Trump

[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. 

[Peace]

49 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

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.

Well if we are applying an eye for an eye you shouldn't give him the death penalty. You should castrate him, subject him to all types of torture such as burning, electrocution, and so forth. Most people would rather be given a lethal injection rather than facing that type of punishment. So in that sense I don't think that the death penalty is the punishment that "comes closest to redressing the disorder". 

We don't allow castration and other forms of torture because it is inhumane. Even though some of those types of punishment may come as close as possible to being the punishment that the person truly deserves, we do not allow them because they are inhumane and conflict with basic human dignity. I think you can classify the death penalty along with these other forms of inhumane punishment. It should not be used unless there is literally no other option.

Now, some folks tend to think that when a person commits grave crimes he forfeits his right to basic dignity and can be treated as an animal. I don't buy into that. I think every person has a basic level of dignity that should be afforded him, based if nothing more, on the fact that he is a creature that is created in God's image and has a special relationship with God as such.

[little2add]

 

ABC News

• Election
• U.S.
• World
• Entertainment
•  
• More ABCNews 
• Shows
• Live4
• Video

 

 

 

 

 

00:00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

63 Million and Counting: Anti-Trump Ads Take Over the Airwaves

• By RYAN STRUYK
• SHUSHANNAH WALSHE

Mar 18, 2016, 12:50 PM ET

•  
•  
•  

PlayJim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

WATCH Donald Trump Fending Off Attackers

• 45KSHARES
•  
•  
•  
• Email 

Broadcast advertising dollars aimed at toppling GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump has soared 900 percent since his first primary 

 

 

 

 

63 million anti-trump ads and he won the primaries 

that's signifigent 

in that Trump is not only still standing he's more popular than ever

 

 

 

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Well if we are applying an eye for an eye you shouldn't give him the death penalty. You should castrate him, subject him to all types of torture such as burning, electrocution, and so forth. Most people would rather be given a lethal injection rather than facing that type of punishment. So in that sense I don't think that the death penalty is the punishment that "comes closest to redressing the disorder". 

We don't allow castration and other forms of torture because it is inhumane. Even though some of those types of punishment may come as close as possible to being the punishment that the person truly deserves, we do not allow them because they are inhumane and conflict with basic human dignity. I think you can classify the death penalty along with these other forms of inhumane punishment. It should not be used unless there is literally no other option.

Now, some folks tend to think that when a person commits grave crimes he forfeits his right to basic dignity and can be treated as an animal. I don't buy into that. I think every person has a basic level of dignity that should be afforded him, based if nothing more, on the fact that he is a creature that is created in God's image and has a special relationship with God as such.

We're, at least I am not talking about eye for eye. The condemned cannot be treated as an animal. But a murderer does forfeit his right to life when he commits murder. Since I am on my phone and your response so greatly misrepresents my postion I will not answer it further. I would however still like an answer. How many years in prison is equal to the rape and murder of multiple women and children? 

[Peace]

32 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

We're, at least I am not talking about eye for eye. The condemned cannot be treated as an animal. But a murderer does forfeit his right to life when he commits murder. Since I am on my phone and your response so greatly misrepresents my postion I will not answer it further. I would however still like an answer. How many years in prison is equal to the rape and murder of multiple women and children? 

It does sound like an eye for an eye. I don't mean that as an insult, and I don't mean to insult you. I understand that advocates of the death penalty see it as the most just result in certain situations. I don't question your motives, but I do think your position is inconsistent with the Church. I was actually in favor of the death penalty (and pro-choice) before I became Catholic, but I think it is really tough to hold on to either of those positions and remain faithful to what the Church teaches in the Catechism.

You seem to say "the appropriate response for taking a life is to take a life". If that is not what you are saying, then why isn't some other form of punishment possible?

I say "if you take an eye I take your eye". You say "if you take a life I take your life". I honestly don't see what the difference is, but perhaps you can help me understand how I misunderstand your position when you return to your computer. 

To answer your question, I don't think any number of years (be it 10 years or 100 years) is "equal" to the rape and murder of multiple people. But neither is giving someone the death penalty. It's not like giving Hitler the death sentence satisfies our (or God's) demand for justice. How about 10 million years in purgatory? Would that be enough? I don't know. God will set the appropriate penalty in His infinite wisdom.

You seem to say "although the death penalty is not sufficient, since that is the greatest punishment we can give, we have a duty to impose it." 

My response is that objectively speaking, the death penalty is not the gravest penalty that we can impose. For example, subjecting someone to torture, and then imposing the death penalty immediately thereafter is objectively a graver punishment than imposing the death penalty without torture. 

So in your hypothetical, why not torture the person before imposing the death penalty? Is that not closer to a just penalty than merely imposing the death penalty, although still insufficient to address the wrong?

If a murderer forfeits his right to life, why is his right not to be tortured not also forfeited?

But we cannot torture because torture is incompatible with human dignity. 

So then, if we recognize that certain punishments are incompatible with human dignity, we at least have to ponder the possibility that the death penalty is a punishment that is incompatible with human dignity. 

The Catechism (cited above) appears to say that the death penalty is incompatible with human dignity. That is why it says that it should only be exercised when absolutely necessarily, in effect, only as a form of self-defense to prevent the aggressor from harming other people. 

I think it is tough to argue that the Catechism doesn't stand for that. Do you disagree that is what says? If you search for the articles on First Things that Scalia wrote about the Catechism, he agrees that is what it stands for, but because he advocates for the death penalty outside of the narrow circumstances in which the Catechism allows for it, he rejects that the Catechism is the true teaching of the Church. I won't go there.

You can disagree with what the Catechism says on that point, or assert that the true teaching of the Church is something else, like Scalia, but then I think you risk becoming your own pope. Do you want to go down that route?

 

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

We're, at least I am not talking about eye for eye. The condemned cannot be treated as an animal. But a murderer does forfeit his right to life when he commits murder. Since I am on my phone and your response so greatly misrepresents my postion I will not answer it further. I would however still like an answer. How many years in prison is equal to the rape and murder of multiple women and children? 

Can you cite any Church doctrine which supports your claim that people can forfeit their right to life?