Trump

[KnightofChrist]

21 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

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

I can cite Pope Pius XII who explain in clear and simple words the Church's teaching on it. "Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life." 

A murderer also forfeits his right to freedom by his crime which allows for him to be arrested and imprisoned. If he did not do so he could not be arrested or imprisoned. 

1 hour ago, Peace said:

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?

 

Thank you for answering my question. I only wish you did not feel it nessary to be insulting. I do not believe myself to be Pope, nor do I believe Scalia attempted to make himself pontiff. I believe in what the Church has always thaught on the matter. And that cannot be wrong. I will not be responding to you futher. Good day.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Maggyie said:

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

Why ?

[Peace]

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Thank you for answering my question. I only wish you did not feel it nessary to be insulting. I do not believe myself to be Pope, nor do I believe Scalia attempted to make himself pontiff. I believe in what the Church has always thaught on the matter. And that cannot be wrong. I will not be responding to you futher. Good day.

I never accused you of wanting to be the Pope. I said that when a person rejects an explicit teaching of the Catechism and replaces it with his own understanding of what the Church teaches, he runs a risk of replacing the Church's authority with his own private interpretation. And that is the truth as far as I see it. It is not my intention to hurt your feelings but I do believe that.

[Anomaly]

@KnightofChrist is correct that the Church's current stance in the DP is quite a recent development of prudential judgment.   The Bible is replete with history about the gravity of certain acts/sins that earn just punishment, including forfeit of liberty and Life.  DP can be considered, even now, as a legitimate self defense for society.   What's new is the change of the priorities from justice to primarily self defense.  That specifically is arguable, though the church currently puts self defense first and reconsiders the application in different terms. It's not arguing the morality of the DP, but intent of its application.  That's trickier waters to tread in and gives room for discussion and dissension.  

Abortion is fundamentally an evil act because it is the DP for an inconvenient life who committed no act to earn forfeiture of life.  Quite different than a murderer.   

Edited May 7, 2016 by Anomaly

[Maggyie]

19 hours ago, Josh said:

Why ?

Exhibit one, his use of the term "gay brownshirts." Don't get me wrong, the people he describes with this term are very very wrong, and intolerant. They are the definition of h8ters. But unless a group actually wants to set up concentration camps, let's leave the Nazi references out of it.

Things like that.

Also his "a pox on both their houses, I'm in the middle with the pope" schtick. In spite of the fact that I do the same song and dance! It's really tiresome and sanctimonious. That whole clique he's in with Simcha Fisher etc, if the pope declared eating pizza a sacrament tomorrow they would come out the next day with "mmmmm pizzaaaaah. Is sooooooo hooooooooly! Buy my book called "the Sinners Guide to Not Gorging on Pizza" and my book about "Mary and Pizza."  

again I don't really feel its appropriate to criticize the pope either. Don't mind me I'm over here being annoyed by people who are just like me...

[PhuturePriest]

Edited May 8, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Era Might]

15 hours ago, Maggyie said:

Buy my book called "the Sinners Guide to Not Gorging on Pizza" and my book about "Mary and Pizza."  

This sounds amesome.

[Socrates]

I'm not at all happy with Trump (presumably) winning the Republican nomination.  A truly dark time for the GOP, the conservative movement, and our country.  Sadly, a lot of folks let themselves get suckered by a carnival barker, a huckster, and a fraud, including a lot of folks who ought to have known better.

But, while this may be heresy to some here, I do believe a Hillary (or god forbid, Sanders) presidency would be the greater evil.  This is largely because of the current precarious condition of the Supreme and federal courts and the certain long-term damage that would come from Clinton appointments, who would remain in power for life.  It's a certainty that she would appoint all left-wing f**k-the-constitution activists.  The SCOTUS would become solidly leftist, and, while currently about 40% of federal judges are leftist Obama appointees, a Hillary presidency could raise the number to 80%.  The courts would become nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever leftist agenda the president or congress wish to inflict. You can kiss all constitutional restraints on federal power goodbye, especially religious liberty and second amendment rights, bye-bye.

Is that something you really want to contribute to?

Of course, if Trump proves to be no better, there's no reason to support him.  If he wants my vote, he'd better give me some solid assurance that he'd govern in at least a somewhat constitutional and conservative manner.  He's talked of making a "short list" of potential SCOTUS nominees.  I'd want to see it, and they'd better be constitutionalists.  The same with his running mate and other appointees. 

Of course, the problem is I really can't trust anything Trump promises.  But I'd still rather take a slim chance on Trump than commit suicide with Hillary, because I can trust her to screw over the country, and finish destroying what's left of constitutional republican government.

 

As for Shea, he's become a bad joke (though, honestly I don't follow him.  what I've seen, I was unimpressed by).  I'm sure he's been itching for the chance to endorse a Dem candidate while maintaining his "apolitical faithful Catholic" facade.  If I recall, according to him, we shouldn't vote for the lesser evil (Republican) to stop pro-abortion Dems from winning, yet now suddenly we're supposed to rally behind Hillary to stop Trump?  Really?  (You can correct me if I've misunderstood.)

[Socrates]

On 5/5/2016, 11:34:55, Josh said:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

I'm really not seeing the proportionate reasons for voting for Hillary.  Seems the most he could honestly say is that they're both thoroughly rotten and neither deserves a vote.  But Shea's a leftist hack.

To clarify my own stance:  at this point I'm not sure whether I'll vote for Trump, but I definitely won't vote for Hillary (or Comrade Sanders).

 

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

I'm not at all happy with Trump (presumably) winning the Republican nomination.  A truly dark time for the GOP, the conservative movement, and our country.  Sadly, a lot of folks let themselves get suckered by a carnival barker, a huckster, and a fraud, including a lot of folks who ought to have known better.

But, while this may be heresy to some here, I do believe a Hillary (or god forbid, Sanders) presidency would be the greater evil.  This is largely because of the current precarious condition of the Supreme and federal courts and the certain long-term damage that would come from Clinton appointments, who would remain in power for life.  It's a certainty that she would appoint all left-wing f**k-the-constitution activists.  The SCOTUS would become solidly leftist, and, while currently about 40% of federal judges are leftist Obama appointees, a Hillary presidency could raise the number to 80%.  The courts would become nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever leftist agenda the president or congress wish to inflict. You can kiss all constitutional restraints on federal power goodbye, especially religious liberty and second amendment rights, bye-bye.

Is that something you really want to contribute to?

Of course, if Trump proves to be no better, there's no reason to support him.  If he wants my vote, he'd better give me some solid assurance that he'd govern in at least a somewhat constitutional and conservative manner.  He's talked of making a "short list" of potential SCOTUS nominees.  I'd want to see it, and they'd better be constitutionalists.  The same with his running mate and other appointees. 

Of course, the problem is I really can't trust anything Trump promises.  But I'd still rather take a slim chance on Trump than commit suicide with Hillary, because I can trust her to screw over the country, and finish destroying what's left of constitutional republican government.

 

As for Shea, he's become a bad joke (though, honestly I don't follow him.  what I've seen, I was unimpressed by).  I'm sure he's been itching for the chance to endorse a Dem candidate while maintaining his "apolitical faithful Catholic" facade.  If I recall, according to him, we shouldn't vote for the lesser evil (Republican) to stop pro-abortion Dems from winning, yet now suddenly we're supposed to rally behind Hillary to stop Trump?  Really?  (You can correct me if I've misunderstood.)

I'm fairly certain he's said (at least privately on his facebook) that he likely won't vote for Hillary, but a third party. I could be wrong. 

[Socrates]

12 minutes ago, Amppax said:

I'm fairly certain he's said (at least privately on his facebook) that he likely won't vote for Hillary, but a third party. I could be wrong. 

In the quote Josh provides, Shea says he'll (being in a blue state) vote for Joe Shriner, but would vote for Hillary if he were in a contested state, and seems to urge readers in contested states to do the same.

On 5/5/2016, 11:34:55, Josh said:

I live in Violet Blue Washington and will be voting for Joe Schriner as my protest vote.  But if I were in a contested state, I'd vote for Hillary to deny him the palm.  Don't give me a load of hogwash about that being a sin.

He then gives the Ratzinger quote to justify voting for Hillary, without really explaining how the reasons for doing so are in fact proportionate.  He seems to mostly just spout standard left-liberal rhetoric (and did so long before Trump came on the political scene).

[Amppax]

Ah, that would be the Facebook post I was thinking about. Should have read a bit closer. 

[Peace]

54 minutes ago, Socrates said:

In the quote Josh provides, Shea says he'll (being in a blue state) vote for Joe Shriner, but would vote for Hillary if he were in a contested state, and seems to urge readers in contested states to do the same.

He then gives the Ratzinger quote to justify voting for Hillary, without really explaining how the reasons for doing so are in fact proportionate.  He seems to mostly just spout standard left-liberal rhetoric (and did so long before Trump came on the political scene).

I think you can make a fair argument that Trump and Clinton are fairly neutral with respect to things such as abortion. He was pro-choice two weeks ago. He might be pro-choice again two weeks from now if that helps him improve in the polls. It is difficult to believe a man who says something different every two weeks, and he does not appear to have any Christian foundation that would make the abortion problem a relevant concern of his.

If they are neutral on issues like abortion, I don't see any particular reason why anyone would choose Trump over Clinton. If someone made that choice perhaps it could be justifiable, although I would probably just vote for a 3rd party candidate myself.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Peace

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Some say trump won't make any decisions and that he works on an advisory based philosophy and that is how he built his empire. Unsure if there is any truth as to what i have been told. Whether that is good or bad for a president i do not know, i guess it's good to listen to advice for anyone but for me with a president he or she also needs to be a thinking/ideas person.

[Ash Wednesday]

Toasting our new president next November will be like: