Trump

[KnightofChrist]

Mark Shea always judging people and getting away with it.

[PhuturePriest]

3 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Mark Shea always judging people and getting away with it.

Is that a judgment on Mark Shea?

[KnightofChrist]

14 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

Is that a judgment on Mark Shea?

I don't think so but I know I didn't call him or his supporters racist, misogynous, fascist dolts. I don't have superhuman powers to know that.

[PhuturePriest]

Just now, KnightofChrist said:

I don't think so but I know I didn't call him or his supporters racist, misogynous, fascist dolts. I don't have superhuman powers to know that.

Well, it is a definable judgment. But I was mostly just joking because of the ironic sense of the statement.

I don't think everyone who votes for Trump is any of those things, though some demonstrably are. I would certainly argue his rhetoric conduces those things, and I agree with Shea's many criticisms of Trump, but there are some reasonable Trump supporters who support him for various reasons unrelated to those unfortunate aspects of him (such as concern for the economy and a trust in him for his successful persona in business.)

Anyway, I don't always agree with Mark Shea and how he sometimes makes blanket statements like that. But I'm afraid you in turn made a blanket statement against him saying he's "always judging people and getting away with it." You could argue that was hyperbole, but Mark could say the same about his statement.

[Benedictus]

9 hours ago, Archaeology cat said:

If you make over a certain amount, you pay US income taxes plus the income tax in the country you live. Under that amount, you might have to report earnings but not pay taxes. I can't remember the cut-offs now. We didn't earn enough in the UK to have to opay double.

I also had to declare all foreign bank accounts, not sure if it's automatic or if there's a threshold.

I found the whole thing complicated, esp in terms of how it worked out in relation to property and rental income, trust funds, shared non US liability and interests in various countries.

I got an account and tax specialist to sort this all out This was costing me at least a $1000 a year, simply to work on this for the IRS and be compliant without disadvantaging myself in the process. 

Not too long ago it was reported overseas peeps have been increasingly renouncing US citizenship because it get's a headache sorting this all out. I assumed this was because those on lower incomes would find it difficult to navigate and comply. But maybe it's richer people making a calculated decision after all.

 

[KnightofChrist]

"Always" and "racist, misogynous, fascist dolts" are in no way equal. And I'm sorry but I've read his blog many times and many times I've seen him make very similar and nasty judgements of people. I've never understood why he seems to get a pass yet someone like Voris does not. 

[CatherineM]

My income is partially US and partially Canadian. The Canadian government charges tax on my US income but let's me take 15% off of it. So I pay double tax on 85%. 

[Guest]

Jason Hall summarizes why I have been shouting myself hoarse about the menace posed by "conservative" Catholicism's self-imposed bondage to Movement Conservatism: 

 

"The marriage of the pro-life movement to the Republican Party and subsequent betrayal of the movement by the party have done very little to lessen the movement's loyalty to the party but have done a great deal to lessen the movement's loyalty to, you know, life."

 

And, I might add, it has taught a large portion of conservative Catholics to treat the GOP as the true Magisterium, to regard the Holy Father as a threat to the "faith" (meaning the dogmas of the GOP), and to regard the Church as eternally on probation and in danger of judgment by their inner inquisitors whenever the Church does not measure up to GOP standards of approval for violence and grinding the faces of the poor.  The result has been a political subculture that *says* its core non-negotiables are human life and family, but which spends most of its real energy on Mammon, the death penalty, beating up the poor, and xenophobia.  The spectacle of Priests for Life devoting its energies to backing Donald Freaking Trump as some kind of prolife hero just drives the final nail in the coffin.

 

We need a new prolife movement.  One that is fully devoted to the protection of human life from conception to natural death and not to the defense of GOP Culture of Death priorities while using the unborn as human shields for that. -  Mark Shea

[Maggyie]

I'm as anti Trump as they come, but Mark Shea is the worst. Truly. The worst. 

[CatherineM]

He's right about conception to natural death. 

[Maggyie]

17 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

He's right about conception to natural death. 

True, and also about Jesus rising from the dead and the cost of a gallon of gas. Still. The worst. I used to read his blog and I had to staaaaahp. 

[PhuturePriest]

35 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

I'm as anti Trump as they come, but Mark Shea is the worst. Truly. The worst. 

I know, right? Thank goodness we have people like Ann Barnhardt to show us a truer Christian example.

Hyperbole really is strong here on Phatmass. Or at least recently, anyway.

[Nihil Obstat]

No matter what Mark Shea says, capital punishment is specifically permitted in Catholic social teaching and is not in any way on the same level as abortion and euthanasia. That is all I have to say about that.

[PhuturePriest]

It is theoretically permitted under very specific circumstances, that, according to the magisterium for a while now, are essentially nonexistent. 

[KnightofChrist]

The Catholic Church has always taught that the primary purpose and justification for Capital punishment as with all forms of punishment is to punish the offender in expiation for his guilt.

Protection of society is secondary because someone cannot justly be punished based on crimes they may but not yet have committed. One is justly punished based on the crime committed, not because there's not enough available prison cells.

[PhuturePriest]

Can you give me some citations? Also, even if true, could not a development of understanding be at play here?

Edited May 6, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Anomaly]

5 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

57 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The Catholic Church has always taught that the primary purpose and justification for Capital punishment as with all forms of punishment is to punish the offender in expiation for his guilt.

Protection of society is secondary because someone cannot justly be punished based on crimes they may but not yet have committed. One is justly punished based on the crime committed, not because there's not enough available prison cells.

Can you give me some citations? Also, even if true, could not a development of understanding be at play here?

I don't think Knight is quite accurate. 

2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. 
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should 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. 
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

Intentional homicide

[Peace]

49 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The Catholic Church has always taught that the primary purpose and justification for Capital punishment as with all forms of punishment is to punish the offender in expiation for his guilt.

Protection of society is secondary because someone cannot justly be punished based on crimes they may but not yet have committed. One is justly punished based on the crime committed, not because there's not enough available prison cells.

I don't think so. The Church seems to say that the only justification for capital punishment is the protection of society, and that where society can be protected without capital punishment, other forms of punishment are more appropriate.

That is pretty much what the Catechism says, although some folks like Scalia disagree with the Catechism on that point. 

When you go against the most recent Catechism in general use and promulgated by the Church, you risk becoming your own pope, in my opinion. You can review the Church fathers and whatever else you want to look at, pick and choose, and arrive at the result that you wanted in the first place.

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, PhuturePriest said:

Can you give me some citations? Also, even if true, could not a development of understanding be at play here?

Well I really don't want to get into this never ending debate again. So I'll be brief, as much as possible. Thankfully Cardinal Ratzinger made clear Catholics are free to disagree with those that say that in modern society there is rarely a need for capital punishment. Also Cardinal Dulles has shown that same position represents John Paul II's (as well as others) prudential judgment and not doctrine or development of doctrine.

As for the primary purpose of punishment being to punish the offender in expiation for his guilt. I will also quote the CCC and ask two questions that you, @Anomaly, and @Peace are welcomed to answer.

---

CCC 2266  The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

---

A hypothetical man brutally rapes and murders 8 women and children. He can be safely put away in a prison cell for the rest of his natural life. What, if any, are the amount of years in prison that are equal to his crime to redress the disorder he caused (equal to the lives he extinguished)? Or is his life the only closest thing equal to the lives he extinguished?

I would answer there is no amount of years in prison that would regress his transgression and that the only thing that comes close is his life, that he forfeited when he committed murder.  Now if you believe differently, ok, but don't try to force me to believe as you do or to say that Catholics must be against capital punishment if there are bloodless means. Because that's just not true. We can still believe punishment and the justice handed out for it should be primarily based on the crime committed.

[Anomaly]

I believe Scalia and other Catholics believe Capital Punishment is required to remove the continued danger to Society.  Some persons demonstrate a consistent and deep seated disregard for others life.  I believe it does serve as a deterrent to many and as such, also serves as a positive act for the greater good of Society.   Although in practical terms, the number of deaths from abortion is significantly greater, and is committed with much less thought and care.   To me, widespread frequent abortion is a much more frightening act and more indicative of a fundamental dehumanization of a category of humans.