qfnol31 Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 [quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 7 2006, 03:25 PM']Yeah, after each session they write a letter asking Congress to stop it. [right][snapback]848963[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I kinda wish they wouldn't...
catholicinsd Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 7 2006, 03:27 PM']I kinda wish they wouldn't... [right][snapback]848964[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Why do you say that?
qfnol31 Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 7 2006, 03:21 PM']So it was wrong with the Israelites did it then? [right][snapback]848960[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Bump this in case you missed it. [quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 7 2006, 03:28 PM']Why do you say that? [right][snapback]848965[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Eh, I don't think it's necessary or really prudent.
catholicinsd Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 7 2006, 03:29 PM']Bump this in case you missed it.. [right][snapback]848967[/snapback][/right] [/quote] DP is always wrong
qfnol31 Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 [quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 7 2006, 03:31 PM']DP is always wrong [right][snapback]848970[/snapback][/right] [/quote] But isn't it wrong to go against what God specifically commands? He did command it be used. I'm having a hard time seeing how you rectify the two.
catholicinsd Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 7 2006, 03:32 PM']But isn't it wrong to go against what God specifically commands? He did command it be used. I'm having a hard time seeing how you rectify the two. [right][snapback]848972[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I personally think that was tragic misunderstanding.
qfnol31 Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 [quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 7 2006, 03:33 PM']I personally think that was tragic misunderstanding. [right][snapback]848974[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Why do you say that? And why/how do you say the death penalty is always wrong?
catholicinsd Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 7 2006, 03:34 PM']Why do you say that? And why/how do you say the death penalty is always wrong? [right][snapback]848975[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The Bible is full of people not understanding God, there are many mistranslations.
qfnol31 Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 In the Hebrew it remains the same...and in Latin and I would assume Greek. Believe me, this isn't a mistranslation. Plus, why do you think that they were still doing it in Jesus' time?
catholicinsd Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 7 2006, 05:35 PM']In the Hebrew it remains the same...and in Latin and I would assume Greek. Believe me, this isn't a mistranslation. Plus, why do you think that they were still doing it in Jesus' time? [right][snapback]849058[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Because they hadn't been saved by his Precious Blood yet.
qfnol31 Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 The Jews were following the commandments handed down to them (613 of them actually). Are you saying now that the Bible is erroneous in a matter of faith or morals? That, too, I would call shaky ground.
qfnol31 Posted January 7, 2006 Posted January 7, 2006 Also, I believe you are now saying the Catechism is in error when it says, "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."
avemaria40 Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 personally, I am against the death penalty (unless the person could still commit the crime he was convicted for while in prison) it costs more than to keep the person alive, it's more merciful to let them live so they could repent, and there have been reports of discrimination. I am agaisnt killing in general though unless it's necessary like war or something
catholicinsd Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 7 2006, 05:42 PM']The Jews were following the commandments handed down to them (613 of them actually). Are you saying now that the Bible is erroneous in a matter of faith or morals? That, too, I would call shaky ground. [right][snapback]849061[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I saying at some point someone screwed up.
qfnol31 Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 [quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 7 2006, 06:52 PM']I saying at some point someone screwed up. [right][snapback]849127[/snapback][/right] [/quote] How about the Catechism?
catholicinsd Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 (edited) [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 7 2006, 06:53 PM']How about the Catechism? [right][snapback]849128[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Due mordern technogoly the expection given in Catechism shouldn't be used. If a country can't sussesfully lock their prisoners up it shouldn't be an independent country. Edited January 8, 2006 by catholicinsd
Cam42 Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 [quote name='catholicinsd']At any point in time, only the shallow executed.[/quote] It's sad to see that you still persist in denying the Catechetical view. The Church doesn't teach the death penalty is evil, but rather that the modern application of should be rare if practically non-existent. [quote name='catholicinsd'] I'd like to no where their executed went, heaven, hell purgotary? God also told Moses "Thou shalln't kiil"[/quote] Intersting translation of the 5th Commandment. However, this is what John Paul II has to say about your question: [quote name='Evangelium Vitae #40']The commandment regarding the inviolability of human life reverberates at the heart of the "ten words" in the covenant of Sinai (cf. Ex 34:28). In the first place that commandment prohibits murder: "You shall not kill" (Ex 20:13); "do not slay the innocent and righteous" (Ex 23:7). But, as is brought out in Israel's later legislation, it also prohibits all personal injury inflicted on another (cf. Ex 21:12-27). Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, does not yet reach the refinement found in the Sermon on the Mount. This is apparent in some aspects of the current penal legislation, which provided for severe forms of corporal punishment and even the death penalty. But the overall message, which the New Testament will bring to perfection, is a forceful appeal for respect for the inviolability of physical life and the integrity of the person. It culminates in the positive commandment which obliges us to be responsible for our neighbour as for ourselves: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Lev 19:18).[/quote] Was John Paul II wrong? I don't think so. This is not, I REPEAT, NOT a reason to use the death penalty in today's society, unless it is THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY OF DEFENDING THE HUMAN PERSON. He goes on to say: [quote name='Evangelium Vitae #41']The commandment "You shall not kill", included and more fully expressed in the positive command of love for one's neighbour, is reaffirmed in all its force by the Lord Jesus. To the rich young man who asks him: "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?", Jesus replies: "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:16,17). And he quotes, as the first of these: "You shall not kill" (Mt 19:18). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus demands from his disciples a righteousness which surpasses that of the Scribes and Pharisees, also with regard to respect for life: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ?You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment'. But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment" (Mt 5:21-22).[/quote] I think that just about sums up your questions. However, John Paul II is VERY clear about the modern application. He says: [quote name='Evangelium Vitae #56']This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence". Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must 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".[/quote] The Catechism says: [quote name='CCC #2267']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. If, however, 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 are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, 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 non-existent."[/quote] Ready to bring your view in line with the Caholic Church yet, Brandon? It is clear, completely clear. The PRINICPLE of the death penalty is acceptable in moral theology. The APPLICATION of the death penalty, in today's society, should be as an absolute necessity rare, if practically non-existent. [quote name='qfnol31']Other than that, I'm pretty willing to listen to private opinions, as long as people (as you have) admit they are such. [/quote] I won't go that far. The view that it is intrinsically evil is incorrect, but to say that the catechetical view is merely private opinion is not correct either. We have been over this thousands of times. Your view is not correct in this matter. The Magisterial view is that of the Catechism. It is not a private opinion of a dead pontiff. It is the view of the Church and has been affirmed as such.
catholicinsd Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jan 7 2006, 08:34 PM']Intersting translation of the 5th Commandment. However, this is what John Paul II has to say about your question: I think that just about sums up your questions. However, John Paul II is VERY clear about the modern application. He says: Ready to bring your view in line with the Caholic Church yet, Brandon? It is clear, completely clear. The PRINICPLE of the death penalty is acceptable in moral theology. The APPLICATION of the death penalty, in today's society, should be as an absolute necessity rare, if practically non-existent. [quote name='qfnol31']Other than that, I'm pretty willing to listen to private opinions, as long as people (as you have) admit they are such. [/quote] I won't go that far. The view that it is intrinsically evil is incorrect, but to say that the catechetical view is merely private opinion is not correct either. We have been over this thousands of times. Your view is not correct in this matter. The Magisterial view is that of the Catechism. It is not a private opinion of a dead pontiff. It is the view of the Church and has been affirmed as such. [right][snapback]849175[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Let's put an empathis on [b]non-existent.[/b] part.
catholicinsd Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 In that same vain these are the poor souls desperaly in need of our prayers, as they are sheduled for execution in the month of January. January 17: Clarence Ray Allen, CA January 19: John Spirko, OH January 19: Julius Murphy, TX January 20: Perrie Simpson, NC January 24: Clarence Hill, FL January 25: Marion Dudley, TX January 31: Jamie Elizalde, TX January 31: Arthur Rutherford, FL Special thanks to NCADP for this very important information.
Cam42 Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 [quote name='catholicinsd' date='Jan 7 2006, 09:39 PM'][quote name='Cam42']I won't go that far. The view that it is intrinsically evil is incorrect, but to say that the catechetical view is merely private opinion is not correct either. We have been over this thousands of times. Your view is not correct in this matter. The Magisterial view is that of the Catechism. It is not a private opinion of a dead pontiff. It is the view of the Church and has been affirmed as such. [right][snapback]849175[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Let's put an empathis on [b]non-existent.[/b] part. [right][snapback]849177[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Actually let's put an emphasis on all of it. We can't make a subjective mess of this and ignore parts simply because we don't like it. There may be recourse in the future to the death penalty, however, in today's society, the absolute necessity should be rare, if practically non-existent.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now