The Self Contradicting 'catholic Church'

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1159975' date='Jan 9 2007, 03:12 PM']
Urib2007 - stick with the original point of the post - the Catholic Church's stance on the death penalty. if you want to bring up your points - do so in separate threads please.
[/quote]

I'm only going to echo this once. I've moved the posts about the 10 commandments, etc., to another thread. [b]Keep on topic.[/b]

[thessalonian]

She's new IP, be easy on her. I hope that cmp didn't cast her out?

[IcePrincessKRS]

I wasn't just referring to Urib, I meant everyone, even the "oldtimers." Red made her post early on in the first page and no one paid attention to her.

[Anomaly]

thess,
Answer my questions without avoiding them by making false statements about my motives and what I know or don't know or claim I'm acting like God. It's you who is making God-like assertations by telling me what what my motives are and telling me what I don't know.
The real point is, the Church's 'consistency' is a fable in the context you wish it were. The point is, the Church's stance on the death penalty as not being about just punishment, but only as a last resort, is new. The Cardinal calling the execution of Sadaam is a Crime ignores pervious Church teaching that it the death penalty is an option to the State.

[Winchester]

I have to give points for putting Catholic Church in quotation marks. Very good; it has the tang of contempt, though the splash of the bait in the water is clear for the clumsy cast of your argument.

Sadly, you tangle up in a misinterpretation of infallibility. It's a good try, granted, but it doesn't make the cut.

NEXT.

[nighthaven]

Well me personally I believe he shouldn't have been executed. I'm just making a wild guess here, but perhaps the reason the Vatican offical called it a crime was because Sadaam never really recieved a fair trial to begin with. Sure he antagonized the court, and his loyalists killed with wild abandon, but still he deserved a fair trial without a predetermined vote of guilty. Justice is a basic human right.

As I've been reading this thread I am sensing a bit of dissent. Holy Mother Church isn't a democracy, never was and never will be. Sure there are mistakes and disagreements made by the clergy, but I'm sure The Messiah Jesus knew all this before he built his church upon St. Peter who he him himself would later deny Jesus three times. Perhaps instead of venting concerns about the clergy, you should go to church and recite the entire rosary for the intentions of the clergy; just griping accomplishes nothing.

Go with God and remember to pray and pray often.

[Anomaly]

You sense dissent? LOL!

And what do evidence do you have that Sadaam did not get a fair trail? Just a wild guess?

Thanks for the pithy, but irrelevant comments, Winny. Sarcasm usually is a poor substitute when you can't post with substance. Being 'witty' is not always a demonstration of 'wit'. Look it up.

[Kosh]

The church's teaching on the death penalty is just that it is an option when the good of society and the lives of those living around the captive may be better served/protected when the criminal is killed rather than in prison. A high-ranking terrorist whose followers might nuke the city to get him back, for example. (not saddam)

The cardinal or clergy or whatever obviously did not think Saddam met those requirements. Others might. THAT is not a matter for the church to decide, I think, unless justice obviously has NOT been done. But insofar there hasn't been any official church teaching from the vatican on that, so disagreements and differing opinions from the clergy do not mean that there is a contradiction in the church. Every clergy agrees on church teaching. Its just that they don't all agree whether or not saddam fits those requirements.



~Kosh

Edited January 11, 2007 by Kosh

[thessalonian]

[quote] The Cardinal calling the execution of Sadaam is a Crime ignores pervious Church teaching that it the death penalty is an option to the State.[/quote]

Your inability to comprehend my points is not reason to believe I've not answered the question. I note that you ignored the points I did make. I won't repeat them until you acknowledge them.

Edited January 11, 2007 by thessalonian

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1161294' date='Jan 11 2007, 08:59 AM']
But insofar there hasn't been any official church teaching from the vatican on that, so disagreements and differing opinions from the clergy do not mean that there is a contradiction in the church.
~Kosh
[/quote]
My gosh, Kosh, please read the link.
both Clergy referenced are 'Official Church Bureaucrats of the Vatican'. Hello. Cardinal Martino is the "President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace" and Fr. Lombardi is the "Holy See Press Office Director".
All you've got to do is read the Catholic News outlets and read the Catechism. They often don't jibe. Do it long enough, you discover how often it happens.
Typical of the 'apologists' here at phatmass. Attack me instead of reading the article and the Catechism and providing a factual and plausible defense for the Official Vatican spokesmen to clearly state:
1-Sadaam's execution was a crime.
2-The Church has always been AGAINST the death penalty.
Did the spokesmen qualfy his statement with any reason WHY the trial or Iraq government is/was illegitmate?
Did the spokesman qualify his statement with examples of the Church's "long" history of being against the death penalty in ALL cases?

The 3rd point is a bonus. Has the 'catholic church' been historically consistent in it's stance that death penalty is only an option if life imprisonment is NOT a viable alternative. If so, please demonstrate that Society has not been able to keep people imprisoned 50 years ago, or 500 years ago, etc. (Point being, society has always been able to imprison people).

Or you can just attack me as a ranting fool and never answer the questions. Not constructive, but it may serve as a nice Catholic pat on your Catholic back. If you're right, prove me wrong with evidence.

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1161303' date='Jan 11 2007, 09:23 AM']
Your inability to comprehend my points is not reason to believe I've not answered the question. I note that you ignored the points I did make. I won't repeat them until you acknowledge them.
[/quote]Your choice. Well I guess you won't have to repeat your silliness and we won't have to suffer reading them again.

[thessalonian]

Your arrogance is telling. You only confirm what I said earlier.

I've studied Church history. Claims about errors in the Chruch and contradictions and not one of them has proven true. Now all of the sudden after 2000 years I am supposed to believe that you have found one. More likely the problem is your perspective. Your attitude is not one of submission. Further evidence. The gates of hell shall not prevail no matter how hard they might try and no matter how many johnny come lately detractors like you they send.

By the way, let it be known that I am not defending the Archbishops position, though I take it in to consideration. The desire for revenge in the execution is concerning. Abuse is not justified no matter who is being executed.

Edited January 11, 2007 by thessalonian

[Anomaly]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1161312' date='Jan 11 2007, 09:39 AM']
Your arrogance is telling. You only confirm what I said earlier.

I've studied Church history. Claims about errors in the Chruch and contradictions and not one of them has proven true. Now all of the sudden after 2000 years I am supposed to believe that you have found one. More likely the problem is your perspective. Your attitude is not one of submission. Further evidence. The gates of hell shall not prevail no matter how hard they might try and no matter how many johnny come lately detractors like you they send.
[/quote]What? The Church has never made a mistake? Moving priests was not a mistake? It's not all of a sudden. Read what the Church says about the Great Catechism. It admits the foibles of men of both sides caused it. But you claim the Roman Catholic Church acted perfectly in all aspects?

Did you even read the article? How do you rectify the President of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace stating “The death penalty is not a natural death,” Cardinal Martino said. “And no one can give death, not even the state.”

Attack my points with evidence, not me, if you can. If you can't, then say nothing.

[Jaime]

[quote] The 3rd point is a bonus. Has the 'catholic church' been historically consistent in it's stance that death penalty is only an option if life imprisonment is NOT a viable alternative. If so, please demonstrate that Society has not been able to keep people imprisoned 50 years ago, or 500 years ago, etc. (Point being, society has always been able to imprison people).
[/quote]

I'm with Thess on this one. Since your "conversion" you seem to just ignore valid points and continue to go with your victimized rant. Now all you do is whine. Not at all entertaining

For example the fact that mentioned about how correctional facility standards are exponentially greater then they where 50 years ago.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1161323' date='Jan 11 2007, 09:54 AM']
For example the fact that mentioned about how correctional facility standards are exponentially greater then they where 50 years ago.
[/quote]Sigh. I'll edit you for relevance.
If you use the improvement in prisons as an argument, you have to provide evidence that Iraq DOES have high quality prisons. You have to demonstrate that prisons 50, 100, or 500 years ago actually were unable to imprison people for life. You would also have to show that the Church has historically provided 'teachings' that choosing the Death Penalty is a secondary option subject to the State's ability to provide imprisonment.

After you accomplish that, we'll move on to the other points.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1161333' date='Jan 11 2007, 09:15 AM']
Sigh. I'll edit you for relevance.
If you use the improvement in prisons as an argument, you have to provide evidence that Iraq DOES have high quality prisons. You have to demonstrate that prisons 50, 100, or 500 years ago actually were unable to imprison people for life. You would also have to show that the Church has historically provided 'teachings' that choosing the Death Penalty is a secondary option subject to the State's ability to provide imprisonment.

After you accomplish that, we'll move on to the other points.
[/quote]


Really you need that demonstrated? I thought you built some jails son. Bush has dedicated $400 million to new jail construction in Iraq in rebuilding the infrastructure. These jails will meet with US standards (which by the way have been accepted in all asian and arab countries now. Asia was the last to get on board)

Oh and since they didn't have the technology 100 years ago to build jails like we do today, they were less likely to successfully inter dangerous criminals. That would fall under the "big duh" factor. The reasons these standards have been greatly enhanced is because jails weren't as effective at keeping people in.

So the Church has been consistent. Jails have improved. The death penalty is not as necessary as it was 100 years ago. And the Vatican is correct in its assessment that it can be abolished.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1161321' date='Jan 11 2007, 08:50 AM']
What? The Church has never made a mistake? Moving priests was not a mistake? It's not all of a sudden. Read what the Church says about the Great Catechism. It admits the foibles of men of both sides caused it. But you claim the Roman Catholic Church acted perfectly in all aspects?

Did you even read the article? How do you rectify the President of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace stating “The death penalty is not a natural death,” Cardinal Martino said. “And no one can give death, not even the state.”

Attack my points with evidence, not me, if you can. If you can't, then say nothing.
[/quote]


You seem to have difficulty grasping the difference between faith and morals, discipline, and errors. Above you claimed this was faith and morals and an error by the Church. I NEVER said the Catholic Church made no mistakes. I don't even say the Cardinal's words are inerrant. However I do understand how one can be agasint the death penealy in the modern age and still be in line with Church teaching. I am not against it.

Your last post complains because the cardinal said capital punishment is not a natural death. It's not. That's a simple fact. By natural it means, natural according to the original state of man in the garden. Neither is slavery natural to man but because of our fallen state, in some instances it has been allowed by the Church. More tolerated, because of the fallen state of man. The same is true with the Death Penalty. It is not natural or desirable. But sometimes neccessary. On face value I disagree with the cardinal's statement and believe it to be in error. I don't need to justify it. He's not infallible.

Blessings
+

Edited January 11, 2007 by thessalonian

[Anomaly]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1161359' date='Jan 11 2007, 11:06 AM']
You seem to have difficulty grasping the difference between faith and morals, discipline, and errors. Above you claimed this was faith and morals and an error by the Church. I NEVER said the Catholic Church made no mistakes. I don't even say the Cardinal's words are inerrant. However I do understand how one can be agasint the death penealy in the modern age and still be in line with Church teaching. I am not against it.

Your last post complains because the cardinal said capital punishment is not a natural death. It's not. That's a simple fact. Neither is slavery natural to man but because of our fallen state, in some instances it has been allowed by the Church. More tolerated, because of the fallen state of man. The same is true with the Death Penalty. It is not natural or desirable. But sometimes neccessary.
+
[/quote]
Great, we're making progress.
The problem with the Cardinal's statement is he said that the State CANNOT take a life.
The Cardinal is an official spokesman for the Vatican, speaking officially, within the parameters of his position. The Vatican spokesmen are saying the Church is & has been against the death penalty because the State has no right to take a life. They're very clear. So is the current Catechism.

Thank you for conceding the point that the Church is not inerrant in all things. I do not claim the Church is never infallible, but is infallible in only very limited circumstances.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1161357' date='Jan 11 2007, 11:04 AM']
Really you need that demonstrated? I thought you built some jails son. Bush has dedicated $400 million to new jail construction in Iraq in rebuilding the infrastructure. These jails will meet with US standards (which by the way have been accepted in all asian and arab countries now. Asia was the last to get on board)

Oh and since they didn't have the technology 100 years ago to build jails like we do today, they were less likely to successfully inter dangerous criminals. That would fall under the "big duh" factor. The reasons these standards have been greatly enhanced is because jails weren't as effective at keeping people in.

So the Church has been consistent. Jails have improved. The death penalty is not as necessary as it was 100 years ago. And the Vatican is correct in its assessment that it can be abolished.
[/quote]Can you provide any real historical evidence that compares the % of escaped convicted murderers? Or is that only in the book of ' big duh'?

How about any historical Church statements that subjugates the State's authority to mete the death penalty to it's ability to imprison people? What sort of emperical standard has the Church been using? The ability to successfully imprison 80%, 90%, 98%?

What about considering the higher standards in practicing law? Better forensic evidence, better lawyers and judges, higher standards to prove guilt?

[Jaime]

[quote] What about considering the higher standards in practicing law? Better forensic evidence, better lawyers and judges, higher standards to prove guilt?
[/quote]

before dancing to another subject, how about acknowledging that my point is valid?

[thessalonian]

Quite clearly you do not read things very carefully. I said at face value I did not agree with the Cardinals statement. But if he means by “take the life” an unjust taking of life and he sees things that happened in Sadaam’s execution such as it being out of revenge and hatred rather than the duty of the state to protect it’s people, then his statement may be agreeable to me. Currently I see it without it’s context and it may well be taken out of context. I asked you above if Sadaam was okay for exterminating the Kurds. You dismiss this argument as silly. If that was his biblically and doctrinally allowed right as head of state. I would sure hope you would not agree with that any more than the world should not have opposed Hitler for exterminating the Jews. The point is there are limits to the rigth of states to use the sword. I do not know on what grounds the cardinal is saying this is beyond those limits if that is what he said. In your mind the killing of Sadaam by the state was a just one. However taking the life of a head of state has it’s own theological pitfalls. I do not know that the Cardinal is not taking some of this in to consideration as well as the nature of the execution. I do not know that when he says “cannot take the life” he does not mean that phrase in a way consistent with the Catechism. If it is not then I disagree with it. I am not defending him. But sometimes we need to be very careful with accusations. I consider your accusation about the “nature” of the death penalty to be a misunderstanding on your part. The Cardinals statement may be a misunderstanding on both of our parts.

Edited January 11, 2007 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

These two statements indicate to me that the cardinal's views are not out of line.

[quote]In early November, Cardinal Martino told ANSA, the Italian news agency, that to carry out the death penalty against Saddam would be an act of “vengeance” and that the church teaches that societies have the means of protecting its citizens without restoring to execution.

"For me, to punish a crime with another crime, such as killing out of vengeance, means that we are still at the stage of 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,'" he said. [/quote]

He recognizes the right of the state to protect it's people just as the Catechism says.
He believes (right or wrong) that Sadaam could be adequetely incarcerated, providing that protection.
He believes that the capital punishment of Sadaam would be out of vengence, not out of the states obligation to protect it's people. Therefore he calls it unjust and a crime. Vengence is not a proper motive fore capital punishment. "Vengence is mine" says the Lord in Romans 12. While I may not agree with him on this, it helps to put it in context and I do not see him as a heretic as some would have it.