Posted on 03/23/2005 12:34:45 PM PST by siunevada
Yeah. I'm not convinced that's an accurate assessment of the existing legal system in our country. The prerequisite foundation to eliminating the penalty is a body of judges that will hand down meaningful sentences. We don't have that yet. Perhaps the campaign should focus on that for a start. Don't put the cart before the horse.
Confining those who are a danger to innocents for life is a possibility; but it's not very probable in our country. Sort of like thinking the U.N. can live up to its potential. Another unrealistic assessment, IMO.
I agree, but you can't fault the reasoning, just the judgment regarding the true circumstances.
The USCCB is The Church?
Eek!!!! Saints preserve us!
Well, the good Cardinal does say,"We need to share Catholic teaching with courage and clarity..". I think that's very good advice.
What are the other purposes? I really don't know.
An outside observer might think that a house was being built on sand.
If they don't know the difference between principles and the application of principles to particular cases.
see post 52
Moral Absolutes Ping.
This I cannot understand. I appreciate the traditional teachings of the Catholic church VERY highly, and my own convictions are in many ways the same. But the Bible is very clear, both OT and NT (from my reading) that the death penalty is not only acceptable but necessary and just.
I didn't read every word of the article, will go and scrutinize it. But I know I won't be convinced. Why should killers get life in prison at taxpayers' expense? It's just cultural conditioning that makes people think that mercy to the merciless is a good thing.
According to the Vedas, killing the killer is actually mercy to him, as it helps absolve some of his sin, as well as preventing him from doing more harm.
Let me know if you want (back) on/off this pinglist.
"but I do hope that within my lifetime the church sees fit to change these doctrines."
"This would be a false hope, because doctrine cannot change (no matter how many "Catholics" think it may). Truth does not change. However, should there be any pronouncement that doctrine has changed by a future pope, be really worried because that would mean the true Catholic Church has been usurped by apostates."
Well, the Catholic position on a celibate clergy has changed in the past-- see this link:
http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm
Did those changes mean that the true church had been usurped by apostates?
As for the birth control issue, the church's reasoning on that issue, their scriptural support for it is VERY weak, and their logical case is undermined by their support for NFP, as I mentioned before. I really do expect this one to change, maybe when the clergy comes to realize that truly, with God ALL things are possible, which means that no act of man or woman can thwart the will of God if He decides not to let it. I think that's why no method of birth control is, or ever will be 100% successful at preventing pregnancy-- sometimes God just decides that He wants the couple to have a baby. ;)
Anyway, I know I'm not going to change your mind, as it is to many Catholics truly unthinkable that although truth doesn't change, man's proper understanding of God's truth may very well get perfected over time, we may have gotten it wrong in the past, and for that reason, the doctrines of the church not only CAN but SHOULD change. If the changes are in accordance with scripture, or at least, not in opposition to it, then I think God will approve. The problem with the Episcopal church is that the changes that have been advocated by liberals for the past 20+ years are in opposition to scripture, sometimes in clear, defiant opposition to very strongly stated scriptural prohibitions. These Catholic doctrines that I think should change do not fit into that category.
Actually, as far as liturgical churches go, it seems to me from my study of the matter that the Eastern Orthodox church most closely follows scripture, and I could consider joining that church. The problem there is the very foreigness of the Eastern rite, and the shortage of Western rite parishes.
Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. And, if you were to ask better Traditional Catholic Apologists than I am, they would explain to you that it was a tolerated "abuse" of discipline that became accepted although that does not make it a "good".
If you are interested, here is perhaps the best explanation that I have heard of the discipline for celibacy, from an interview with Fr. Malachi Martin that Gerard P (another freeper) has transcribed:
Excerpt from the taped interview of Fr. Malachi Martin by Bernard Janzen :The Eternal War: the Priesthood in Crisis: (transcription by Gerard P)
"...the idea is to do away with the priesthood. The thing that really militates against the popular taste today about priesthood is celibacy. They regard nowadays, in the society in which we live, the expression of sexuality whether within marriage...outside of marriage whether by yourself or with somebody of the same sex, or with an animal is regarded as quite normal.... If you don't "frighten the horses" so to speak. Provided you don't violate any "rule of decent living".
The idea that men, young men of twenty say,..take a vow of celibacy. That they will never get married. And that they can('t) keep that without getting twisted and psychologically moronic and finally ending up in pedophilia or sadism or in some twisted psychology. That is the normal attitude to priests today. So the idea of Roman Catholic celibacy is something that is utterly alien to the mind.
Why? Because the idea of priesthood is. And this is where the great lack in teaching in seminaries and in the Catholic populace lies.
You see...a priest..Christ was once asked, (they pointed out a eunuch to him... a eunuch was somebody who accidentally or for some reason or another couldn't have sex. His genitals were destroyed or something.) And somebody said to him, "Lord what do you think of the eunuch? And he said,"There are three kinds of eunuchs. There's the man who's born like that from nature." ( Deficient in other words, he hasn't got the where-with-all). "There's the one who men made a eunuch." (Because they used to castrate people to make them eunuchs because eunuchs are very useful in palaces. 'cause they wouldn't touch the women and they were very good guards. And eunuchs always developed a very great cruelty. I suppose in reaction to their mutilation. And also if you did that, the voice remained high-pitched and beautiful through teenage years. And then he said, "There is a third kind of eunuch who does it to himself for the sake of the kingdom of God. He said, very mysteriously, "whoever understands, let him understand,'qui potest capere capiat"... meaning there is a very deep mystery.
The mystery is this: I can look on my celibacy if I am a priest, as a chastity belt. And the Church has locked it and thrown away the key. In that case then, I'm just somebody deprived of what I should have a right to by a greater force that's thrown away the key.
That's not celibacy at all. That is enforced continence.
I can look on celibacy then as something acceptable to the Church but a pain in the neck or a pain somewhere else. I still am very far from it.
The celibate is somebody who says to himself or herself (a nun), "My greatest power of love is in reproduction and in living with another human being. And in having children and in exchanging our love and warmth and friendship and confidence. And giving each other the intimacy of our very being, soul and body, which a true marriage does.
But, I will give that up because..when I become a priest, Christ puts a seal on my soul. The seal of his priesthood. And that seal cordons me off for a higher destiny. And the destiny is to have a very, very particular union with God, with Christ.
And that union is the union of somebody who is going to hold God's body in his hands at Mass. And is going to be a special emissary bringing blessing and shriving people from their sins and healing their souls. That's what true celibacy is. It's a segregation of your soul from all the lovely things in life that human love can bring and marriage can bring.
By the way, Look. It also has its ills and its difficulties but in general, it's regarded as a great benefit to be married. Or to live with somebody as we do nowadays. [sarcasm from Fr. Martin]
But to cut that off deliberately and to do it lovingly and to make it a positive contribution, and to devote all the energies that nature has given us for human love... to devote them to Christ. And to concentrate all that on..the Sacrifice of Christ and the preaching of his Gospel and the transmission of his message of love and salvation to souls and healing them and shriving them and helping them supporting them guiding them and welcoming them to the truth. That is the highest vocation a man can have.
Similarly with a nun who takes a vow of chastity. The same thing, She says to herself, "I'm going to imitate Our Lady, who is a virgin. who is the Mother of God. I'm going to have spiritual children and most of Our Lady's children are spiritual. (She had only one child of her own who was called Jesus.) But, I'm going to have those children by my prayers and by my identity with the great mother: The Mother of God.
And I'm going to do all that by renouncing this: Not because it's ill or bad. It's not bad, It's good. God made it. It's good, he said, 'Increase and multiply, love each other, be one flesh. It's a sacrament in the New Covenant. But I'm going to renounce that because I'm going to have a greater identification with Our Lady because God is calling me to that. And all the love and sympathy and empathy and the perceptiveness of love, I'm going to transfer that to Our Lady and Our Lord. And I'm going to make that my special sacrifice.
And in the beginning it is a sacrifice. And then, with the passage of time and fidelity, suddenly...this flower blooms in their souls. And they achieve this marvelous tranquility and this marvelous warmth that people always saw in the traditional priest. This amazing power to get inside you. This light, this feeling that they were there for you. They weren't riven in their sympathies. And they were there for you because Christ was their man, Christ was their King, Christ was their High Priest. That idea of priesthood....you won't find that anywhere today in Catholic manuals or preached in sermons or anything like that. Celibacy is regarded as...like Fish on Friday , a law we want to change and do away with." - Fr. Martin
Now as far as contraception goes, something that the Church has declared an intrinsic evil, what good has it wrought? Increase in divorce, increase in adultery, increase in promiscuity and the corresponding diseases, the false belief in the "right" to abortion, in vitro fertilization, (little souls left frozen on a shelf and some aborted during the "selective reduction process". It is a complete attack on the family on all fronts, which is ultimately an attack on The Holy Trinity.
and their logical case is undermined by their support for NFP, as I mentioned before.
Agreed. That is why Traditional Catholics do not support this "new use" of the idea of NFP, to use it as an alternative to contraception.
Well, I understand celibacy as a good discipline, but I see no requirement for it in scripture, and I think there is a very great danger when men try to be more holy than God intends. Certainly, he clearly intended for some men to be celibate-- Saint Paul was one such, by his own acknowledgement, but also clearly stated that not all men were as he was, and clearly supported married clergy.
I do want to say that I have NO desire to do away with the priesthood-- in fact, the Catholic church admits married Episcopal priests, and has no doubt discovered that they are both very good men and very good priests. Moreover, the mature married priest who is a father of children is, in my experience, the very best sort of a person to be a priest, the one with the widest and deepest understanding of human nature and human problems, the one who can best guide and counsel all sorts of Christians who come to him for help. In fact, the best thing about the Episcopal church is the best of our priests-- I am fortunate to have a wonderful priest now. I can say that with only one exception, the Episcopal priests I have known have been truly exceptional people and excellent spiritual leaders.
As for what good contraception has done for married people? Good grief, how can you wonder at it? Look back in history-- not just to before the pill, but to before the widespread availability of contraception of any sort for most people (probably before the Victorian era), and examine the lives that people led. Look at deaths in childbirth, number of children, poverty rate, all of that. And, life isn't better now? Granted that the improvements had other causes as well, but even so, no reasonable person could argue against the proposition that the ability to put the brakes on fertility within marriage was an enormous contributor to all of that.
At any rate, I expect that over time, God will clarify his position on contraception to all of us. I could be wrong on what that position is, but I don't think so. ;)
True. But a murderer could also repent while in prison.
I certainly would, and I'm usually pretty reasonable. In fact, the use of birth control has led directly to widespread abortion, among other evils. Look what Pope Paul VI predicted in 1968 in Humanae Vitae:
Consequences of Artificial Methods17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. [see China, public funding for PP, sex ed, etc.] It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Certainly, contraception enables people who wish to do wrong to do so with fewer consequences, and it can (and certainly has) been abused by coercive totalitarian governments, but to argue that it has not lengthened and enriched women's lives as well as enhanced the happiness of both men and women in marriage is just unhistorical. We live in a licentious age, but ours is not the first-- modern history reads a lot like Old Testament Jewish history, periods of all sorts of bad practices interspersed with periods when people turn back to God and His law. At least today, no man can tell himself that he's doing his wife a favor when he visits a prostitute, and for most of human history that has not been true.
For the record, I also think Viagara is a gift from God. :-D
Is it?
Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5:6). ... When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death. (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II q. 64 a. 2)
Clearly St. Thomas teaches that the death penalty is justified only when necessary "in order to safeguard the common good" and when the good men are "protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked".
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord. (Roman Catechism, Fifth Commandment)
The death penalty is justified for the end of "the preservation and security of human life" by "repressing outrage and violence".
1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
(1) In self-defense, when we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives;
(2) In a just war, when the safety or rights of the nation require it;
(3) By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution. (Baltimore Catechism No. 3)
The standard laid down here is that "the good of the community" must require the execution.
As for your post #52, establishing the "mind of the Church" based upon your own post seems somewhat shaky reasoning to me. St. Thomas and the Baltimore and Roman Catechisms seem a somewhat firmer support, especially when combined with the CCC and Evangelium Vitae.
Evangelium Vitae
"On a more general level, there exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands."
I deplore the death penalty. Unfortunately, the reality is that the horrible justice system we have lets these monsters out on the street if we do not administer the death penalty.
The Holy Father himself has said that the death penalty is only moral when used to protect society. It would seem that the only way to protect society is the death penalty if the legislature refuses to pass tough laws ensuring the guilty never see the light of day.
>> I'm not sure what you mean here. False results are producing exonerations? <<
That's not exactly what I mean.
Say they find Billy Bob's DNA on a sock found at the crime scene.
I suppose if someone else's DNA gets in the DNA sample from the sock, they can argue that the DNA shows the sock may have been worn by a different culprit, and call into question the conviction.
More likely, the DNA test will be found "inconclusive," at some later point and result in the forensice evidence being tossed aside.
A low-tech example of contamination (not related to DNA): Michael Jackson's accuser's fingerprints were found on Michael Jackson's porn magazine. The prosecution insists this demonstrates that MJ was showing the kid porn. MJ's lawyers are arguing that the fingerprints may have gotten on the porn when the kid was shown the magazine by prosecutors during the grand jury hearing.
Another issue:
I know of several rapist-murderers who have been let off because of exculpatory DNA evidence (semen). I've heard most rapists don't ejaculate. Which makes me wonder whther the "exculpatory evidence" is really just remnants from earlier, consensual sex.
Say a girl goes to a bar, picks up a stranger, has sex. The next night she gets raped. She'll have "exculpatory evidence" inside her, and know one will know taht she had had sex.
Yes: "and with that eternal law having been consulted I discover that the man ought not to have been killed by him [Moses], who held no ordained power, although [the man] was criminal and wicked." (St. Augustine, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, 22:70)
Intentional killing is justified only by divine authority: hence JP II, in the passage you cite, gives the example of euthanasia. But clearly he doesn't view capital punishment as part of that "Promethean attitude", for, well-aware that in execution that the killer acts not by his own authority, but by that of the state: "However, he himself does not kill, who as a minister is under obligation by ordering, as if an auxilary sword of him using" (St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, 1:21), he says:
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. (EV 56)
Since this standard is exactly the one always applied by the Church, I fail to see the problem here.
Let's look at the whole thing shall we?
Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable (Mt. 13) forbade the uprooting of the cockle which denotes wicked men according to a gloss. Now whatever is forbidden by God is a sin. Therefore it is a sin to kill a sinner.Objection 2. Further, human justice is conformed to Divine justice. Now according to Divine justice sinners are kept back for repentance, according to Ezech. 33:11, "I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Therefore it seems altogether unjust to kill sinners.
Objection 3.On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live"; and (Ps. 100:8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land."
I answer that, As stated above (1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5:6).
OK, so the short answer is yes, it is lawful to kill sinners. Now let's get into the details.
Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.
Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.
Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Ps. 48:21: "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them," and Prov. 11:29: "The fool shall serve the wise." Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6).
You said:Clearly St. Thomas teaches that the death penalty is justified only when necessary "in order to safeguard the common good" and when the good men are "protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked".
Clearly he does nothing of the sort, when his whole argument is read.
From reply to objection 3.
"By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood,..."
Did you catch that? Not all men have dignity, men can lose their dignity through sin. No humanism here. Who does that NOT sound like?
Well if by sin man can lose the dignity of his manhood, what state of dignity has he? St. Thomas expains:
[snip]"...and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others."
Notice here, he does not state may be disposed of by death only if there is no other way, like you said, but "as it is useful to others."
And let's just repeat this last line...
"although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6)."
Clearly St. Thomas had a completely different idea about the meaning of "in order to safeguard the common good" than you imply. Just go read what he says about the just killing of heretics.
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.