Good – if sarcastic – points.
On the other hand, it was Jesus that cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves. So it wasn’t always pacifism with Him.
A justified execution is “intrisically” not the same as an unjustified execution. They are different acts, not the same act. One is done to protect others, one is done for punishment. execution solely as a method of punishment is regarded as intrinsically evil by the Church. The position of the Church is that execution is only justified when there is no other way to prevent the person from harming others. That’s an “intrinsically” different act thyen killing for retribution or punishment. The Church specifically says that prison is a reasonable enough restraint that execution can’t be justified. You may argue that a person can still be a danger to others in prison, but the Church doesn’t agree with that position. The Church would say that’s a problem with the prison that can be fixed, not a justification for murder.
Er… no.
While the Church takes this position, it doesn’t do so as a definitive matter of faith or morals. In other words, a good, faithful, and obedient Catholic is free to disagree with the Church on this point and reach his own conclusion.
It is true that the Church’s position as to the death penalty in this country is, as you say, any circumstances which would justify executing a criminal are so remote and theoretical as to be, for practical purposes, non-existent. And I agree with that position. But it’s not true that simply because the Church takes this position, subjective judgment is removed.
Being a Christian church one would suspect that there might be elements of the whole “turn the other cheek” and “forgiveness” paradigms to take into account. My Christian mythology is a little rusty, but isn’t there precedent of forgiving murderers going back to Golgotha?
Yes, that’s true.
The only place you’re wrong is assuming that the Church’s position is a binding one, somehow, and thus not following it is an “intrinsic” evil.
Forgiveness in that context has nothing to do with public safety - or, indeed, with temporal punishment.
There’s a whole lot of space between knocking over tables and carpet bombing villages.
I modified my post above to make the point that killing for punishment and killing to protect others are intrisically different acts, not the same act.
The Church’s position is binding on the Church, is it not? I don’t know what you mean by saying the Church’s position is “not binding.” Not binding on who? We’re talking about some Catholic clergy advocating the denial of communion for the support of political positions which are opposed by the Church. Well, the death penalty is opposed by the Church. That position is “binding” on Catholics to the same degree as its position on abortion.
You also never hear these guys saying that people who use birth contol should be denied Communion. They’re trying to impose a special punishment for one specific political position (not even for the act itself, or even moral agreement with the act, but a simple position that it should not be made illegal), but ignoring support for others which the Church equally opposes. It’s hypocritical and it’s gutless. If these guys want to be hard-asses, let them be hard-assed about ALL the Church positions, not just safe ones.
If Father Newman is your parish priest–go right ahead. But he speaks only for himself.
The expression of an idea by a single cleric (or even a group of bishops) does not automatically become a declaration that no one within the church may disagree with the statement. Notice your own phrase “some Catholic clergy.”
This is simply made up nonsense. There are a lot of clerics who will state publicly that any use of artificial contraception requires a person to refrain from receiving communion. Unlike public declarations (or legislative votes or executive actions) to support abortion, however, no person is publicly recognized as engaging in birth control. In addition, contraception, to the extent that it prevents conception, is a very different thing that the explicit taking of life through abortion. There is a fairly wide body of discussion among theologians and bishops regarding the possible exceptions to refraining from contraception as indicated by Humanae Vitae.
In the case of the priest in the OP, we have one priest (with extraordinarily conservative credentials) making a statement to his own parishioners–a statement that has not been supported by any other priests of whom I am aware and has absolutely not been put forth by any synod or national or church-wide council of bishops. There is a great difference between being told to avoid participating in the act of abortion and being told to repent for simply having voted for the “wrong” candidate.
Until you find evidence that Fr. Newman has encouraged parishoners to engage in contraception, your claim is silly.
I considered myself a Catholic for a long time after realizing I didn’t believe in a Messiah Jesus, son of God. I thought it was a nice enough idea, but not credible.
Of course, after a number of years of that, I realized that I thought God was a nice enough idea, but not credible. So yeah, maybe these views aren’t compatible with Catholicism.
Does the church give communion to those who give false witness (“Obama pals around with Terrorists”)?
But then the only way to completely assure that absolutely no harm will be committed by that criminal is 23 hour lockdown and 1 hour solitary yard. I thought the idiots declared that was inhumane?
What idiots?
WWJD - pump the convicted killer full of a cocktail of drugs to stop his heart?
I am shocked, SHOCKED that someone has found an example of hypocrisy in the Catholic Church. Who would’ve thought?
Funny how all those priests who molested children are given holy Communion in prison, along with all the serial killers and rapists. But anyone who voted to end the war? Excommunicate the evil bastards.
As a recovering Catholic, all I can say is :rolleyes: …
There are seven sacraments. That’s a position of the Church that is binding on all the faithful. You may not claim there are nine sacraments and call yourself a Catholic in union with the Holy See.
Mary appeared to three shepherd children at Fátima, Portugal in 1917. That’s a position the Church has decided is true, but it’s not binding on the faithful. You can believe that those three kids in 1917 were hallucinating and still be a Catholic in union with the Holy See.
That the death penalty is unjustified in the United States today is a statement more in line with the Fatima apparition. The Church believes it, but you may reach a different conclusion through your own prudential judgment and still be on safe ground. But HOW you reach that decision is important. If you reason: “Look, that guy killed three people and raped two more, so he just doesn’t deserve to live,” then you are NOT on safe ground. If you reason: “Even with a life sentence, he could still kill a guard, and it’s not worth the risk,” then you’re on safe ground.
Now let’s consider abortion. I’ve already given an example of when abortion may be morally permissible by mentioning ectopic pregnancy and describing the principle of unintended secondary effect. Again we see that the reasons you rely upon are important. “I want to terminate this pregnancy,” is an evil end. “I want to save the life of this woman,” is a moral end… even if saving her life has the unintended effect of terminating the pregnancy.
Consider voting for Obama. A person that says, “I’m voting for Barack Obama because I think abortion is a perfectly fine legal choice for women to have,” has, in my view, committed a gravely sinful act. But a person who says, “I’m voting for Obama because the great good he will do for the poor, his promise to end the killing in Iraq, and his intelligence in general outweigh the harm his support for abortion will cause,” is on perfectly sound moral ground. Reasons are important – no, reasons are critical in Catholic thinking.
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
And the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst, they said unto him, “Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her?”
And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
And they, when they heard it, began to leave, one by one, beginning from the eldest. But then Jesus picked up a huge stone and killed the woman with a single blow. And Jesus said unto them, “Wait a second - if you think about this, it’s going to be a pretty sorry judicial and penal system that requires all who sit in judgment of the crimes of others to be sinless themselves. It pretty well narrows it down to me and Mom, and, frankly, I’m going to be pretty busy here in a bit.”
For a pregnant woman or a priest?
I think his point was that it was god’s job to sit in judgment. Humorous, though. The way I heard it was a little old Jewish woman comes wobbling in with a huge stone and kills the woman, to which Jesus looks up and says “Awww, mom!”