Lying To Ourselves

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1262404268' post='2028357']
Are you suggesting that the Church Fathers, the Popes, the Bishops, the whole Magisterium of the Catholic Church has been wrong about the intrinsic nature of the death penalty for the past 2000 years?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I'm sorry, do you think I'm the author of that Vatican document?

Secondly, the document does nothing to contradict Church history. If you read it you would know that.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' date='01 January 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1262404306' post='2028359']
Very clever. I'm sure Sternhouser, being so dimwitted and slow, will never see through that profoundly nontransparent and just ultra-sneaky ploy.
[/quote]

I am ONLY responding to you because I need to convey how disgusted I am by the way you talk to me. STOP replying to my posts, you are on IGNORE. I want you to leave me ALONE.

[Sternhauser]

[quote]BTW Stern. If and when an execution can be permissable according to the Church (now or 100 years ago) Who gets the permission? [/quote]

Those with the authority to do so.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 2, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1262404524' post='2028364']
[/quote]
Those with the authority to do so.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Which would be...




(it begins with an s)

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1262404405' post='2028361']
I'm sorry, do you think I'm the author of that Vatican document?

Secondly, the document does nothing to contradict Church history. If you read it you would know that.
[/quote]

Jaim.e, I did not say that the document contradicts Church history or Church teaching on the intrinsic morality of the death penalty. I asked if [i]you[/i] were, trying to use that document to support your position.


~Sternhauser

Edited January 2, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1262404569' post='2028365']
Those with the authority to do so.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Jaim.e wrote: [quote]Which would be...

(it begins with an s)
[/quote]

Not necessarily, Jaim.e, not necessarily. And you will never be able to find anything to definitively contradict that claim.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 2, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='01 January 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1262404466' post='2028363']
I am ONLY responding to you because I need to convey how disgusted I am by the way you talk to me. STOP replying to my posts, you are on IGNORE. I want you to leave me ALONE.
[/quote]


And it is because you don't seriously put someone on ignore, but seem to only like to make grand public announcements that you are ignoring someone on ignore, that I do not take your 'ignores' seriously. I am actually interested in seeing Jamie and Stern discuss this issue, and your transparent attempts to trip Stern up and provoke are not really conducive to that conversation. They seem likely to cause the discussion to go off track or make Stern just quit out of frustration.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Hassan

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1262404649' post='2028366']
Jaim.e, I did not say that the document contradicts Church history or Church teaching on the intrinsic morality of the death penalty. I asked if [i]you[/i] were, trying to use that document to support your position.


~Sternhauser
[/quote]
But originally you said this
[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1262403774' post='2028344']
You're getting warmer. But St. Thomas still seems to disagree with the Catechism, in any case. Which is correct?

Now: is execution, which the Church has traditionally permitted, an act of direct and intentional killing? Why or why not?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


The Church taught that. Now it teaches that it is unnecessary as the document I provided states.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1262404942' post='2028370']
But originally you said this



The Church taught that. Now it teaches that it is unnecessary as the document I provided states.
[/quote]

That document proposes a doctrine of the Church?

~Sternhauser

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hassan' date='01 January 2010 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1262404809' post='2028369']
And it is because you don't seriously put someone on ignore, but seem to only like to make grand public announcements that you are ignoring someone on ignore, that I do not take your 'ignores' seriously. I am actually interested in seeing Jamie and Stern discuss this issue, and your transparent attempts to trip Stern up and provoke are not really conducive to that conversation. They seem likely to cause the discussion to go off track or make Stern just quit out of frustration.
[/quote]

You are the ONLY person I have on ignore. Since I cannot e-mail you a notification I post it on the forum. If someone put me on ignore I would want to know, after all I would hate to waste my time replying to someone who is not going to respond. The only reason why I am responding to you now is because I am literally appalled by the way you treat me. You just need to stop, okay? Just STOP.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1262404727' post='2028367']
Jaim.e wrote:

Not necessarily, Jaim.e, not necessarily. And you will never be able to find anything to definitively contradict that claim.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

never say never

[quote][b][url="javascript:openWindow("]2266[/url][/b]Th[u][i][b]e efforts of the state [/b][/i][/u]to curb the spread of behavior harmful topeople's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond tothe requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate publicauthority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate tothe gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim ofredressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willinglyaccepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation.Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protectingpeople's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it mustcontribute to the correction of the guilty party.[sup]67[/sup][/quote]

I bolded italicized and underlined it for you

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Hassan' date='01 January 2010 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1262404809' post='2028369']
And it is because you don't seriously put someone on ignore, but seem to only like to make grand public announcements that you are ignoring someone on ignore, that I do not take your 'ignores' seriously. I am actually interested in seeing Jamie and Stern discuss this issue, and your transparent attempts to trip Stern up and provoke are not really conducive to that conversation. They seem likely to cause the discussion to go off track or make Stern just quit out of frustration.
[/quote]

It has happened before.

~Sternhauser

[Hassan]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1262404942' post='2028370']

The Church taught that. Now it teaches that it is unnecessary as the document I provided states.
[/quote]


I saw this

[i]Where the death penalty is a sign of desperation, civil society is invited to assert its belief in a justice that salvages hope from the ruin of the evils which stalk our world. The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity.[/i]

I don't know anything about past official declarations by the Church, but doesn't this view seem out of line with the Tomist view? I don't remember St. Thomas speaking about the death penalty as a potential final resort of the state given some abnormal social context, but as a right and duty of the state because of the nature of the offense in itself.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1262405169' post='2028376']
never say never
I bolded italicized and underlined it for you
[/quote]

Jaim.e, that's not of any concern. The term "State" has long been improperly conflated with "government." It's a terminological issue, not an issue of nature.

~Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1262405130' post='2028373']
That document proposes a doctrine of the Church?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

The document calls to light what has always been Church doctrine. the protection of society. The only time the state would be justified in doling out capital punishment is when the person is still a risk to the rest of society. When putting them in jail is not enough and that person is still a risk to do harm to others. Today it is unnecessary for anyone to be put to death for that reason.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='01 January 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1262405167' post='2028375']
The only reason why I am responding to you now is because I am literally appalled by the way you treat me.
[/quote]

Not for nothin', but I myself am not particularly pleased with the way you treat 95% of the people on here. The way you have embraced the title "The Belligerent Blonde" reinforces my displeasure. Some [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belligerent"]synonyms[/url] for "belligerent," as you likely know, are "pugnacious, truculent, combative, quarrelsome, antagonistic, contentious." Those are not admirable qualities.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 2, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1262405302' post='2028380']
Jaim.e, that's not of any concern. The term "State" has long been improperly conflated with "government." It's a terminological issue, not an issue of nature.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

You are a bad scholar. The Church is specifically speaking about governing bodies of society in this reference (and the one before and after). No where does the Church say it is appropriate for an individual to execute another person.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1262405394' post='2028381']
The document calls to light what has always been Church doctrine. the protection of society. The only time the state would be justified in doling out capital punishment is when the person is still a risk to the rest of society. When putting them in jail is not enough and that person is still a risk to do harm to others. Today it is unnecessary for anyone to be put to death for that reason.
[/quote]

Do murderers not kill in prison? Is solitary confinement (the "current state" of prisons) not a "cruel and unusual" punishment?

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1262405530' post='2028384']
You are a bad scholar. The Church is specifically speaking about governing bodies of society in this reference (and the one before and after). No where does the Church say it is appropriate for an individual to execute another person.
[/quote]

An individual is the only one who can execute another person. Unless they all pull the trigger at the same time. And even then, they're acting as . . . individuals.

~Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1262405561' post='2028385']
Do murderers not kill in prison? Is solitary confinement (the "current state" of prisons) not a "cruel and unusual" punishment?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Seriously I keep on warning you. You don't want to keep going down this road.

First, the Church is talking about keeping society safe. Those in prison are not a part of society.


Secondly I worked in the prison industry for 10 years. I've been in dozens of maximum security and supermax prisons. You want to talk about the current state of prisons, I'm an expert. You want to keep this going, fine. It'll just keep on getting easier.