Abortion vs. Death Penalty

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Jan 2 2006, 02:05 PM']i just hope our friend is reading them......
[right][snapback]843471[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh I am. Look at my avater. Look at it. Look at it. And watch the "Passion of the Christ."

I admit I may not be completely following Church teaching on this issue. Instead I follow what His late Holiness Pope John Paul the Great, the Servant of God, said.

[Cam42]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 2 2006, 04:23 PM']Oh I am. Look at my avater. Look at it. Look at it. And watch the "Passion of the Christ." 

I admit I may not be completely following Church teaching on this issue. Instead I follow what His late Holiness Pope John Paul the Great, the Servant of God, said.
[right][snapback]843566[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok, I will quote John Paul II.

[quote name='Evangelium Vitae #69']In any case, in the democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority. It should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practises. Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens-who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers-would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.

As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere.[/quote]

[quote name='Evangelium Vitae #55']This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes.  There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.

Moreover, "legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State". Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.[/quote]

[quote name='Evangelium Vitae #56']This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence". Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.

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. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".[/quote]

As has been presented, by jmjtina and myself, you need to rethink your position. Your view is not consistent with John Paul II.

Here is the view on abortion:
[quote name='Evangelium Vitae #73']Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.[/quote]

Our position is supportive of the Church's. If you have a more authoritative document or proof to support your position, I would like to see it. Your view is not consistent with John Paul II or the Church.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 2 2006, 01:23 PM']Oh I am. Look at my avater. Look at it. Look at it. And watch the "Passion of the Christ." 

I admit I may not be completely following Church teaching on this issue. Instead I follow what His late Holiness Pope John Paul the Great, the Servant of God, said.
[right][snapback]843566[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Is there an echo in the room?

Thank you Cam for your post. That is coming straight from Our Late Holy Father, John Paul II.

It seems catholicinsd is twisting words to fit his own agenda, one that goes against Church teaching and inconsistent with the teachings of the Late Holy Father himself.

[Cam42]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Jan 2 2006, 06:00 PM']Is there an echo in the room? 

Thank you Cam for your post. That is coming straight from Our Late Holy Father, John Paul II.

It seems catholicinsd is twisting words to fit his own agenda, one that goes against Church teaching and inconsistent with the teachings of the Late Holy Father himself.
[right][snapback]843643[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Consistency is my middle name. I am only trying, as I have been all along, to get people to properly understand the reality of the application of the death penalty in light of today's society.

[catholicinsd]

For belong to the most anti-death penalty Christain Demination, you two seem to favor it alot.

Ask yourself What Would Jesus, Himself a Victim of Execution, Do? What Would Mary, the Mother of an Executed Con, do? Would They support strapping someone down to a table and poisoning them,?

Forget the Teachings for a moment. Condemed people are still people, and deserve every right there entailed, as do the Unborn and the Handicapped, one of which is to die a natural death.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote]Forget the Teachings for a moment. Condemed people are still people, and deserve every right there entailed, as do the Unborn and the Handicapped, one of which is to die a natural death.
[right][snapback]843770[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Church teaches that the death penalty is applicable when a convicted person can't be safely incarcerated. When a convicted person is a continuing threat to innocent life, it is the duty of the State to take whatever steps are necessary to defend that innocent life.

In our country, we are protected from criminals by high security prisons and armed gaurds. In the amazon jungle, in the Sahara dessert, that might not be possible.

It is never okay to kill an innocent baby. It [i]can[/i] be okay to kill a convicted person, if there is no other way to protect innocent life.

Killing in self-defense is not a pretty thing. We should try to avoid it whenever possible. But if we do it, it is not a crime against God.

Edited January 3, 2006 by Lilllabettt

[Cam42]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 2 2006, 08:52 PM']For belong to the most anti-death penalty Christain Demination, you two seem to favor it alot.

Ask yourself What Would Jesus, Himself a Victim of Execution, Do? What Would Mary, the Mother of an Executed Con, do? Would They support strapping someone down to  a table and poisoning them,?

Forget the Teachings for a moment. Condemed people are still people, and deserve every right there entailed, as do the Unborn and the Handicapped, one of which is to die a natural death.
[right][snapback]843770[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Did I say that I favor the death penalty? Wanna show me where? In no way did I say that I favor the death penalty. I said that I accept the Church's teaching. The Church's teaching is simple. Here it is, again.

[quote name='CCC #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.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."[/quote]

Perhaps you need to reread this thread. You are getting yourself off kilter. I don't support the death penalty in today's society, UNLESS it is the ONLY possible way of effectively DEFENDING human lives against the unjust agressor. However, if non-lethal means are sufficient, then those means should be used as they are more in keeping with the dignity of the human person and the common good. THE APPLICATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN TODAY'S SOCIETY SHOULD BE [b]VERY RARE, IF NOT PRACTICALLY NON-EXISTENT.[/b]

Was that clear enough for you? I don't support the death penalty in today's society. I support the notion of the death penalty, as an historical method of deterring crime.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jan 2 2006, 09:00 PM']Did I say that I favor the death penalty?  Wanna show me where?  In no way did I say that I favor the death penalty.  I said that I accept the Church's teaching.  The Church's teaching is simple.  Here it is, again.

[quote name='CCC #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.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."[/quote]

Perhaps you need to reread this thread. You are getting yourself off kilter. I don't support the death penalty in today's society, UNLESS it is the ONLY possible way of effectively DEFENDING human lives against the unjust agressor. However, if non-lethal means are sufficient, then those means should be used as they are more in keeping with the dignity of the human person and the common good. THE APPLICATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN TODAY'S SOCIETY SHOULD BE [b]VERY RARE, IF NOT PRACTICALLY NON-EXISTENT.[/b]

Was that clear enough for you? I don't support the death penalty in today's society. I support the notion of the death penalty, as an historical method of deterring crime.
[right][snapback]843806[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Then why are you trying to justify it? WWJD

[Cam42]

[quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 2 2006, 10:20 PM'][quote name='Cam42']Perhaps you need to reread this thread.  You are getting yourself off kilter.  I don't support the death penalty in today's society, UNLESS it is the ONLY possible way of effectively DEFENDING human lives against the unjust agressor.  However, if non-lethal means are sufficient, then those means should be used as they are more in keeping with the dignity of the human person and the common good.  THE APPLICATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN TODAY'S SOCIETY SHOULD BE [b]VERY RARE, IF NOT PRACTICALLY NON-EXISTENT.[/b]

Was that clear enough for you?  I don't support the death penalty in today's society.  I support the notion of the death penalty, as an historical method of deterring crime.
[right][snapback]843806[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Then why are you trying to justify it? WWJD
[right][snapback]843819[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Because that is how you debate, Brandon. If you continually call my position into question, I will continually defend it.

WWJD? Oh, I don't know......try reading my posts again, I believe that I quoted scripture.

Oh, if you are claiming to be a Catholic, you should assent to Catholic teaching. So, let's start now, ok? ok.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='DingoBot' date='Jan 2 2006, 12:18 AM']Here are some related resources from Catholic sites.

[url="http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Dossier/9-10-98/article2.html"]http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Do...8/article2.html[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-06/horst.html"]http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Ho...0-06/horst.html[/url]
[url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/sep/00090803.html"]http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/sep/00090803.html[/url]
[url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111802.html"]http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111802.html[/url]
[right][snapback]843041[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
:applause:

that was a great post.. I don't know what people are talking about.

[Guest Rick777]

So who, that has been put to death recently in America, has been continuing to threaten innocent life?

Edited January 3, 2006 by Rick777

[Cam42]

[quote name='Rick777' date='Jan 2 2006, 10:58 PM']So who, that has been put to death recently in America, has been continuing to threaten innocent life?
[right][snapback]843853[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Re-word your question......it is a bit confuddled.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jan 2 2006, 09:31 PM']
Then why are you trying to justify it? WWJD
[right][snapback]843819[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Because that is how you debate, Brandon. If you continually call my position into question, I will continually defend it.

WWJD? Oh, I don't know......try reading my posts again, I believe that I quoted scripture.

Oh, if you are claiming to be a Catholic, you should assent to Catholic teaching. So, let's start now, ok? ok.
[right][snapback]843827[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How do you know my name? I am following the teaching of the Gospel of Life.

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jan 2 2006, 08:01 PM']Re-word your question......it is a bit confuddled.
[right][snapback]843857[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


lol,sorry. hope this makes sense.

Among all the men and women who are executed, how many of them were killed because they were a threat to other prisoners?

[catholicinsd]

Cam, this is off topic a bit but Opus Dei doesn't allow bastards in. By doing this they make & my peeps mad.