardinal Martino to chime in against the interests of the USA and of Western Civilization. This story is being spun by him and b those elements of the press/media who are attributing Martino's words as though they were Benedict XVI's words.
The purposes of executing Saddam Hussein include justice, retribution, prevention of further crimes by Saddam and discouragement of would-be Saddams.
With all due respect, I do not believe that there are any liberals (as we understand them) present at the Vatican. And I certainly do not think Cindy Sheehan can be compared to any Vatican Cleric. Cindy has willfully become a peice of guttershit and opposes all things done by America. Cardinal Martino is a servant to Jesus Christ's emmissary on earth and therefore cannot and should not be jubilant about the death penalty. Christ spoke against it, the Pope and all who serve him must speak against it. It's that simple.
The fact that the Vatican stated their opposition to the execution of Saddam Hussein is actually comforting to me. (Hear me out) In my opinion it reaffirms the fact that they are truly Jesus Christ's representation here on Earth.
I think every Christian and Catholic (like myself) can agree that there is nobody, no matter how evil, that Jesus would have enthusiastically wanted to personally kill. Not even Hitler or bin Laden. HOWEVER, no man on this earth is Jesus because we are all sinners. Therefore, we understand that faith in Christ is necessary in order to still enter Paradise when we die. With that said, as mortal men WE ARE NOT EXPECTED to be perfect or Christ-like in any way. The Vatican, including the blessed Pope, certainly does not expect us to forgive Saddam and set him free. YET, as Christ's emmissary, they still have to remind us that the death penalty is not what He would gleefully choose (or in this case, just "tragic").
As somebody already pointed out, to applaud the hanging would have been to go against their holy doctrine. And remember: they also didn't condemn us at all or demand that the he be released either!
Please do not use potty language - or references to potty language - on the Religion Forum.
Just got carried away. My apologies!
As while I suggested the Cardinal might do well on Cindy's road show; I really was not comparing the two; save in what appears to me as a non-sensical; and really non-spiritual - bend of reason. A pre-disposition of Libs; in any event. . .
I also, do not remember what my Baltimore Catechism said about 'capital punishment'. But do know that there is no pre-requisite for the feeling of 'glee' or any emotion, remotely similar that accompanies this dictum/punishment. Should they appear, hand-in-hand; it is only by choice of the observer. And it does not change the Justice of the act itself.
(i.e.. . .while the act' itself can be a 'Just act'. . .should one feel glee . . .or any inappropriate response to death; perhaps; a 'error of sin' might occur here; as it diminishes - and so takes out of balance - so to speak the person who experiences such).
AS well, there is no 'embedded gleeful component' in the agreement that Justice was done by implementing CP. . .so if one approves of Saddam's Justice; it does not by any requirement, demand glee' or by necessity, bring glee into that person's heart.
(Stuck on the 'glee' aspect as you reference that as seemingly part of your equasion as it stands against CP. . .or at least by 'our' imperfect vs the Pope's,more perfect. .. if not, perfect rationale)
Meantime, not glee; but relief, for sure. . .appreciation. . .for not having to live with the threats he posed while alive and the dread of possibilities extended by his presence carried, while he still had breath. And more relief and appreciation for the bravery; the courage it took for all those 'athoritively' involved to carry out this task; and a final determination that most importantly can only give some meaning to the lives lost; and to those who survived.
. . .and it brings closure to those still suffering; that a still-breathing Saddam, cannot. Nothing less than Saddam's life Is fair and Just; and only because he cannot give more; at least 'here'; and another reason for 'post haste' sending him on to an even higher, more meaningful Judgment. It is the best case scenario for a retribution.
(We have only to remember, as well. . .that in reality; there is no 'death'. . .we do not assume the extinction of Saddam; we only move him; and by our best 'Authority' in 'lighter form' to another disposition of Judgment.)
And yes, we are all diminished by inappropriate responses to death. . .'gleefully' killing a fly is a personal diminishment; but often a necessary task; but even that, should be done with appropriate mindful demeanor; so to speak.
We know 'kosher'. . .somewhat and perhaps. . .We know that in truth, a 'kill' is a 'sacred' act; and why it is thus 'authorized'. ..licensed. . .etc. by a higher and appropriately moral authority. . .and we know what the BC says about 'authority'; it comes from God. . .and so we honor the transmission and those that hold the power; for whatever level they provide. (If I did what a 'butcher' did; or the 'meatpacker'. . .or whatever. . .it would be criminal; and should be. . .) This assignment of authority, keeps gives order to our world.
Also, what Good in the world can be accomplished without our 'doing it'. . .performing the acts of good; that make for a better world. Good IS. ..and God needs hands to make it happen, most often anyway. . .in our world. As in our response to Evil . . .God needs hands as well.
Believe in the 'hair-splitting' differences of the interpretation of the sixth commandment. . .that kill; actually reads closer to 'murder'. . .(how far a separation between heaven and hell?) Perhaps even this word for murder, a word that first implies 'unlawful' taking of life; as in without 'moral Authority' has a meaning that implies a life taken perhaps wantonly -- without 'reason' - (could stretch this to even 'gleeful' maybe; per the occasion). . .a huge difference to me; between the two. . .the 'moral authoritative' acting on behalf of a society and for the 'greater good' vs the 'self-directed'; self-inflicted sin of murder. (various degrees, notwithstanding, of course.)
We are commanded to 'love our neighbor 'as ourselves'. . .(not more; not less; but 'as'. . .) We are advised to 'do unto others' as we would have them do unto us'; again, the balance. . .We are asked not to do more OR less. . .but as we would do for ourselves. The crucifixion. . .atonement. . .bringing the world into the balance of an 'at one' moment. . .
So much wisdom here; but the balance means something; as do our 'scales of Justice' give meaning by their representing an 'Ideal'. . .just as 'heaven and hell' offer meaning in the next life. . .without at least the attempts for balance; or even the promise. . .there is no Justice. . .no rise to 'fairness'. . . 'reasonableness'. . .and therefore no 'meaning'.
Saddam's removal should not give glee; but it surely gives meaning to 'life as we know it'. . .When the 'crime' is against 'humanity'. . .there is no way to balance that scale; save by 'authoritive' ordering', the perp; to give up his life; and move to the next level of Justice. Because whether here or 'there'. . .a Justice delayed. . .is a Justice, denied.
And with that, we can choose whether we want to wish Saddam God Speed or not. (Perhaps it is alluded to in the final Court order (?))
That said and all, IMHO, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.