How Can A Faithful Catholic Be A Democrat?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1337564042' post='2433126']
Does the Pope sit in on the daily military intelligence briefings the President receives?
[/quote]

the pope is the head of christianity in the world today. i trust him more on morals than george bush or barack obama. i don't look to bush or obama to tell me if what they are doing is moral. i look to the pope for what is moral.

to disgaree with the pope on morals appears to me as being prideful. your(generalized) basically saying the pope is wrong and you(generalized) know better than the pope, so your right. i guess my thinking is where does a regular lay person get off thinking they know more thanthe pope on morals.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337565830' post='2433135']
Yeah. The perfect moral problem of giving a murderer life in hellish conditions that endangers others and drives prisoners insane do he has decades to "repent" before he dies of old age. Compared to the mercy provided to a victim that was raped to death that had hellish hours or seconds to repent for "salvation". Makes no sense whatsoever. We aren't talking about lynch mobs or drawing and quartering or hanging. We are talking about justice for the brutal murder of another human being. If life is precious, what is the penalty for stealing another's life and/ or opportunity to repent for being in a second marriage, skipping Sunday Mass, or masturbating the day before some burgular breaks into your house and stabs you after raping your wife and children.
[/quote]

the death penalty should not be used for so called justice(revenge). it should be used if the state is unable to keep society safe from said person.

also your logic is used for people who support abortion in cases of rape. why not do the nice thing and kill the baby because if not he will grow up in filth, being unloved by the mother who was raped, being emotionally otrtured and possibly grow up and be a rapist himself.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337566761' post='2433139']
the pope is the head of christianity in the world today. i trust him more on morals than george bush or barack obama. i don't look to bush or obama to tell me if what they are doing is moral. i look to the pope for what is moral.

to disgaree with the pope on morals appears to me as being prideful. your(generalized) basically saying the pope is wrong and you(generalized) know better than the pope, so your right. i guess my thinking is where does a regular lay person get off thinking they know more thanthe pope on morals.
[/quote]

Unlike abortion, military action in and of itself is not intrinsically immoral. There are several factors that factor in, some of which the Pope may not be privy to.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337567128' post='2433141']


the death penalty should not be used for so called justice(revenge). it should be used if the state is unable to keep society safe from said person.

also your logic is used for people who support abortion in cases of rape. why not do the nice thing and kill the baby because if not he will grow up in filth, being unloved by the mother who was raped, being emotionally otrtured and possibly grow up and be a rapist himself.
[/quote]Wrong. You call it revenge, others call it just punishment despite the NEW teachings by the Catholic Church. Revenge is a mob dragging him into the square and hanging him. Justice is a trial, years reviewing evidence, setting a date, and following through with the proscribed penalty.

Much more mercy and opportunity for salvation than was afforded the victim. Do you even know what justice is?

[Ed Normile]

Ahh, to be young and know it all again!

Somebody said the republicans are for the death penalty and therefore are as bad as the pro-death types? This is amazing as the last time I checked the Catholic church was ok with the death penalty, in certain cases.
This boils down to one truth, the people on death row are convicted criminals while the aborted unborn are innocents robbed of life for the conveinence of the mother in most cases.

Another said the republicans are for tax breaks for the wealthy and taking the money from programs to help the poor, they should have questioned their professor a tad more when told this fallacy, I will agree about tax breaks for the wealthy, as well as for the poor, the tax breaks are across the board and the monies are not "taken" from anything, they are just not given to new projects. Like it or not unless there is a wealthy class there are no jobs, the wealthy class start the businesses and hire the workers paying them monies they use for their lives, without these people there would be no jobs. You see the liberals/socialists have long ago learned how to con the young and or foolish by saying things like, unless this is passed "x" amount of dollars will be "taken" from some program", when they should be saying unless this is passed we will not have this program. Its like the latest con the foolish have fallen for, the " war on women " I can not beleive how gullible people are. Better watch out girls, the evil republicans are coming to your house to steal your condoms and morning after pills!

Amazingly 52% of catholics voted for Obama in the presidential election, this is a sad statistic and one that I pray changes this year, that is my hope for change.

ed

[havok579257]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337567781' post='2433147']
Wrong. You call it revenge, others call it just punishment despite the NEW teachings by the Catholic Church. Revenge is a mob dragging him into the square and hanging him. Justice is a trial, years reviewing evidence, setting a date, and following through with the proscribed penalty.

Much more mercy and opportunity for salvation than was afforded the victim. Do you even know what justice is?
[/quote]

anamoly your not catholic so i don't expect you to undertsand catholic teaching and morals. killing in thename or revenge or as you call it "just punishment" just doesn't work with catholic theology.

also revenge is not only done through mob justice. if i kill my familys murder because he killed my family that is revenge also. revenge kills do not come in one size fits all and everything else is ok killings.

i know what justice is, although your not speaking of justice,your speaking of revenge. your saying because person A killed person B they deserve to die, end of story. that's societies way of dealing with so called justice,that is not the catholic churchs way of justice.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1337567726' post='2433146']
Unlike abortion, military action in and of itself is not intrinsically immoral. There are several factors that factor in, some of which the Pope may not be privy to.
[/quote]

ok, if the pope is not privy to these events then niether are the posters on phatmass. so with exactly the same amount of knowledge as the pope of what happened in iraq, i still say its prideful to disagree with the pope. his judgement (all knowledge of situation being equal) on the morality is greated than the average lay person. so to say, given the example that lay person can better judge the morality of an action than the pope is prideful. never in a millions years would i thinki know more about morality in a given situation than the pope.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1337569313' post='2433162']
Ahh, to be young and know it all again!

Somebody said the republicans are for the death penalty and therefore are as bad as the pro-death types? This is amazing as the last time I checked the Catholic church was ok with the death penalty, in certain cases.
This boils down to one truth, the people on death row are convicted criminals while the aborted unborn are innocents robbed of life for the conveinence of the mother in most cases.

Another said the republicans are for tax breaks for the wealthy and taking the money from programs to help the poor, they should have questioned their professor a tad more when told this fallacy, I will agree about tax breaks for the wealthy, as well as for the poor, the tax breaks are across the board and the monies are not "taken" from anything, they are just not given to new projects. Like it or not unless there is a wealthy class there are no jobs, the wealthy class start the businesses and hire the workers paying them monies they use for their lives, without these people there would be no jobs. You see the liberals/socialists have long ago learned how to con the young and or foolish by saying things like, unless this is passed "x" amount of dollars will be "taken" from some program", when they should be saying unless this is passed we will not have this program. Its like the latest con the foolish have fallen for, the " war on women " I can not beleive how gullible people are. Better watch out girls, the evil republicans are coming to your house to steal your condoms and morning after pills!

Amazingly 52% of catholics voted for Obama in the presidential election, this is a sad statistic and one that I pray changes this year, that is my hope for change.

ed
[/quote]

the trickle down effect does not work. profits for the rich continue to go up but they are not highering. today they are getting less people to do more work. more profits, less people, you do the math. tell me how that is helping the economy.

imade the point that paul ryan's budget isabout helping the rich and hurting the poor. paul ryan wants to decrease so called entitlements and give more money to the military. although here's the kicker, the military is not asking for more money. do you want to know paul ryans response? he believes the military is afraid to tell them they need more money. so his thought is they need more money but they are so scared they are unable to tell them. come on give me a break. that reasoning is off the wall.

(this part deals with financial and not social issues)the fact is conservativism by itself does not. liberalism by itself does not work. niether by itself works. comprimise works. both sides of the aisle have goodideas and both havehorrible ideas. although right now the republican party is in the mindset of absolutly no comprimise and that is hurting everyone. not saying liberals are all for comprimise either because they are not.

also any catholic who voted obamawas dead wrong. he is for abortion, gay marriage unmorality in the world. mitt romney is not mr morality himself, although because he is trying to appease conservatives, he is the more moral choice because at the end of the day that is the one area conservatives are 100% right and that is social issues relating to abortion and gay marriage.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337576588' post='2433189']
ok, if the pope is not privy to these events then niether are the posters on phatmass. so with exactly the same amount of knowledge as the pope of what happened in iraq, i still say its prideful to disagree with the pope. his judgement (all knowledge of situation being equal) on the morality is greated than the average lay person. so to say, given the example that lay person can better judge the morality of an action than the pope is prideful. never in a millions years would i thinki know more about morality in a given situation than the pope.
[/quote]

"Greated"? What kind of word is that?

The Pope is infallible on faith and morals, not military strategy.

[Vincent Vega]

That's a misspelling of "greater". I would shudder to think how shockingly poor one's reading comprehension skills would have to be in order to be unable to infer that from context clues.
Unless, of course, one was being intentionally obtuse in order to call attention to something trivial like an orthographical error in his opponent's argument in an effort to attempt to discredit his intelligence...but certainly no member of these forums would attempt something so puerile.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1337578767' post='2433199']
"Greated"? What kind of word is that?

The Pope is infallible on faith and morals, not military strategy.
[/quote]

i apologize for my incorrect SPELLING of the word. thanks for the insult, was it really necessary?

your second point doesn't address what i wrote at all. your just avoiding what i said. it would be nice if you address my response instead of giving a one sentance response that contributes nothing.

Edited May 21, 2012 by havok579257

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, as a practical matter. executing prisoners is settled as factually a more costly endeavor than keeping them in prison, lots more costly. granted, it's because of all the appeals etc, and these could be cut so that society can actually save money when an execution is done. but, in any case, it's save money to build more prisons if that were necessary. i think only a relative handful of people are actually executed per year... it'd probably only come out to a relatively low number being needed.
what essentially transpires is so society is willing to pay more so that they can exact their revenge or "justice" if that floats your boat when it's really just a euphemism for a fancy footed revenge.

[Winchester]

I believe it depends on the state. In some, you would have to register as a Democrat, but in others, you would merely need to vote in the primary. I believe you can join the party itself just by sending in a form.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337579599' post='2433201']
i apologize for my incorrect SPELLING of the word. thanks for the insult, was it really necessary?

your second point doesn't address what i wrote at all. your just avoiding what i said. it would be nice if you address my response instead of giving a one sentance response that contributes nothing.
[/quote]I'll try to give a brief response, but I hope it doesn't become overly technical.

You can divide an action into two aspects: general knowledge and specific knowledge. Under general knowledge is included basic principles, contingent statements, etc. Basic principles are like the Catholic Doctrine on Just War, also termed the "Just War Theory." These principles are things like:
[list]
[*]The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
[*]All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
[*]There must be serious prospects of success;
[*]The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
[/list]
The same is true for the death penalty. In this way the Holy Father is absolutely the highest authority, along with the total magisterium of the Church. (This statement is for precision's stake, but it's basically an affirmation of what you've said.)

These principles also include examples of contingency statements. If A happens, then B is acceptable. If A does not happen, then B is not acceptable. For example, if someone attacks you it's licit for you to repel them with violent force. If you must defend yourself against a would-be murderer by using a knife, then the knife is acceptable. Again, these criteria can be determined by the Holy Father (though not always are they done so).

These are just two aspects of the general overview of an act.


However, all actions also include specifics. That is, murder does not generally happen. Murder occurs in this manner, under these circumstances, between this killer and this innocent person. While you can speak generally about murder, the specific action is more important. In this case the Holy Father is not the final authority. In other words, though he gives the general aspects of an act, what he says must then be applied to a particular situation. In most cases, the person closest to the action is more aware of the particulars and will most likely be the best judge of a situation. The Holy Father (as far as we know), receives no sort of revelation presently and so the finality of his authority is based entirely on his knowledge of a particular situation.

In some cases the general rule is applicable to all situations. For example, abortion in all circumstances is wrong, period. The Holy Father does not need to know any specifics to say that. However, the Church has always understood the death penalty in light of due circumstances surrounding the act and contingent facts. That means that if A is true, B is licit. An example is the use of the death penalty to protect society. The Holy Father does not necessarily know when A has occurred and so he'll make the best determination based on the facts available to him. He cannot possibly know about the danger present in a particular person more than those who sentenced the person, unless he is privilege to the exact same (or better) information than they are.

The difference between contingency statements and general criteria is that general criteria can also include prudential judgment, which is always left to the person acting. In the case of prudential judgment, the person has a couple options and isn't necessarily wrong for not following the Holy Father. Such a person could have a different end in mind for his actions that the Holy Father does not recognize at the time, but if he did know of such an end himself (that is if the Holy Father had such an end in mind), he might also choose the same course of actions. Furthermore, the Holy Father is not infallible always in terms of means to an end. Sometimes means to an end may include determinations that are not moral, strictly speaking. Therefore, we can see instances in which the Holy Father's opinion does not extend to all aspects of a particular action.

Therefore, while the Holy Father can speak infallibly in matters of morals, his judgments do not necessarily extend to all specific actions. We must use our particular judgment in certain cases and apply the principles set forth.

I'm going to explain this with a concrete example to show my point more clearly. If a country decides to go to war, the Holy Father can speak infallibly about the criteria necessary for just war. However, he cannot possibly know in every situation whether all those criteria have been met. Sometimes it's obvious if one or another is missing, but as an individual, he cannot be aware of all the circumstances surrounding a country's decision to go to war.


Finally, I do want to clarify one last thing. I've been talking about the Holy Father speaking infallibly. I don't think he has spoken infallibly on certain moral issues, but as Catholics we owe a religious submission of mind and will to those cases in which he hasn't spoken infallibly.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1337619102' post='2433246']
I believe it depends on the state. In some, you would have to register as a Democrat, but in others, you would merely need to vote in the primary. I believe you can join the party itself just by sending in a form.
[/quote]You're right about the state-by-state deal. According to Wikipedia, people can vote in the presidential primaries in the following states without registering for a party:


Alabama
Arizona (Semi-closed, with primaries open only to unaffiliated or unrepresented voters, except for the Libertarian primary.)
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii (Open primary for state, local, and congressional races; caucus system for presidential races.)
Idaho
Illinois
Massachusetts (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin


See more fun stuff here: http://www.fairvote.org/congressional-and-presidential-primaries-open-closed-semi-closed-and-top-two#.T7qJ_nlYse4

[Anomaly]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337576076' post='2433187']
anamoly your not catholic so i don't expect you to undertsand catholic teaching and morals. killing in thename or revenge or as you call it "just punishment" just doesn't work with catholic theology.

also revenge is not only done through mob justice. if i kill my familys murder because he killed my family that is revenge also. revenge kills do not come in one size fits all and everything else is ok killings.

i know what justice is, although your not speaking of justice,your speaking of revenge. your saying because person A killed person B they deserve to die, end of story. that's societies way of dealing with so called justice,that is not the catholic churchs way of justice.
[/quote]LOL. I most likely was a faithfully practicing Catholic longer than you've been alive. Don't be so ready to close your mind to other opinions based on a label, but that's besides the point.

The specific articles in the Catechism are:

[b]<a href="javascript:openWindow('cr/2267.htm');">2267[/b] 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.
[color=#0000FF][b]If, ho[/b][/color]wever, 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 more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today[color=#0000FF][b], 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 nonexistent."[sup][size=2]68[/size][/sup] [/b][/color]

What I highlighted in BLUE are the points that are debated. It is an '"IF" statement that lays out a second choice of action, or a new condition required to be met. The Pope/Magisterium may be speaking infallibly in a moral judgement if/when the second condition exit, however, they are not infalible authorities on evaluating all the social/political/sociological conditions within the society. I had posted previously studies about the conditions the 'Super Max' prisons inflict on prisoners, and those that work in them. It is not the clearly humane and safe conditions that would foster 'repentance' that many thought would exist, or hope exist. This is a legitimate point that can be argued and not be disagreeing with the Church/Pope/Magisterium on moral requirements.

And note, I don't think you labeling my thoughts on just consequences for a greviouss evil as being 'merely revengeful' very charitable or intellectually honest. Don't make me break out more Catechism on you now.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Anomaly

[qfnol31]

^ That post sounds an awful lot like what I used to argue. Did you ever get involved in those long, closed, CP threads?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337653026' post='2433452']
^ That post sounds an awful lot like what I used to argue. Did you ever get involved in those long, closed, CP threads?
[/quote]Yes. I had another username from 2000 to 2006. At one time I used to be against CP. I have visited prisoners, know prisoners (and murders) and a BiL was a prison psychologist for years. You can't close your mind to harsh realities. It's a horrific evil to take another human's life with no sense of remorse or recognizing the gravity of the act. It's also a horrific evil to incarcerate a violent person in conditions that may provide some physical safety, but destroy their cognizant mind at the same time. If a person has no sense of the gravity of their act, then are driven insane, what or how does that serve Society or the value of a human's free will?

[qfnol31]

I remember well, actually. It's just I haven't heard that argument articulated in a while; it's not very common, even amongst theologians, but I can't figure out why the "if" clause falls under moral judgments in the same way.

/Hijack

[havok579257]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1337652827' post='2433450']
LOL. I most likely was a faithfully practicing Catholic longer than you've been alive. Don't be so ready to close your mind to other opinions based on a label, but that's besides the point.

The specific articles in the Catechism are:

[b]<a href="javascript:openWindow('cr/2267.htm');">2267[/b] 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.
[color=#0000FF][b]If, ho[/b][/color]wever, 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 more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

And note, I don't think you labeling my thoughts on just consequences for a greviouss evil as being 'merely revengeful' very charitable or intellectually honest. Don't make me break out more Catechism on you now.
[/quote]

eliminate the part you say is debated and this is what your left with. as it pertains to america, i think it pretty clear on how often the death penalty should be used.