Posted on 11/20/2006 4:25:28 AM PST by goldstategop
+
If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!
Technological advances in DNA evidence were the "divine intervention". There are lots of cases like the one in the article, all over the country.
We (and the rest of the world) have a justice system that sometimes convicts the innocent and lets the guilty go free.
Well, I sure would hope that the Church would be on an anti-DP crusade.
Sorry about the delay in getting back to your question, I was busy. First, let me apologize if I sounded glib or condescending, but know too that I can be all those things and so much more, lol.
The article I posted was supposed to show how even innocent people can be convicted of crimes that they do not commit. The opposite is also true, guilty people often walk away with no conviction or punishment. (I'm seeing an image of O.J. as I write that last sentence.) "Justice" in often flawed, incomplete, and in many cases, non-existent in this world. God's justice, on the other hand, is perfect. An innocent Man (and God) died on Calvary, that sacrifice being the ultimate example of human injustice.
I don't have the time to go into a whole discourse on Church doctrine and philosophy through the ages, but remember, the Church taught that the earth was flat at one time too, but that's another story.
Let's start with the following info:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
I. TRUE MEANING OF INFALLIBILITY
"It is well to begin by stating the ecclesiological truths that are assumed to be established before the question of infallibility arises. It is assumed:
that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society; that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them; that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; and that in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy -- and on them exclusively -- the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed."
Your following comment is actually true: "Church men were given no such promise". I don't think you may realize it, but that statement actually supports the argument against capital punishment. Basically, man is by his very nature sinful and flawed and therefore prone to error. Human beings and their institutions make mistakes, sometimes by accident and sometimes on purpose. Human life is too precious in the eyes of God for human beings to play at being God.
Romans 12:
17 Repay no one evil for evil. Respect what is honorable in the sight of all men.
18 If it is possible, as much as it is up to you, be at peace with all men.
19 Don't seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord."
20 Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing so, you will heap coals of fire on his head."
21 Don't be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
“Not that you and your personal insults deserve an "explanation", because you don't.”
Says the person who responds to comments about his *arguments* with genuine personal insults.
“I actually think that is one of the stupidest comments I've ever had the unfortunate chance to read on FR.”
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle left us with a deep and valuable insight when he wrote, “Mediocrity knows nothing better than itself.” This explains why we so often see those of mediocre intellect slinging charges of stupidity about when they are unable to keep up with the discussion.
“You lost me with that "logic".”
That, unfortunately, would appear to be no great feat.
“The Catechism shows that John Paul II and those that agree with him are wrong?”
Yup. Sorry that you couldn’t keep up.
“Your post gives credence to the premise that human beings are just too stupid”
See comment above re Sir Arthur.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
The Holy Father could be wrong on prudential matters, and I don't think his argument stands against those of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, or the different opinion of the present pope.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Science and the Catholic Church are not mutually exclusive. You are right about that! The Church supports science, but always with the understanding that science serves man, not the other way around.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#II
[2293 Basic scientific research, as well as applied research, is a significant expression of man's dominion over creation. Science and technology are precious resources when placed at the service of man and promote his integral development for the benefit of all. By themselves however they cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress. Science and technology are ordered to man, from whom they take their origin and development; hence they find in the person and in his moral values both evidence of their purpose and awareness of their limits.
2294 It is an illusion to claim moral neutrality in scientific research and its applications. On the other hand, guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency, or from the usefulness accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies. Science and technology by their very nature require unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria. They must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, of his true and integral good, in conformity with the plan and the will of God.
2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects' potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject's life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.]
The hidden rationale is the same: I am a liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat before I am a Christian.
The bottom line is also the same: I am the Supreme Authority over what I will and will not believe, and if the Church doesn't like it, the Church can stick it!
Wrong. God delegated that authority to human government. The command for the death penalty appears closely after the Ten Commandments.
The fact is that the Church long ago adopted the doctrine of the Two Swords. That implies that the state can administer justice, is in fact bound to administer justice. The alternative, given human nature, is the law of personal revenge. Deny to the state the monopoly of taking life and the practical result is lex talonis admiinstered by private persons. One might protest: this does not happen in modern Germany etc. It will in America, because those against the death penalty are partnered with the crazed libertarians of the ACLU, who demands rights for brutal murderers that
are clear violations of justice. If you agree to put into the hands of our police the clearly defined authority enjoyed by the Politizei, if you agree to a criminal code that is not designed by common lawyers to provide financially for the members of their guild, then I say, yes, we can do what Germany has done traditionally, which is to put murderers ougt of sight as long as needed.
However, I suspect that the misplaced sympathy for men of violence is eroding justice even there. The Constitiutional Courtt --envious of the almighty power of the US Supreme Court is beginning to ape its imperialism.
We in America bow before judges who exercise their private judgement in a most public way in a way that does not serve the public good.
"It never fails to amaze me that the strongest critics of so-called cafeteria Catholics are self-described traditionalists who trash every teaching of the Church they dislike by invoking "prudential judgment" in the very same way the liberals invoke "conscience."
I'm not sure I completely agree with that. I don't know whether I am a conservative because I believe according to the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds, or I am a Catholic because I am a conservative.
My problem is the novelties introduced since the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I find conflicts between conservatism and these novelties, but not between conservatism and pre-Modernism Catholic dogma, Tradition, and teachings.
I think one must use judgement and prayer to try and determine which Church authority is correct when a novelty that contradicts centuries of Catholic teaching is introduced. Less judgement is required when a novelty that contradicts Scripture is introduced, but modernists will vilify their opposition in either case.
In the cases above, is a person pitting his "prudential judgment" against "every teaching of the Church they dislike," or is he sincerely striving to discern which competing authority is speaking with the authentic voice of the Church?
It is sad that a Catholic would be in such a position, but since the smoke of Satan entered the sacristy, it has become commonplace.
We humans like for things to be symmetrical. We like to think that the Republicans are as bad as the Demonrats, that the "Christian right" is as bad as the secular far left, that traditionalists are as guilty as modernists of the pride that says, "I am the Supreme Authority over what I will and will not believe, and if the Church doesn't like it, the Church can stick it!"
Unfortunately for our love of symmetry, none of the above propositions is true.
Where traditionalists question, they seek to discern the authentic voice of the Church that they may obey. Modernists just say, "We are now the voice of the church, and if the traditionalists don't like it, we'll just ram it down their throats."
There really is no parallel. All leftist thought is of and from Satan, whether it be economic, political, or theological.
Very rare. Justice is marked by the application of God's righteousness.
Whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Genesis 4:15, 24
The Catechisms, and the Pope speaking as a theologian, are acts of the "authentic" magisterium. The "authentic" magisterium is not infallible.
The ordinary infallible Magisterium is the reiteration of established teaching in the Church, for example when a Pope says, "the teaching of the Church has always been such and such as our venerable predecessor stated, 'X, Y, and Z'..."
From the CCC: 2267... "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty"
This is part of the ordinary infallible Magisterium. Capital punishment, "the legal and judicious exercise of which they [civil authorities] punish the guilty and protect the innocent is just" (Trent Catechism) is supported (not merely 'not excluded' like the CCC states- an example of why the CCC is a bad catechism) by the constant teaching of the Church, both Scripture and Tradition.
Continued from the CCC...
"...if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor"
This is novel theological speculation. That is why there is no reference in the CCC to Scripture or Tradition supporting it. It may be part of the authentic fallible magisterium, but it is odds with the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.
Agreed. However the article you cited is an example of "the legal and judicious exercise of which they [the civil authorities] punish the guilty and protect the innocent".
"Justice" in often flawed, incomplete, and in many cases, non-existent in this world. God's justice, on the other hand, is perfect.
Agreed.
An innocent Man (and God) died on Calvary, that sacrifice being the ultimate example of human injustice.
The Innocent Man, God the Son, acknowledged the judgement of the civil authority as God's will and embraced it.
"Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest thou not to me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee?
Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above." John19:10-11.
but remember, the Church taught that the earth was flat at one time too,
No, it didn't. And if it had it would not be a matter of faith and morals and therefore not binding so that is irrelevant.
Basically, man is by his very nature sinful and flawed and therefore prone to error.
Sure, because of our corrupted nature we are prone to sin and error, that is why Our Lord gave the Church and the pope the charism of infallibility in certain circumstances, to protect the Church from formally teaching and binding the faithful to error.
Romans 12:...
Your private interpretations of these scripture verses to support an anti capital punishment position are at odds with the infallibly protected constant teaching of the Church which supports the legitimate use of capital punishment by civil authorities to punish the guilty and to protect the innocent as just. I'm going to go with the latter.
Nobody in the sixteenth century knew how to build a cage?
You learn something new every day....
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.