Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 11/20/2006 4:25:28 AM PST by goldstategop
When the church fights against capital punishment for convicted murderers, it circumvents goverment.
Well, the Church, to use your word "fights" against abortion too, and that's legal....
I guess you're saying that abortion is ok, then, since it is "legal"?
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
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.
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 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 nonexistent."
It's a good argument. The timing of Bernardin's speech was interesting too.:)
Thank you for posting! The Catechism is a great resource.
Chapter Two: "You Shall Love Your Neighbor As Yourself"
Article Five: The Fifth Commandment
I. Respect for Human Life
II. Respect for The Dignity of Persons
III. Safeguarding Peace
If they want to enforce the Nuremberg Code, they could start with Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Michael J. Fox...
This statement could be misleading. The Church still recognizes the right of the State to inflict the death penalty, in principle, in order to protect the public. But when it is possible for the State to imprison murderers for life without them representing a threat to society (such as in "supermax" prisons), the Church opposes the use of the death penalty. The Church has modified its position with regard to the death penalty in consideration of changing circumstances, but the Church has not changed its position in principle.
Well done, LisaFab.
If you read my posts, then you'd understand that I know the distinctions and that it was my intent to explain that nuanced position.
If you can form a cogent argument, go right ahead, but your current "opinions" don't cut it.
The novel addendum:...if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Compare this to the Catechism of Trent:
Execution Of CriminalsAnother kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment? is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
It is not my opinion. The Church is the Spotless Bride of Christ, which He Himself preserves without stain. Church men were given no such promise.
[It is not my opinion. The Church is the Spotless Bride of Christ, which He Himself preserves without stain. Church men were given no such promise.]
Oh well, alrighty then, lmao.
To deny the death penalty is to insist on life for evil. If the most hardened criminal goes unpunished, we adhere to a system that denies life to those whose persons were violated. This grants life to those who commit evil acts.
http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20031210yarris1210p1.asp
DNA exonerates death row inmate
State won't retry Nicholas Yarris for 1981 Delaware County murder; he's first in state to use genetic test to escape death penalty
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
By Cindi Lash, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A Pennsylvania death row inmate became the first in the state to be exonerated by DNA evidence after prosecutors announced yesterday they would not retry him for the 1981 rape and murder of a suburban Philadelphia woman.
So what's your point?
[So what's your point?]
So what's my point? Um, I think you just proved my point.
Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or feel alarmed. Most of the time, it's a combo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.