Is the Death Penalty Morally Equal to Abortion? Bishops Preach Politics Rather than Gospel Truth

CCI NEWS SERVICE ^ | 12/16/2003 | Dr. Brian Kopp

[HenryLeeII]

The Bible says man kind is born into sin. Aborted infants are not yet born into sin, therefore without sin, or sin free. The criminals are not only born into sin, but chose through their own free will to commit the worst of sin.

How come we lay-people understand this instinctively, but church officials have to debate and discuss the issue as though each side is morally- and logically-equivalent?

[ninenot]

Technically....

ALL children are "born into sin," which is Original Sin. This is not removed until Baptism.

What you are referring to is "Actual Sin," ---a conscious act which is sinful (with knowledge aforethought, etc.)

Hope that helps.

[madprof98]

Every Catholic on this thread except you, unrelated, with no prior plan, be they liberal, moderate, or conservative, understands and agrees with the author of this thread.

Oh, yeah, all the LIBERALS here at Free Republic are just falling over themselves to get on the execution bandwagon! Get real! The thread is really a response to a piece written to explain away a Church teaching that political conservatives generally find distasteful. Not surprisingly, most of the responses found the original piece refreshing--because it is so different from what the Church actually does teach. To see what that is, try the Priests for Life website.

As for all the liberal, moderate and conservative supporters of execution here, the words of Archbishop Chaput are very clearly directed at you:

Second, if we say we're Catholic, we need to act like it. When Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly disputes Church teaching on the death penalty, the message he sends is not so very different from Frances Kissling (of "Catholics for a Free Choice" fame) disputing what the Church teaches about abortion. I don't mean that abortion and the death penalty are equivalent issues. They're not. They clearly do not have equal moral gravity. But the impulse to pick and choose what we accept in Church teaching is exactly the same kind of "cafeteria Catholicism" in both cases.

BTW, I retired from teaching in order to care for our adopted daughter, who is just five. But I regularly make presentations to Catholic church groups, and I'm scheduled to do one in a few weeks on Cafeteria Catholics, Left and Right. I'll be sure to cite the arguments I heard here as examples.

[FormerLib]

Hmmmm...interesting choice of words...

Acutally, that can happen when you are talking on the phone while typing in a message.

What I meant to say was the article was a good piece of work.

[LibertarianInExile]

NWU, thank you for responding cogently and fairly. I am certainly not saying that there was any proclamation of infallibility about JPII's death penalty comments.

I merely disagree that the Pope's authority or that of the bishops acting in mass is limited by the past--Vatican II revised YEARS of church teaching and it didn't matter that Latin was spoken in Mass and Catholics couldn't eat meat on Fridays for years, and it was all gone. GONE. You may or may not be happy about that, but for the Roman Catholic church, it was DONE. No lay protest could have changed it. Only the Pope or bishops acting in concert could change it back, and if they disagreed, there'd be schism.

If the Pope or Magisterium wanted to declare ANYTHING was now church policy (yes, Meg, even if it was something that could be debatably in contradiction of Jesus' words), certainly, there would be schism or a substantial decline in church membership if it was too radical, but I have no doubt that he or they could do so, and not one of you have said a darn thing to show otherwise. You all seem to think precedent binds one who rules absolutely. It certainly plays a role in people's acceptance of those rules, but if he wants it, he can have it.

I'm sorry, not one of you has had a comment on what I posted, other than to call names or just deny it can happen. Whether you disagree or not, you should be able to point to where church doctrine STATES the Pope or bishops are so bound. I'm not saying I want it to be the truth, I'm not saying it's a bad thing it is the truth, I'm not saying the Catholic Church is awful or great because it's the truth. It just IS the truth.

And I'm not discussing my religion, all the 'you don't know jack about the RC church' and 'you're no RC' baiting notwithstanding. I'm not here to bash Catholics or pat Catholics on the backs. I actually have a pretty good record on here smacking down anti-Catholic comments simply because it's wrong to unfairly bash any religion.

I'm sad some of you automatically assume that anything that is said about the Catholic faith must be against it. I'm stating what is the truth--if you don't like it, show me false. Don't childishly call me a "Papolator," whatever that is. Show me I'm wrong about what Catholicism is and means by telling me exactly where the Church says other than what I've said here.

I know what I've said here is exactly what the Church says, and if you don't believe in the Pope's ultimate authority, you are no Catholic. You think you get to decide on what the church is and means instead of its leader, the vicar of Christ, and you should join some other church now which better fits your viewpoint.

[redhead]

"We are talking about inidivuals who are in incarerated, and a society which has been protected from these same criminals by prison walls. How does the killing of an already incarcerated-for-life individual further protect society from this very same person?"

Are you talking about punishment, or considering incarceration to be sufficient punishment?

In the economy of salvation, there is a "due" punishment for sin. When my child deliberately breaks a serious law of my household, he knows that the punishment for that infraction is a spanking. I can defer that spanking, but that deferral does not negate its "due-ness," just as the consequences of sin are the punishments of Purgatory or Hell. Even being forgiven does not abrogate the "dueness" of that punishment, which means that even the "good" people will pass through Purgatory on their way to Heaven. Incarceration is not punishment. It is a removal from society, granted, but it is in no way a punishment. The death penalty is just that, a PENALTY for a terrible crime. It is the punishment that is due for serious, murderous crimes.

Time and again, the Bible speaks of the prescribed death of those who deliberately defy the Laws of God. The state has been given the right (by God and the will of the people) to punish crimes as well as to protect against threats. An incarcerated individual is not being punished unless he is being PUNISHED. Parents don't pretend to spank their children any more than the state can pretend to punish unregenerate murderers. (asbestos underwear in place)

[redhead]

"This is probably the one and only instance where a Catholic can honestly say, I am personally opposed to (insert morally debatable act here) but I cannot impose my prudential judgement upon the State" and not be in dissent from any Catholic al teaching."

Interesting observation...

[ninenot]

Old Madprof98, the logician who is a bit daft, will be happy to explain to you that 'some things are proven only by the absence of their contrary.'

When you say that the Pope can declare, infallibly, that (e.g.,) the Assumption did NOT occur, and claim that the Pope has such power, you are running up against the rule above.

No Pope has EVER declared, infallibly, that which is NOT true. And it's never gonna happen, per the 1st Vatican Council. Until you find and furnish evidence to the contrary, (trust me, I won't hold my breath) you cannot hold the opposite.

[LibertarianInExile]

"No Pope has EVER declared, infallibly, that which is NOT true."

>I don't think we're debating that. If he were declaring it infallibly it would then be true according to Catholic doctrine.

>No, what we're debating is whether he has the power to do so. I say he does, and point to Catholic doctrine as I've cited. You say he doesn't, and point to your rectum, where you pulled that idea from.

"And it's never gonna happen, per the 1st Vatican Council. Until you find and furnish evidence to the contrary, (trust me, I won't hold my breath) you cannot hold the opposite."

>Oh, PLEASE, hold your breath. It's so cute when you stomp your foot and act like a child. Especially when you claim that 'some things are only proven by the absence of their contrary.' Those statements of opinion are then THEORIES, not facts. They are unproven, so not facts, though they're not necessarily WRONG. For instance, if I tell you a big purple bunny invisible to all but me shadows me around, you can't provide any contrary proof. That doesn't mean I have a big purple bunny after me.

Worse, you attempt to shift the burden of proof after I showed you that the Church says the Pope is infallible when proclaiming articles of faith, and his proclamations are then the word of the Church. You can't claim 'logic' is behind you. Just saying 'no, you're wrong!' is not even an argument. That you don't even understand that your argument is and has been 'no, you're wrong, prove me wrong!' and dismissing of any and all evidence thereof, shows you wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on that handy opinion-filled rectum of yours.

I could tell you there is no God and dismiss any evidence there, but that would be an argument about FAITH. I don't care if you're Catholic or Jewish or whatever, faith is irrelevant to this. This, is an argument about FACT. About what is or isn't Catholic DOCTRINE. Not your belief about it. The facts are as I've shown, as stated by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, NOT ME. You have petulantly claimed other than the facts, and can't show any reason other than your opinion it is so. I haven't just SAID anything, the Church said it, and for you to dismiss it as if I'm just tossing out my opinion of the weather, is evidence of how truly clueless you are about the Roman Catholic Church.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

How do you come to that conclusion?

I read it in the Bible. It's not some fuzzy book that can mean anything.

[Coleus]

good article

[Coleus]

good post.

[altura]

later