Let me put it this way. I WILL vote to re-elect President Bush. I will vote for him because his political beliefs mirror mine for the most part.

Except for capital punishment.

I believe in the preservation of life at all stages. I know that the Church accepts capital punishment when it is a last resort. Just like a war is just as a last resort. But the form of capital punishment that is alive and well, expecially in Texas, is not the type of capital punishment the Church accepts. The Vatican has come down hard on this. Yet, many Catholics are urged to vote for Bush.

Hmmmmmm....

The killing of a human being as punishhment for murder - when we can easily lock them up for life - is not categorically evil? Are you saying that it is ok to overlook Bush's heinous Capital Punishment record but not Kerry's abortion record?

All I'm saying is this. I don't think its just when a traditional Catholic like me, whose beliefs are in line with Church teaching, can to vote for Bush and recieve communion, when in the same way a traditional Catholic were to vote for Kerry, and then be told by Bishop Burke that they must refrain from recieving communion.

Both traditional Catholics are for the preservation of life, but have different political ideologies. So they overlook certain things.

This is faith getting mixed up with politics in the worst way: when a bishop tries to force his own bias upon the flock.

Burke needs to get that letter from Ratzinger.

-- W.K. (WK@netscape.net), July 28, 2004

Answers

Bump to New Answers to invite comment.

-- (bump@bump.bump), July 28, 2004.

well, WK, we have to look at several issues in regards to the capitol punishment status in the US. yes, we have the ability to lock a prisoner away for life, at great expense to the US taxpayers (which is a non issues because human life is worth more than money)... BUT we still must consider other factors:

1) can the criminal stand a reasonable chance of rehabilitation

2) did the criminal have complete moral understanding of his/her actions, AND did he/she have full moral accountability factors.

3) if placed in prison for life, will this person carry out potentially lethal or extremely violent crimes against his/her fellow prisoners.

number three is key here, because it is a fact that many extremely violent criminals will visit injustice against their fellow inmates. if it is likely that they will kill or seriously attack their fellow inmates repeatedly, this makes the death penalty MORE justifiable.

conversely, in looking at abortion, we are dealing with an innocent life which is blameless and deserves no death. THAT is the difference.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 28, 2004.

Yes Paul, but as Governor of Texas Bush showed a morbid enthusiasm for promoting capital punishment, not as a last resort, but to a far greater extent than any democratic state. The execution of the vast majority of those whose death warrants he signed were immoral according to at least one, and in some cases all three, of the tests you mention.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 29, 2004.

if you remember some time ago texans were frustrated with crime and there was a big push for harsher punishment.

in all fairness, if bush has a "morbid enthusiasm for capital punishment", its because the voters of texas do, too.

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

You guys can say all you want that capital punishment is justified, but it doesn't make it true. Holy Mother Church teaches that only as a last resort, when there is nothing else we can do, may a person be put to death for the safety of society. You are all kidding yourselves when you say that the form of capital punishment that President Bush votes for is possibly morally permissable. You are no better than the pro-Abortionists. I believe that this country has the means to lock up convicted murderers for life. If you disagree with that you are kidding yourself. A vote for either Kerry or Bush is a vote that cooperates in evil.

I will still vote for Bush. But I vote for him despite his faults. I know people that vote for Kerry in the same way, despite his faults. You all act like your beliefs are in line with Church teaching when you actually openly support Capital Punishment. And then you go and criticize people who are for abortion. Yes, abortion is disgusting and repulsive, but so is Capital punishment. There is no justifying it. You guys are too liberal.

-- W.K. (WKHouston19@netscape.net), July 29, 2004.

Look, Holy Mother Church says that the death penalty CAN be used...as a last resort. But guess who gets to make the call as to when the "last resort" has been met? Hint, it's not arm-chair judges or the Media. It's those given public authority.

Sure, maybe they're wrong. But they have the authority. And the Church recognizes this.

On the other hand Abortion is NEVER justified and Holy Mother Church has NEVER allowed anyone, public or private to do it and still be considered moral.

So we really are talking apples and oranges here. Unborn children are the very definition on innocent victims. Guys who've been caught, tried, (often repeatedly) and sentenced to death by the State - with lots of appeals mandated by law... are not morally equivalent to unborn children.

So there's not rational way you can compare Kerry with Bush. None. So you must be basing your angst on emotion - which is dangerous so shape up.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 29, 2004.

Yes Joe, those with civil authority make the call, regarding capital punishment or any other moral issue, and it is not our role to judge the state of their souls. BUT when a candidate presents himself for democratic election, the electors not only can, but must, make a judgment whether his previous actions as a ruler were moral. You can’t just say “they have the authority so we can’t question their actions”. You yourself have condemned as immoral executions authorised by other civil authorities.

Jas, an immoral execution does not become moral just because it would please most of the voters. Many of the executions carried out in Texas and other states are quite clearly immoral, such as those of teenage offenders and the mentally disabled.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 31, 2004.

That's only your opinion. A biased therefore faulty judgment. You ignore the fact that the courts sentenced all of the executed criminals. Not the governor. He was sworn to uphold the laws of his state. You mantain he showed morbid enthusiasm in any executions he didn't commute.

But you didn't see all of the cases. You judge hindsightedly and make independent determinations on pure bias. You are indeed the one with a morbid enthusiasm, denigrating a governor who didn't act according to your private standards. You're not qualified at all to judge another man for ''morbid enthusiasm.'' That is defamation and slander. It is SINFUL.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 31, 2004.

“a biased therefore faulty judgment” – in your biased, therefore faulty, opinion. As I understand it, a State Governor has the absolute responsibility to confirm or deny a sentence of execution, no matter how vehemently the court may have insisted on it. Of course I "judge hindsightedly" , I can hardly make a judgment on any FUTURE decisions he might make, I can just guess what his future decisions might be based on the morality of his past decisions. As I said I don’t “judge another man” – that’s up to God. I only have to judge whether I will vote for him based on what I, not you , believe is the morality of his past actions. Of course this is "an independent determination" - all voters must be free to independently determine their own opinion of the morality of the candidates' past actions. I'm sorry that offends you so much. Obviously you're very uncomfortable with the idea of democracy and would be much happier under the fascist dictatorship you've expressed so much admiration for.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 01, 2004.

Steve, Dear:
You make my point for me. ''I can just guess what his future decisions might be based on the morality of his past decisions.'' You mean based on your speculation of that man's morality.

When I speculated the slim chance of Hitler and Mussolini having died in the state of grace, you nearly ripped off your garments. ''How DARE you; etc.,''

You see, Steve-- when you act like a Pharisee, the specious things you preach will expose you as just that. You know there's no Christian way you can call a man unjust because he accepts the law in his state as legitimate. So that he upholds that belief, and that law.

You are like a bullfrog; inflated with your personal opinions. And YES- they're biased, therefore faulty, and must be disqualified.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 01, 2004.

“I speculated the slim chance of Hitler and Mussolini having died in the state of grace”

Er, no, you dogmatically declared that they went to Hell, no “slim chance: about it.

“there's no Christian way you can call a man unjust because he accepts the law in his state as legitimate”

YOU have no hesitation in agreeing with me when I call men unjust who accept abortion law. Am I unchristian to say that the legislators who upheld slavery laws were unjust? Why do you make a special category of capital punishment laws as sacrosanct from any criticism, just because they match your desire for vengeance and your political preference? You insist those who disagree with you must be "biased" so their opinions can be ignored, but it's impossible that YOU could be biased! You are a hypocrite, Eugene, Dear.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 02, 2004.

Wait wait wait. Steve.

You agree that capital punishment is fundamentally different than abortion right? The state executing a tried and convicted violent criminal is different than a private person killing an unborn child. You agree that these two cases of people being killed are categorically different right?

Only if we get past this can we proceed.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 02, 2004.

You resort to lies, Steve. I didn't state anything dogmatical. I said Franco died in a state of grace. Hitler/Mussolini were HARDLY in that state. One a suicide, another a tyrant and anti-cleric. Even so; it was a speculation. I have the same right to speculate as you do. You attempt to slither out of a perfectly sound analogy. Why? Beacause I gall you. Only because I make you furious. You respond with lies. Notice:

''--agreeing with me when I call men unjust who accept abortion law.''

Why shouldn't I agree with you; you thought you were the only authority on abortion around here? And: ''Am I unchristian to say that the legislators who upheld slavery laws were unjust?''-- No; am I? Sure, but I'm not as Christian as you if I disagree about capital punishment? Indeed.

''Why do you make a special category of capital punishment laws as sacrosanct from any criticism,'' (This calls for the question mark, Steve.)

I didn't call anything ''sacrosant'' about these laws; you fib once again. Nor are they special in category, How dare you accuse me of ''your desire for vengeance and your political preference--'' -- ? ? ? ? ? Again you lie. Vengeance has nothing whatever to do with my opinion.

I believe in clemency always being available. But I do NOT think abolishing a law like the death penalty is WISE. You can ''criticize'' to your heart's content; just don't try to declare anathema what you have no understanding of.

The LAW is a TEACHING instrument. It gives all reasonable men the true definition of what is just and unjust. A sentence of death for serial killers and such evil-doers makes the absolute distinction between what society will allow and what society must strictly bar of men & women. If that law's abolished by squeamish souls like yourself, there are no longer hard questions about human depravity for those who feel tempted to kill, maim and violate others. They see no hard imperative for which to stifle a base urge. The penalty of death is that imperative. That's why it is WISE.

Nevertheless, mercy and clemency is available in many cases. It always was, even in ancient times. Every day some sinner is indulgenced. God is merciful, and we also must be.

In any case, I don't share your unholy objection to death for specious reasons. It is not always the very worst thing that happens to men. Death is preferable to many alternatives. It's unchristian to tremble and grovel because death is your portion. The Word of God is plain: The wages of sin is death.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 02, 2004.

“You agree that capital punishment is fundamentally different than abortion right?” (Joe)

Of course, if you're talking about the general concepts. Despite Eugene’s false accusations, I do not state that CP is ALWAYS immoral. BUT in individual cases IF the conditions for CP being moral do not exist (I’m not going to go over them all again, or indeed rehash the other arguments for and against CP, see other threads) then CP would be the immoral taking of a human life and IN THAT CASE is morally equivalent to abortion. In both objectively immoral cases of CP and abortion, there can be extenuating circumstances which can reduce individual guilt for taking the life, such as revulsion at the felon’s crime, and pressure on a woman to have an abortion. But these don’t affect the objective immorality of the act. Nobody could argue that it is moral for instance to execute a man who was so mentally disabled that he only ate half of the pecan pie he had requested for his last meal, asking the guard to put the other half in the refrigerator so he could eat it later.

Eugene, I will try to be more careful with my punctuation marks and to only quote the exact words you used rather than paraphrasing you. But please desist from calling me a liar.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 03, 2004.

OK, I think we've made progess here. Eugene? Steve? Let's at least agree here: CP (Capital Punishment) may SOMETIMES be morally licit, given the circumstances, whereas ABORTION is ALWAYS immoral regardless of the circumstances.

Anytime an innocent, harmless person is killed intentionally, an immoral act has occured (regardless of moral culpability of the killer). Whereas sometimes a guilty, dangerous person MAY be killed intentionally by the State to protect the common good or by a private person to protect their own life - if there is no alternative.

When a criminal, dangerous person is killed intentionally (by the State) or unintentionally (by a civilian defending himself) it's not ALWAYS an immoral act - it could be, but then again it may not. Circumstances and the intent of the person doing the violent act changes the moral status of the act.

In the case of a mentally ill person...it MAY be the case that personal culpability is diminished (drunk driving anyone?) but it is NOT true that this is the moral equivalent to an unborn baby - because ill or not, the convicted convict DID DO SOMETHING illegal and immoral.

Thus again we Catholics need to keep in mind fundamental distinctions when thinking about morality. If Steve was seized by a private person (a wife, a girl friend, a stranger) and summarily shot - then his death would be on par with an unborn child being executed by its mother and a strange doctor.

In both cases PRIVATE persons use deadly force INTENTIONALLY against an INNOCENT person.

This is how the Church has always interpreted Scriptural precepts against violence: private persons can't choose death or life. Christians must either flee violence or forgive it when suffered, pray for their persecutors, etc. and only in extremely rare cases defend themselves - virtually always by the least violent means possible (and typically only when in charge of others such as their wives or children).

The State (or "authorities") however are responsible for the common good or "law and order" "tranquilitas ordinis" which involves the use of force to coerce evil doers from evil: "hey you evil-doers, stop all that evil"!

You are right Steve that some cases of State executions are illegal and immoral (such as Thomas More's execution). In the same way, some wars are also immoral regardless of the state's involvement in the decision "ad bellum".

Not everything the State does is moral because the state is an authority (that's an obvious Catholic position).

But anytime a private person intentionally kills or uses violence against an innocent, harmless person (duellum) that person commits a sin (and perhaps breaks the law too).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 03, 2004.

Yes, Joe. Progress is much preferable to back-biting and having to fend off incorrect interpretations of our staements. Once more I am asked to tolerate this: ''Despite Eugene’s false accusations,''

I ask someone not to lie about me or my statements and instead consider the various arguments I've made, such as the true purpose of a death penalty statute, and the proper Christian regard for just penalties, with a wholesome attitude toward inevitable death; and the answer I get is, ''Despite Eugene's false accusation.'' It's demoralizing to dispute with a person so adamantly self-righteous. Especially when that one is insistent on calling the other ''racist'' and saying he's after some form of ''vengeance'' rather than legal justice. I believe that for me, the subject is closed. If Steve has yet to understand the valid points of view, let him forget about me. He's exhausted all my patience. In fact, one could decry outright the ridiculous attempt to juxtapose abortion of the unborn and execution of the guilty. It's indefensible. Still, I'd rather reach an impasse in that dispute, than have to constantly defend against lies.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 03, 2004.

Joe,

In the case of a mentally ill person...it MAY be the case that personal culpability is diminished (drunk driving anyone?)

Personally, I don't think that killing someone while drunk should warrant any leniency for diminished capacity. The person CHOSE to drink to excess, so they should bear the full brunt of the punishment for their actions. OTOH, someone who has diminished capacity that is out of their control, such as a schizophrenic SHOULD have their punishment reflect this.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 03, 2004.

Brings to mind a well-known Massachusetts senator. He caused a woman's death one night in Chapaquiddick.

Never did face a judge. It seems certain he left the scene of her death and reported to the police next day. He would have been charged with drunk driving if he'd reported the accident right away.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 03, 2004.

Joe, I think you and I are saying the same thing in different words.

Eugene, I never cease to be amazed at your capacity to continually announce you are withdrawing from a discussion, then come back the same day with another vicious rejoinder. What were you saying about not judging anybody based on speculation? (Sorry they may not be your exact words, I can’t be bothered wading through all your abuse on other threads to find out where you said that.)

You need reminding what were your latest false accusations against me? You falsely accused me of wanting to “abolish” the death penalty and that I declared it “anathema” merely because I “have no understanding of it” and am “squeamish”, “unholy” and “a Pharisee”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 03, 2004.

Dear Steve:
I hope you know by now; in this world we must take whatever we can get. It isn't Paradise.

If I disappoint you, carry that cross. Don't squeal.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 03, 2004.

I’m not squealing, but you claimed that you were unable to “tolerate” my saying that you had made false accusations against me, so I was simply reminding you of what your false accusations were. You would be a more valuable contributor to discussions if you first read and thought about the previous posts, including your own, before shooting off.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 04, 2004.

You aren't very coherent tonight. But I get your drift. You're squealing.

Save it for the day you sit in judgment over our President. I know you can hardly wait, Your Honor.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 04, 2004.

You can save your ignorant condemnations for the day you sit in judgment over me, Senator Kennedy, and all the Muslims of the world. But that's only going to happen inside your narrow mind.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 05, 2004.

There's the main difference. I condemn no one.

You do. I only say that just and necessary warfare is not an offense against God. Nor is a legal death penalty, when implemented fairly. You've decided here that you SPEAK for God.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 05, 2004.

Eugene,

Brings to mind a well-known Massachusetts senator. He caused a woman's death one night in Chapaquiddick.

Exactly right. Hopefully the Senator who escaped punishment by man still had the humility to confess his actions and repent. The eternal consequences can be much higher.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 05, 2004.

He ought to confess, for the sake of his immortal soul. And, while he's at it, confess as well to enabling and giving approval to abortion on demand.

As for us; we also must repent all our sins. There is no getting out of it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 05, 2004.

"Nobody could argue that it is moral for instance to execute a man who was so mentally disabled that he only ate half of the pecan pie he had requested for his last meal..."

That don't mean much Steve. How many men do you think are hungry before they are getting ready to be executed? If he would of ate the WHOLE pie would it of made a difference? I probably couldn't eat a bite of pie if I knew I was going to be executed.

He wasn't so " mentally disabled" that he knew how to savagley kill innocent people like the person he was. And what did this particular criminal do that the state exucuted him for after spending millions on his defense?

-- - (David@excite.com), August 05, 2004.

This serves to tell us, the ignorant losers:

If that killer just eats up all his pie, the execution is absolutely Kosher. Oh, fine --sure.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 05, 2004.

Come on David and Eugene, you know that’s not the point. The point is the guy had no idea that he would never be able to eat the other half. I agree with you that the whole idea of giving the prisoner a special last meal just adds to the barbarity. If they’re going to kill him anyway, why not just give him bread and water for the last week? It’s not going to matter if he doesn’t get enough vitamins or fiber.

“He wasn't so " mentally disabled" that he knew how to savagley kill innocent people” David, many, many innocent people have been killed by mentally disabled people. I’m surprised you don’t know this.

“I only say that just and necessary warfare is not an offense against God. Nor is a legal death penalty, when implemented fairly.” (Eugene)

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. Bush, however, (leaving aside his ardor for war) is so fanatically devoted to capital punishment that he implemented it at a rate never seen under any other state governor, or indeed in any other democratic state. It beggars belief that every one of these executions was done purely because it was the ONLY POSSIBLE way to stop the person from killing others, which the Church teaches is the only justification for CP to be "implemented fairly". The cost of defending and imprisoning him, or the possible deterrent effect “to stifle a base urge” in “those who feel tempted to kill, maim and violate others”, cannot be a justification for CP.

“You've decided here that you SPEAK for God.” No, it's you who keep doing that. You do it again with your arrogant assumption that Sen Kennedy has not confessed the sins you are somehow so certain he committed. I have merely quoted the Church’s teachings and made logical deductions.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 05, 2004.

"The point is the guy had no idea that he would never be able to eat the other half. "

Well Steve whats the guys name because I would like to read what kind of barbaric murder he committed? And look at the "thinking" that was done in the these murders. Maybe he's not as dumb as you were made to believe. Do you know anything about the innocent victims that were brutally murdered or do you just make it your bussiness to pity the killer?

Just because a defense lawyer says something isn't reason to believe this. And you complain about giving him his last meal and not being able to think.?I wonder if the victims were given a last meal?

Can I have a link to read please?

PS: Steve I have to tell you that you are quite a guy. I have never seen anyone get the last word in with you. I don't think its possible.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 05, 2004.

Thank you David, I think that was a compliment.

It wasn’t what a defense lawyer said, it was the guards. The guy had half his brain missing so I think that on its own is pretty good evidence that he was mentally disabled. His name was Rickey Ray Rector so you can look up his crime if that turns you on, I’m not that interested in how and why individuals kill because obviously it's always wrong unless it's clearly self-defense. When the State kills people in my name, I do want to know whether it’s right or not. And as the Church has made clear, CP can be justified only if it is the only way possible to prevent future killings or similar crimes by the prisoner.

I quote that well-known liberal Ann Coulter: “ During the 1992 primary campaign, Gov. Clinton flew back to Little Rock to observe the execution of Rickey Ray Rector, a murderer who had already blown half his brains out with a gun. After finishing his last meal, but leaving his dessert untouched, the lobotomized Rector explained to the prison guards that he was saving the pecan pie for "later." Even death penalty proponents found this execution a bit hard to swallow.”

from http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/?uc_full_date=19990924

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 05, 2004.

Steve, Don't take liberties you won't grant to us.
I mustn't ''assume'' Teddy's guilt. but you think you have a right to assume Bush has an ''ardor'' for war. Ridiculous.

You go hysterical over Rector's execution, and it was Clinton who failed to commute it. I am appalled at it too. Bush carried out an explicit Texas law; we don't know the full reason why. But you assume full knowledge.

If imprisonment is the way to deter murderers, how come many inmates and correctional officers are brutally murdered inside the walls from time to time? But an executed killer will never kill anybody again, on the street or in a prison. So can the Gee Whiz about ''beggars belief'' and it ''cannot be a justification for CP. It IS the justification, as long as desperate criminals are unchallenged by legal means.

Even so, I'm not arguing against all your ''logical'' deductions. I'm flatly telling you they aren't logical. Because no one LOVES an execution. It's a LAWFUL way of ending a perceived danger to innocent lives. I definitely care about a criminal's life. But abolishing the LAW is taking a practical deterrent away from society when clemency is out of the question. Sorry: You lose the debate.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 06, 2004.

Steve,

I think slick willy should of stopped that one. But he put himself in the situation by murdering a police officer working to support his family.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 06, 2004.

I found a article to help you with your "stumbling block" on this Steve: Originally printed in the April 1984 issue of The Angelus magazine A Catholic Perspective By Emmanuel Valenza The error of conceiving capital punishment as a moral evil is pervasive in the Catholic Church today. Arguments against the death penalty, as voiced by Catholics, have a common denominator, namely, the punishment is unchristian. The charge is most unusual because the Church perennially has defended the right of the State to put a criminal to death. In effect the current anti-capital punishment sentiment accuses the Church of uncharitable behavior for two millennia because she has sanctioned the State's right to "carry the sword," as Saint Paul puts it (Romans 13:4).

I say "in effect" because in most cases the Church's traditional support of the death penalty is simply ignored. The abolitionists claim, for sundry reasons, that the punishment is uncharitable ¯period.

In the following article, I will attempt to bring to evidence, by appealing to Scripture, tradition and reason, and stressing the insights of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant [Ed’s note: while the Catholic Church has condemned Kant’s liberal system of philosophy, nevertheless, his quotes are important as they show remarkable support for capital punishment from one of the most influential members of liberalism], that capital punishment is a just and therefore charitable punishment because:

it respects man as an image of God;

it is a punishment which is proportionate to certain heinous crimes;

it has a purgatorial effect on the soul;

it protects the common good; and

it treats the criminal as a person, as an image of God.

The defense of the death penalty will be clustered around three arguments against capital punishment in vogue among Catholics. I will state the objections to the death penalty in the form of propositions. They should be recognizable to anyone even remotely acquainted with the subject of capital punishment.

Argument: Modern man's rejection of capital punishment as morally wrong is indicative of his growing awareness of the dignity and value of human life. Those who support the death penalty, on the other hand, treat human life irreverently. If we are to revere life we must revere all life, including the life of the criminal.

Ironically, the death penalty is first sanctioned in Genesis 9:6, precisely because the act of murder violates man's integrity as made in the image of God. Genesis 9:6 reads: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God man was made." The sacred writer warrants the death penalty ¯not its abolishment ¯on the basis that it is a sign of reverence for the life of the murdered man. Recognition of the dignity, value and preciousness of man demands that the murderer be put to death. Hand in hand with the recognition of the dignity and value of man is the conviction that only the punishment of death is commensurate with the crime.

Conversely, the sacred writer implies that the failure to ratify capital punishment when a man is murdered bespeaks a lack of reverence for man as an image of God. The preciousness of the person, his dignity, his ontological value qua person ¯which the murderer blatantly disregards ¯is not esteemed unless the villain is put to death. That man is made in the image of God is a gift of priceless value. Genesis 9:6 warns us, albeit indirectly, that the worth of the gift is grossly underestimated when the murderer is allowed to live.

Apropos of society's willingness to discard the death penalty, it is incontrovertible that such a desire cannot be adduced as indicative of an increased appreciation of the value of human life. On the contrary, the demand for the abolition of capital punishment is a sign of blindness, not appreciation; for the diabolical consequences of our irreverent attitude toward human life are myriad. Since the Roe vs. Wade decision, some twenty million babies have been murdered. Pornography in all its satanic forms permeates society. Suicide is a national plague. The many abuses in the realm of sex are omnipresent. Euthanasia is not without its proponents and practitioners. In light of this moral wasteland, the assertion that abolitionists witness to modern man's recognition of the value of life is preposterous.

What Constitutes Man as an Image of God?

Since Genesis 9:6 sanctions the death penalty on the grounds that man reflects God in a particular way, it is important to understand the nature of this reflection.

According to the traditional teaching of theologians, God is reflected in His creatures in the following ways: as a trace (vestigium), which is characteristic of all material entities; as an image (imago), which is characteristic of spiritual beings in their natural state; and as a likeness (similitudo), which is characteristic of spiritual beings in a supernatural state. For example, man's body is a trace; his soul, lacking grace is a divine image; and his soul perfected by grace, is a divine likeness.

Man is an image of God because of the rational soul’s powers of intellect, will, and love. He is able to grasp truth. choose the good, and love all that is true, good, and beautiful. These three powers ¯intellectual, volitional, and affective constitute man as an image of God. Divine likeness is achieved only in the state of grace, when "a partaker of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Indeed, the soul is man’s crowning glory. So precious is our soul that it is worth the blood of the Son of God. We have been redeemed "...not with perishable things, with silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot" (I Peter 1: 18-l9).

Heretics and the Soul

Man is composed of body and soul. His material body is a trace of God; his soul, a spiritual substance is an image of God. If the murderer is rightly condemned for destroying the life of the body, all the more should the "murderer" of the soul be put to death. Saint Thomas Aquinas argues in a similar vein when he answer the question: "Are heretics to be tolerated?" The Angelic Doctor writes:

"On their side [the heretics'] is the sin whereby they have deserved, not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication but also to be banished from the world by death. For it is a much heavier offense to corrupt the faith, whereby the life of the soul is sustained, than to tamper with the coinage, which is an aid to temporal life. Hence if coiners, or other malefactors, are at once handed over by secular princes to die a just death, much more may heretics, immediately after they are convicted of heresy, be not only excommunicated, but also justly done to die." (Summa Theologica [here after ST], IIa IIae, q. 11, art. 3)

The person is not taken seriously as a spiritual creature, as a divine image, if heretics, who "corrupt the faith, whereby the life of the soul is sustained," are not punished ¯dare I say it? ¯with excommunication. What greater crime is there than the spiritual harm caused by heretics? Yet these contumacious individuals are not even admonished. In fact, they are the putative heroes of the day. Instead of being extirpated they are held in high esteem for their perfidiousness.

The Church hierarchy stresses the dignity of the person in many of its official pronouncements. Fine. They point out that the main duty of public authorities is to protect the community and the common good. Great. But Church officials do not provide a good example when they permit nefarious Church members to cause unbridled scandal in their own domain. To avoid the charge of hypocrisy, the guardians of the Catholic Faith should be solicitous for the spiritual well-being of Catholics before expecting secular authorities to administer to the common good.

Argument: Capital punishment is morally wrong because barbarous acts ¯murder, treason, etc. ¯are punished with a barbarous act. The punishment is just as evil as the crime.

This objection would be cogent if the penalty of death were totally disproportionate to the crime. For example, condemning a person for stealing a candy bar. In this case the punishment of death is barbarous. But when the punishment is proportionate to the crime, then the former is quite just. With regard to murder, Immanuel Kant, in The Metaphysics of Morals, exposes the soft underbelly of the abolitionists' objection:

"If however, he has committed a murder, he must die. In this case, there is no substitute that will satisfy the requirements of legal justice. There is no sameness of kind between death and remaining alive even under the most miserable conditions, and consequently there is also no equality between the crime and the retribution unless the criminal is judicially condemned and put to death...

It may also be pointed out that no one has ever heard of anyone condemned to death on account of murder who complained that he was getting too much punishment and therefore was being treated unjustly; everyone would laugh in his face if he were to make such a statement." (translated as The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1965, pp. 104, 106)

Moreover, the objection that capital punishment is an unjust act would be convincing if it referred to the act of the vigilante. Acts of vengeance by the private individual, for example, lynching, are indeed evil. But the objection is discredited once it is understood that the State has the right to use the death penalty.

Capital Punishment and the State

The Church has acknowledged continuously the State's authority to put a person to death. For example, Saint Paul, after he points out that rulers act as God's representatives in punishing the criminal, speaks of the Roman policy of capital punishment with approval:

"Let everyone be subject to the higher authorities, for there exists no authority except from God, and those who exist have been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists the authority resists the ordinance of God and they that resist bring on themselves condemnation. For rulers are a terror not to the good work but to the evil. Dost thou wish, then, not to fear the authority? Do what is good and thou wilt have praise from it. For it is God's minister to thee for good. But if thou dost what is evil, fear, for not without reason does it carry the sword. For it is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who does evil." (Romans 13:1-4)

When the proper authority punishes ¯an instance of forceful correction, according to Saint Thomas ¯it is an act of justice. Needless to say, the act is good, too, since it is an act and perfection of virtue.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 06, 2004.

With all due respect to the individual opinions of David, Eugene, and Mr Valenza, I will take my beliefs re the morality of CP from the official statements of the Pope and bishops, not from any private individual’s opinions. I’m sorry you find the Church’s official view a stumbling block. I take it as my basis, and so the contrary opinions of some self-important individuals are not a “stumbling block” to me.

Eugene, I don’t “assume” Bush’s ardor for war, he makes it plain to everyone. He resolutely insisted on it in the face of overwhelming condemnation by everybody from the Pope down. Read the papal statements again. Use of CP as “a practical deterrent” is clearly immoral. It’s not my “hysterical” or “illogical” view, it’s the Church’s view. Sorry. You lose the debate.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 06, 2004.

Steve,

I respect your opinion on the death penalty and you are certainly entitled to it.

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), August 06, 2004.

Sorry, Steve. You lose. The Pope didn't condemn just wars. He only declared his disapproval of one war.

He has never ''condemned'' the death penalty.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 06, 2004.

Eugene, I repeat, READ the papal statements. No matter how you try to twist it, the Church DOES condemn use of CP as a "practical deterrent" or for any other reason except where it is the only possible way to prevent the criminal from killing. And of course the Church has called on all countries to abolish CP. You’re entitled to you opinion of course, but please stop pretending that your opinion is the Church’s view.

Interesting that you finally concede that the Pope “declared his disapproval of one war” . I assume you’re referring to Bush’s war on Iraq, which you previously insisted against all evidence that the Pope was neutral on, or even that the Pope secretly supported Bush’s war. Contrary to your accusation, I have never claimed that the Pope “condemned just wars”. That would be an oxymoron.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 08, 2004.

Stop your carping. You may feel very saintly touting your solidarity with the ''Church's'' teaching. but you don't KNOW the teaching.

A Pope speaking prudentially is not commanding us under penalty of sin. Not commanding either the end of just wars or the death penalty. He is only expressing his personal scrupulosity on the subject. No matter how gloriously you think he upholds YOUR ideas, it isn't ipso facto a ''Church doctrine''. You are comfortable with your view and I'm more than secure in mine.

If the Catholic Church had been condemning just wars and lawful capital punishments from the time of the apostles one would take that to be strict doctrinal teaching; unless pronounced ex cathedra by a Pope in some susequent period. Even in Pope John Paul II's own lifetime, just war & the death penalty have been well within the bounds of Christian rectitude. Your novel slant is commendable and in many cases applicable. But NEVER approaches the ex cathedra category. You are not a Pope, so stop acting like one.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 08, 2004.

According to the 6th Commandment THOU SHALL NOT KILL. It has no addendums such as "unless the person is convicted of a terrible crime". Nor does the 6th Commandment distinguish between various stages of the human life cycle. It does not say thou shall not kill unborn life BUT certain exceptions (as determined by the state) can be applied to make killing acceptable. Regardless of what the catechism says, Christ Himself made no exceptions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vice President Cheney said today that terrorist attacks are generated by the perception of weakness. He then returned to his underground bunker at an undisclosed location. --Jay Leno, 8-5-04

-- Matt Lacossia (Lacossiam@hyper.net), August 08, 2004.

I see no point in repeating myself to you Eugene as you obviously aren’t listening. (“Condemning just wars” indeed!) YOU obviously don’t know the Church’s teaching, or you prefer to pretend it doesn’t exist, even when it’s laid out in front of you, in cases when you find it uncongenial. I have no “novel slant” on this. It is you who are acting as if you were Pope. I accept the Pope we have and what he says. Instead of confining yourself to obeying only what has been certainly defined as infallible doctrine (and you fail even on that score) try to follow the Pope’s ordinary teaching authority instead of resolutely opposing and ridiculing it where it conflicts with your own desires.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 08, 2004.

Matt, The 6th Commandment is NOT Thou Shalt not Kill. The 6th Commandment is Thou shalt not murder (look it up). God has encouraged His children to fight in self defense in a number of places in the Bible.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson-nospam@hotmail.com), August 08, 2004.

Interesting article by Theologian Michael Novak on if the Liberation of Iraq was just or not.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), August 08, 2004.

Thank you, Bill. Excellent wealth of information.

Steve has his fetish: ''YOU obviously don’t know the Church’s teaching, or you prefer to pretend it doesn’t exist, even when it’s laid out in front of you,''

--and keeps forgetting his posts do not present a Church teaching, but a papal, admonition. It was NOT meant for the faithful but for government leaders. If Steve had ever ''laid out'' anything more than his own liberal bias ''in front of me'', we could measure how indisputable or NOT it is, as it pertains to JUST WAR. he can't. He never will. Nor versus aapital punishment, which doesn't fall anywhere near a declared doctrine of the Catholic faith. For two millenia the Catholic Church has faithfully upheld death penalties as just and necessary in principle.

Steve never even replies to my questions RE: murders of inmates and correctional personnel inside prison walls. There is no deterrent but death for some desperate criminals. Which effectively rebuts his ideas about life inprisoment. It deters nothing. But he doesn't care. He THINKS the teaching of the Catholic Church opposes capital punishment in all cases. Because he never tried to LEARN the proper teachings. He simply doesn't understand.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 09, 2004.

Eugene, this is the last time I will repeat myself, so please read what I say this time and stop repeating your false and unchristian accusations that “He THINKS the teaching of the Catholic Church opposes capital punishment in all cases.” I have made it abundantly clear that this is not my position, nor the Church’s. The Church DOES teach that CP is NOT to be used as a “deterrent”. As you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate that there is something about the prisons of the USA, and of Texas in particular, which makes murders of guards and inmates far, far more likely than in any other civilized country, you have no case.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 09, 2004.

Weasel words are the last refuge for somebody never able to see reason. You resort to them all the time.

''. . . false and unchristian accusations that “He THINKS the teaching of the Catholic Church opposes capital punishment in all cases.”

It's what you think. --A deterrent is exactly what the death penalty has always been. Not ''vengeance'', as you would describe it. And your arguments are usually toward that end. Why, in fact, do you apppeal always to the Church? The Church does NOT support your specious arguments. Now you're daring to accuse another of ''unchristian'' accusations. But I merely react to your words. I don't invent them. Weasel words; posing as high morality. I truly feel sorry for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 09, 2004.

Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II, 25 March 1995

"55... legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State". Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.

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".

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 09, 2004.

''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.

Yes; applied in a very limited way. If it were abolished, even that ''limited way'' would be abolished. But the word OR-- means we may have a death penalty for the slight chance it may become useful. Not only that:

Let me parse the phrase ''there's a GROWING TENDENCY.'' It means there is no such problem with capital punishment; but a ''tendency'' to such a problem. And when the words say: ''EVEN that it be abolished completely'' we note an extreme case. It may EVEN, not really ''it must'' be abolished completely.

I'm ready to concede your good points as long as you truly produce an emphatic and final NO-- coming from the Pope and our bishops. You never do, however. You supply a few nuggets like the above. They prove nothing except that bishops are inclined to a liberal opinion of capital punishment. That includes the Pope. And opinions aren't true teachings. We know, for instance that the Holy Bible always upheld both just war and a legal death penalty. The Bible is NOT an opinion. It is forever true.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 10, 2004.

In your desperation to find some shred of justification for your defeated argument, you ignore the Pope’s absolute statements (which I bolded to make it easier for you to understand them) and zero in on the one sentence in the quote that allows a tiny bit of wriggle room, then expand it to try and justify the Texan slaughter.

You argue like a fundamentalist protestant. Where the Bible and the pope appear to be in conflict, we do NOT say that the Bible overrules the pope. On the contrary. The Pope is the one appointed by Christ to guide us in the present day regarding matters of moral judgment. A papal encyclical is not just one man’s opinion which you are free to ignore and still call yourself a loyal Catholic. If you keep going down this track you are likely to lose your faith completely.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 10, 2004.

It's amazing th way you can twist a statement to try to make it mean the very opposite of what it says. The encyclical says that capital punishment is the problem, NOT that “the tendency to abolish capital punishment" is a problem! LOL!

You want more than “ a few nuggets”? You want “an emphatic and final no”?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church :

"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 ."68

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful . The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69 Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority. "

DECLARATION OF THE HOLY SEE TO THE FIRST WORLD CONGRESS ON THE DEATH PENALTY, Strasbourg, 21 June 2001. "The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death.

The Pope had most earnestly hoped and prayed that a worldwide moratorium might have been among the spiritual and moral benefits of the Great Jubilee which he proclaimed for the Year Two Thousand, so that dawn of the Third Millennium would have been remembered forever as the pivotal moment in history when the community of nations finally recognised that it now possesses the means to defend itself without recourse to punishments which are "cruel and unnecessary". This hope remains strong but it is unfulfilled, and yet there is encouragement in the growing awareness that "it is time to abolish the death penalty".

It is surely more necessary than ever that the inalienable dignity of human life be universally respected and recognised for its immeasurable value. The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment as an integral part of the defence of human life at every stage of its development and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death.

Where the death penalty is a sign of desperation, civil society is invited to assert its belief in a justice that salvages hope from the ruin of the evils which stalk our world. The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity."

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 11, 2004.

Steve if we as the "West" can't even stop the private killing of completely innocent and non threatening people such as unborn babies or the elderly, how in the world do you suppose stopping the death penalty will somehow improve the situation as opposed to confuse it more?

You have to conceed to Eugene that NO papal document or magistrium of the Church has teached that the death penalty is a moral evil on par with abortion or euthanasia.

You both have to conceed that THEREFORE circumstances "such as we have in the west" are what tips the scale of justice towards mercy - but because this is circumstantial, it could change.

I for one have often thought that the Church is trying to get rid of that penalty because it has been used alot against Catholics in every modern pogrom and persecution such as in Mexico and Spain. Knowing that the Church tends to see things in terms of decades and centuries rather than months and years, I appreciate the Pope's point and accept his teaching...it would certainly be better if we could reform hardened criminals rather than kill them.

BUT....to take the Pope's words and come up with a new dogma that categorically condemns as intrinsically evil a penalty that the Church itself has imposed on people, and that God himself positively commanded of HIS people in the Old Testament would be to fall into heresy.

So it calls for nuance (not the Kerry type) and balance. YES we ought to seek life not death for the evil-doer. Yes we ought to be merciful and not seek vengance. But at the same time the innocent ought to be protected and sometimes this will require the death of the evil-doer.

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 11, 2004.

You're quite correct, Joe. Steve is so anxious to ''defeat'' the opposing argument he simply ignores what I've said from the start. I am all for clemency. If a sentenced criminal on death row is successful acquiring commutation or change of sentence to life in prison, I consider this a victory for all of us.

Nevertheless, I have to believe that the existence of ''death row'' is a deterrent. By this I mean that abolishing capital punishment laws is counter-productive. Particularly in cases of those already incarcerated who will murder, rape and torture other inmates and/or prison guards without any hesitation. They have nothing to lose if there is no death penalty. Steve is adamant enough to dismiss this argument out of hand. I really don't care anymore what the poor soul thinks. He's entitled to his opinion.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 11, 2004.

Well, we're ALL poor souls, and I do care what he thinks and why he thinks it - that's the whole point of having an argument! If I didn't care then this back and forth would be just airing my opinion... no reason to even get upset.

But I do get upset - and so do you and so does Steve and Kiwi...all presumably because we really do care very much what each other have to say about these important issues.

When I argue against someone's opinion or affirmation I am trying to get them to agree with my position based on reasons. If my reasons aren't compelling then I either need to offer better ones, different approaches or perhaps (gasp!) re-think my own position least I be the one who is in the wrong.

The anonymous nature of the internet can lead to heat or to light.

It is true that some arguments posted are not as founded as others. Maybe most of us are guys with a streak of nonconformity in us or the knee jerk habit of disputing others just because! But I would hope that we all accept what is true and good in the posts of others.

With Kiwi and Steve I have found many posts of theirs which are right on - typically on subjects pertaining to Catholic theology or ecclesiology. History and ethics and other mundane sciences however don't seem to be their strong suit and so we get into political and philosophical fights. But again and again we have to start from the premise that we care about each others' souls enough to argue!

Peace only comes through knowledge of the truth and acceptance of the good.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 11, 2004.

Steve,

I am NOT being disrespectful to you with my question by asking this. I just want you to try and look at the other side and read what you post about this.

If a escaped prisoner broke into your house and raped your daughter in front of your wife and you, and then set your children on fire in front of your wife before he raped and cut her to pieces killing her in front of you.(God forbid this ever would happen to you)

Would you argue against the death penalty?

-- - (David@excite.com), August 11, 2004.

Hmm, David, I was being accused of being "emotional" when I simply quoted the Papal statements, so how would they describe your argument? You’re confusing how I would FEEL with what would be RIGHT. Yes of course in that situation I would naturally WANT the man to be killed, even tortured. Just like if a beautiful woman threw herself at me I wound WANT to commit adultery. But in neither case would that situation make it morally right.

“Steve if we as the "West" can't even stop the private killing of completely innocent and non threatening people such as unborn babies or the elderly, how in the world do you suppose stopping the death penalty will somehow improve the situation as opposed to confuse it more?” (Joe). The Pope has answered this for you: “The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment as an integral part of the defence of human life at every stage of its development and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death.”

“You have to conceed to Eugene that NO papal document or magistrium of the Church has teached that the death penalty is a moral evil on par with abortion or euthanasia.” There is no need to “concede” this as I have never claimed it to be so. In fact I have repeatedly stated that I do NOT claim this, yet you and Eugene insist on putting these words in my mouth to give you something to argue against.

“I for one have often thought that the Church is trying to get rid of that penalty because it has been used alot against Catholics” . You unfairly impugn the Pope’s motivation. He has argued clearly from the premise that ALL men regardless of religion have an equal right to life, not from any selfish concern for Catholics' lives above others. “I have to believe that the existence of ''death row'' is a deterrent. By this I mean that abolishing capital punishment laws is counter-productive. Particularly in cases of those already incarcerated who will murder, rape and torture other inmates and/or prison guards without any hesitation. They have nothing to lose if there is no death penalty.” (Eugene). And Eugene has the nerve to claim that I ignore what HE says! I re-repeat, the Church completely rules out deterrence as a justification for capital punishment. And surely you're not suggesting that the rate of murder, rape and torture in US prisons is lower than in prisons in those countries (including EVERY other civilized country) which have abolished the death penalty! LOL!

I assure you all that I do earnestly try to look at “the other side” and consider carefully all the points you raise. But I do get very tired of repeating myself over and over to Eugene, who seems determined to misrepresent and defame anyone who disagrees with him.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 11, 2004.

Hopefully if you know something is wrong, you won't go against what you know to be the truth, out of sheer emotional distress. I can't say what I would do in a situation such as you describe David, but I know what I should do.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 11, 2004.

Steve,

I don't understand how you come up with your analogy from the death penalty in this thread to " naked woman throwing themselves at you.."?

Now I read about " torture"... and "..yes of cource in this situation. I would want the man to be killed, even tortured..."

Did Gino mention he wanted "torture"? Your a sick man Steve. We are NOT talking about "naked woman throwing themselves at YOU." LOL :-)

-- - (David@excite.com), August 11, 2004.

It’s just an analogy, David, just to illustrate that what might “feel good” at the time in a particular situation isn’t necessarily “good” in an absolute moral sense. The world would be a much better place if we could distinguish better between the two. No I am not advocating torture or adultery nor did I accuse Eugene of doing so.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 11, 2004.

To answer the hypothetical...if an escaped murderer broken into my home and hurt my daughter in that way I wouldn't wait for him to do anything else. I would take action to disable him and it would be totally moral and absolutely within my rights and responsibility as husband and father, in charge of the common good of my family.

If this meant that the unjust aggressor had to be killed, then so be it. My intent wouldn't be to kill him - after subduing him, naturally I'd call 911 and the ambulance...but if he died neither Church law nor State law would hold me guilty of a sin or crime.

What the Pope is talking about and what your are claiming is that somehow "human dignity" (and ontological category) covers up moral status - which it doesn't and NEVER has been taught to.

Once the man is incarcerated - and given circumstances of maximum security prisons - safely kept from other prisoners and guards, yes, let's be merciful and not execute him. But if an unjust aggressor continues to seek to unjustly violate others - then in this case, human dignity demands that he be disabled. If drugs could take the aggression out of him...great.

One thing you have trouble with - and the Pope doesn't affirm - is what "human dignity" means, exactly.

With respect to Pius XII and John XXIII's declarations about modern warfare (defined by both Popes as essentially indiscriminate use of NBC weapons or carpet/fire bombing), the whole argument hinges on the definitions of the key words we are discussing.

Human dignity doesn't absolve people of moral responsibility for their freely chosen actions - thus the abortionist or catholic heretical politician still have "human dignity" because they continue to be human! But they are also objectively in a state of mortal sin and objectively cause grave harm to INNOCENT people.

Thus human dignity requires that we not treat them as dogs (no dog goes to jail) while at the same time not acting ourselves as dogs (riping them limb from limb).

It does NOT mean than the innocent ought to be treated as the guilty or the guilty have as much rights as the innocent. THEY DO NOT. Not in this life and not in the next and to think they do out of a misguided idea of what the Church means with that concept is to fall into heresy.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 12, 2004.

Friends:
Have I ever ''defamed'' Steve? He makes this complaint.

I DISAGREED with the man. I once or twice referred to him as fanatical. (Because of his open actions, not merely as a pejorative.)

It's very sad when one has to concede; agree unconditionally, with someone or else be seen as unjust. Because, defamation is an injustice. My replies to this man are feisty, I confess. But not to the extreme of an injustice.

If a man says he's defeated your argument without first defeating it, he's deluded. If he accuses another of racism, he's unjust. Unless he can prove it. I suppose this is how Steve expects to prove his points; by antagonizing people until they simply quit. This is why I stated that I no longer CARE what he thinks.

But somehow I cannot retreat while he accuses me falsely once more. I haven't defamed him; PLEASE. I've no wish to defame him, nor have I ever. I would appreciate it very much if he didn't mention me again. Let him continue the argument with others, ad infinitum. I can pass from here on.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 12, 2004.

I also would be pleased not to have to mention you again. Yes you should pass unless you can contribute more rationally to the discussion without attacking the man. I have accused you of nothing which you have not convicted yourself of with your own words. You are very confused or else you are simply trying to confuse everyone else with your emotional and irrational accusations. I suggest you study the Church's teaching on this subject.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 12, 2004.

"an immoral execution does not become moral just because it would please most of the voters. Many of the executions carried out in Texas and other states are quite clearly immoral, such as those of teenage offenders and the mentally disabled."

-let me add my two cents into the mix -the quite complicated convoluted mix... Truth is quite simple -- NOT as complex and relativistic as this thread appears to be...

1. There is a difference between Murdering & Killing -the difference is greatly and probably exclusively ALL about intent...

2. The Bible does not remotely suggest ALL killing immoral OR that death by killing and or Murder are one and the same...

3. The fifth commandment accurately translated is "Thou shalt not Murder"

4. Murder is an objectively sinful act...

5. Killing is a subjectively sinful act...

6. To judge intent is truly only God's domain...

The rest is self evident...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 12, 2004.

That is true, but we should also recognize that killing is never the will of God, and as such is never morally good. It is however sometimes morally justifiable due to certain well defined extreme circumstances. But in all such cases (such as self defense when no other means of self defense is available) it remains a justifiable evil, not a moral good.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 13, 2004.

Well, now we're getting into some scary theological waters. I mean, what was the Flood? What nuked Sodom and Gomorrah? Who or what killed the Egyptians during the plagues and in the Red Sea crossing? Who sucked Koresh and his people down to Hades while still alive?

Our Lord made the distinction between natural and moral evil when discussing the people killed when the tower fell on them in Siloam and the Galileans "whose blood was mixed with their sacrifice" (i.e. killed by the Romans). Both involved people dying but not in the same way. Yet his message was "repent or the same thing will happen to you".

So what does this mean? In the OT, God certainly either allowed natural things to kill people or directly killed them in a miraculous way to spare innocent people from harm. I don't think you can say that God therefore willed an evil... that would be heresy. But if killing an evil-doer is qualitatively different than killing someone innocent, then perhaps precisely because it is "morally justifiable" it's therefore NOT morally evil.

What do you make of the statements of St Paul and Peter about state authority and the sword? Or the couple who fell down dead for lying to the Holy Spirit? Peter didn't kill them. But they did do a crime. What happened?

Obviously then not all killing is on the same moral level.

What I find fancinating is that people are actually trying to defend the lives of terrorists and murderers who are threats to other human beings while not getting visibly upset with the commonplace murder of completely innocent people via abortion, euthanasia and stem cell "research"! Capital punishment affects something like 2 dozen men a year whereas thousands of babies are killed per day!

I just don't see how a Catholic can conflate the two as though there wasn't a major, qualitative moral difference between a private person killing her offspring and a state executing a criminal after exhaustive trials and convictions with appeals and years of investigation etc.

If the state was summarily lynching people or shooting them on sight, I'd think differently about it. But facts are facts.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

"In the OT, God certainly either allowed natural things to kill people or directly killed them in a miraculous way to spare innocent people from harm. I don't think you can say that God therefore willed an evil"

You cannot make any valid comparison between God allowing people to die or directly killing them, vs. one human being killing another. It is God's rightful place to decide when people will die. Death itself is not the moral evil. Murder is not a moral evil because death is a moral evil. Rather, murder is a moral evil because it is the usurping by men of a right and authority that belongs exclusively to God - the right to decide when each human being will die. Therefore, if God decides to drown the Egyptian army or to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, that is His right. There is no moral issue involved one way or the other. But when human beings usurp a right that belongs to God alone, and start deciding when other human beings will die, then it becomes a moral issue.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 13, 2004.

David, an ancestor of Jesus, killed Goliath; in much the same action as a soldier kills. Judith dispatched Holfernes with a sword, after getting him drunk. When it's a just war there can be no sin attached to these actions. We do what God has permitted against an evil foe.

To pass over these examples for the sake of protecting the lives of vile men is trivial and unjust. God is forever infinitely Just as well as All-Merciful. Every man dies but ONCE. Every just execution ever allowed by God hasn't added a single death to the norm. It is the death of innocents God condemns.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 13, 2004.

OK two questions here. (I'm not being rhetorical as I don't know the answer).

If what you say about God having the right to kill men is correct does this mean that "objective morality" is only for men? That is, that there is one standard for us whereas God isn't bound by his own moral and natural law? I thought that was the Muslim idea of God being unbounded even by logic.

The second question has to do with human agency in God's judgment of evil-doers. If God can use men to execute his justice (seems he used Nebacanezzer and other worldly rulers to punish people such as Saul, David, Maccabees, etc. for a time)...then explain to me again why state execution of violent criminals or soldiers shooting armed and aggressive terrorists or "Mahdi army" militiamen aren't cases of God using men to pass judgment on evil-doers who are UNJUSTLY violating the peace and "tranquilitas ordinis"?

I don't mean to suggest that every state and army has a carte blanche right to kill people - but that when the circumstances are such and their intentions are right and they have exhausted viable alternatives (as judged by proper authorities, not any body), that their use of violence could be morally good as opposed to a "necessary evil".

I thought IMHO that God established the natural and moral law not arbitrarily but because it was objectively good - and since he is goodness itself, his law is hence in harmony with the very order of being... hence, what's good for us is also good period. If we can't morally lie, then neither can God - and this isn't anthropomorphizing him either. How could He who is "truth" lie?

Now we know from revelation that He desires all men to come to blessedness - but that he also desires men to be free and a possibility of freedom is its misuse through sin, "the wages of is death". In other words, there are consequences for our freely chosen actions. He placed before the Israelites two choices: death or life and urged them to "choose life"...

So I'm really just stumped here. Any suggestions?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 13, 2004.

Joe I am offended by your claim that I am “not getting visibly upset with the commonplace murder of completely innocent people via abortion, euthanasia and stem cell "research"!” I have repeatedly and vehemently condemned all these in this forum.

Your argument that “God kills men, therefore it’s OK for men to kill men”, is unworthy of you. It’s the very same argument used by abortionists who say “We’re only following the example of the great Abortionist, because one-third of the babies conceived die in the womb.” Yes, men ARE held to a different standard than God. We must obey God. It is insufferable pride and arrogance to demand that God subject Himself to the laws He places on us.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 15, 2004.

''Your argument that “God kills men, therefore it’s OK for men to kill men” is unworthy of you.''

Isn't that typical of this man? I never saw anybody here argue that ''it's OK to kill men.'' Steve says it's ''unworthy'' of his brother to maintain such a notion; a mere straw dog. Meanwhile, of course, his own malicious statements are ''worthy''.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 15, 2004.

"If what you say about God having the right to kill men is correct does this mean that "objective morality" is only for men?"

A: Correct. Morality is a measure of one's actions relative to the perfect objective standard of the will of God. God's actions are, de facto, in perfect accord with His own will. Therefore the concept of "morality" cannot be applied to God.

"I don't mean to suggest that every state and army has a carte blanche right to kill people - but that when the circumstances are such and their intentions are right and they have exhausted viable alternatives (as judged by proper authorities, not any body), that their use of violence could be morally good as opposed to a "necessary evil"

A: That would be so if "circumstances", "intentions" and "alternatives" were all objective absolutes. But they are not. When the state determines that circumstances (as defined and interpreted by themselves) are such and their intentions (as defined and interpreted by themselves) are right and they have exhausted viable alternatives (as defined and interpreted by themselves), then their use of violence might be morally good, as defined and interpreted by themselves; but that determination may have no relevance whatsoever to the perfect will of God, who commanded "thou shalt not kill".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 15, 2004.

Your “passing” from the discussion didn’t last long Eugene. Only now you have crossed the line from irrationality to sheer absurdity. “I never saw anybody here argue that it's OK to kill men.”?!? My “malicious statements”?!? Oh well at least you give the rest of us a little laugh amid our serious discussion. I won't accuse you of defaming me again because you apparently are unable to even realise what you're saying.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 15, 2004.

Thanks, Steve. I actually passed. Nobody was writing to you, I made the comment to the person you were misquoting. Or am I ruled off any thread you decide to post in?

For some reason you think putting (evil and unsubstantiated) words in Joe's mouth isn't malicious. He never said that because God could kill men it made that OK for men to do. You couldn't have really inferred it from his words. But you stated it nonetheless. Was that malicious? I hope not. You owe Joe an apology. (Fat chance.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 15, 2004.

Oh, right, you meant ANOTHER “Steve”, not me. You “ruled” yourself “off” on August 12 then came back the very next day and twice again after that with more of your nonsense. As for your bizarre idea that I’m "misquoting" Joe, I suggest you actually read his posts above.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 16, 2004.

Well I don't know if asking a question is unworthy - especially since neither you nor Paul has engaged the question with a Catholic theologian's eye to scripture (God's revelation about himself and his will).

You see, we know from Scripture that God HAS ORDERED MEN to kill other men - the Old Testament is full of such commands. Now if God is commanding men to never kill under pain of sin, but then commands men to kill others...we have a logical paradox of God commanding men to do what God forbids men to do! Or God willing something to happen that God does not will to happen. It makes no sense to say that God can do whatever he wants and still claim that God created an orderly universe (which he reveals in the book of Wisdom, that he did).

Thus, the theologian would have to decide whether there is in fact some DISTINCTION to be made in the word "kill" - as in "thou shalt not murder". Analogously we find in the Gospel of Matthew Our Lord telling us to call no man "father" while he himself calls men fathers all over the place (at least a dozen times) in the same Gospel both before and after that verse...which would obviously mean that the prohibition wasn't literal but figurative. The ban wasn't on the word (patros) but on a concept or attitude related to it. To think otherwise again is to engage in a paradox.

After all the Mosaic Law is of God - and though the Gospel is a higher, perfected law, it didn't mean that the prior law was void since God never goes back on his promises. The Law was to prepare the Jews for the highter law which absorbed it.

So I ask again, how is it that God can use men to kill other men - all over the place in the Old Testament, but you cannot accept that God can equally use men to kill other men (to pass judgement on them) today? What possible meaning is there to Paul and Peter's writing on the topic related to the sword?

In the OT we see that Kings and those in authority (the Prophet Elijah) wiped out lots of people FOR SINS, not for willy-nilly reasons, thus they didn't murder people, while they did kill them. BIG MORAL DISTINCTION THERE FOLKS.

David killed lots of enemy soldiers...but he was guilty of ONE murder (Uriah the Hittite). Obviously then God makes a distinction between killing an unjust aggressor or a sinner and murdering an innocent.

In my mind, then, since it was morally valid back then, and nothing ontological has changed in the nature of God or man in 2500 years, men could still be deputized by God to carry out execution of justice today.

But the key distinction is bellum/duellum. Public vs. private. Serving the common good through violence is a different thing than taking the law into ones own hands... and thus execution or shooting someone in war is not the same thing as murder.

In the ideal world and in the lives we live, we civilians ought to avoid violence and the occasions of violence...but that doesn't mean that as Catholics there won't ever exist a state of affairs wherein rendering an unjust aggressor incapable of harming us and our loved ones won't sometimes require us to use violence which may have as a consequence the death of the evil-doer.

Or what? You think God can declare that 2+2=5? Not in this created order he can't (because to do so would be to contradict his own will, which is impossible). Similarly, if something is good - then it's good. If something is evil, then it's evil. God can't do something which is evil because again that would be to will something against his own will, which is impossible - ERGO, with respect to killing/murder, there MUST be a moral distinction to be made.

If you are going to argue that God can sin and that's be OK for you cause he doesn't follow the same rules (!) then you're going to have to explain to me why its so vital to us to believe that Jesus never sinned and neither did his Mother...I mean, what's the big deal (according to your moral/metaphysical theory) with sin if God isn't bound by his own moral teaching?

Come on guys, think this through...I'm not just debating some high schoolers here. We're supposed to be thinking as Catholics - bringing to bear scripture, tradition and available magisterial documents. CCC is pretty clear: Just Capital punishment in the West may be "virtually nonexistent" but that's NOT the same thing as "non- existent". And Just war may be extremely rare too - but rarity isn't the same thing as absolute prohibition either.

Meanwhile, millions of complelely innocent human beings are snuffed out and I don't see massive marches on in protest, actors and actresses, singers and media moguls marshalling forces to condemn the bloodshed... no, easier to strain out the gnat and swallow the camel.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.

Joe, neither I nor Paul has argued that there is an “ABSOLUTE prohibition” on the death penalty. I agree that a couple of thousand lives being taken annually by capital punishment is small compared to the millions killed by war and abortion. But a couple of thousand, or hundreds in an “advanced” country like the USA alone, sure doesn’t seem to be “virtually nonexistent”. I suggest you spend more time studying what the Church teaches us today on the subject than trying to argue from the world of the Old Testament.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 16, 2004.

Steve, please show me where I can find the statistics proving that the United States executes hundreds of men per year. (Certainly we don't execute thousands!)

In a prison population of about 2 million, there are probably a couple thousand sitting on death row (so let's say 3% of the prisoners). Of those, a minority again are actually executed. So statistically the penalty is "virtually nonexistent".

OK I know you're going to balk about number games but think about the priest scandal and the clergy's reaction: it was a statistical blip - 1-3% of clergy involved. Yes, terrible, but they kept reminding us that the overwhelming numbers were good. Fair enough. But what's good for that situation is good for this one. If 2% of a huge group of people are bad, and a minority of them are incarcerated or executed...we're are talking RARE any way you cut it.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.

We study. We also have a smidgeon of common sense. Try some sometime.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 17, 2004.

-in the beginning there was relativistic argument:

"Are you saying that it is ok to overlook Bush's heinous Capital Punishment record but not Kerry's abortion record?"

Capital Punishment is not condemned by the Church...

Abortion is condemned by the Church...

hmmm... even after all the theological posturing and relativistic meandering the answer still seems quite easy to me...

Bush in 2004.

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 17, 2004.

In the minds of many a pope is believed to speak infallibility. However, this concept is untrue except under a very limited set of conditions that are always under the control of the Holy Spirit. When a pope speaks personally or is addressing a group of people his words are to be given thoughtful consideration, but, there is no requirement to blindly accept that what he is saying is in accordance with God's will.

The death penalty is accepted in both the New& Old Testament Steve. I will take the Lords words before I take the holy Fathers opinion any day unless you can show someting infalliable from the pope except his opinion. What about the 2000 years of popes before him?

The Lord never agrees with abortion. Read your scripture and study how the Church operates. You type of Catholicism agrees with any opinion that comes from the Vatican. Daniel said: "How you have grown evil with age! Now have your past sins come to term: passing unjust sentences, condemning the innocent, and freeing the guilty, although the Lord says, `The innocent and the just you shall not put to death.' " [Dan 13:52-53]

God bless Pope John Paul

-- - (David@excite.com), August 17, 2004.

Steve,

Do not look on him with pity, but purge from Israel the stain of shedding innocent blood, that you may prosper. Deut. 19:13

Think about this?

-- - (David@excite.com), August 17, 2004.

David you dare to say God Bless Pope John Paul after you have just insisted on disregarding anything he says that conflicts with your own opinions, unless it is proven to satisfy the theological requirements for an infallible declaration! This type of “cafeteria Catholicism” sickens me.

Eugene, I’m glad your studying. Keep it up.

Joe, to take just one point of your twisted statistics, you can’t claim those on death row are “rare” because they are 3% of the TOTAL prison population of 2 million. The vast majority are imprisoned for minor or non-violent offenses which could not under any circumstances be considered as deserving the death penalty. I never claimed the US executes thousands per year. You’re right Eugene, he needs a smidgin of common sense.

-- Stev e (55555@aol.com), August 17, 2004.

".David you dare to say God Bless Pope John Paul after you have just insisted on disregarding anything he says that conflicts with your own opinions, unless it is proven to satisfy the theological requirements for an infallible declaration! This type of “cafeteria Catholicism” sickens me. "

Sorry my "cafeteria Catholicism" "sickens you" Steve. But, you said, that "..I disregard anything that conflicts with my opinion.."

Not true! I only asked for it to be "infalliable" if it disagreed with Jesus's words not mine Scroll up and read it again. See?

How can questioning when someone disagrrees with Jesus sicken you?

The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to Aaron and tell him: None of your descendants, of whatever generation, who has any defect shall come forward to offer up the food of his God. [Leviticus 21:16-17] ¾ This passage sets limits for ordination into the priesthood.

See how the Lord doesn't want gay men to be priests? But you call me a "cafiteria Catholic and say I sicken you"

I still love you as my brother in Christ.

God bless you.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 17, 2004.

Well I carefully re-read everything you posted David, and you didn’t quote any of Jesus’ words at all. You can’t, because Jesus certainly never contradicted the encyclicals and Catechism statements I have quoted above. And yes it does sicken me when someone who calls himself a Catholic, (who even sneers that others who call themselves Catholic are not worthy of the name), claims that Papal encyclicals and the Catechism of the Catholic Church contradict the words of Jesus.

Not sure what you’re trying to say with your quote from Leviticus. Men with ”any defect” (i.e. all of us! though I believe both the Jews and the Church take it to mean a physical defect) and you somehow twist this to mean “gay”! (Leviticus also tells us all priests have to be descended from Levi, and satisfy a large number of other requirements!) Are you trying to say I am a “cafeteria Catholic” and that I don’t accept Pope John XXIII’s instruction (not an encyclical or a doctrine of the Catholic faith, and it certainly did not claim to be a command from God) that homosexual tendencies SHOULD (not must) disqualify candidates for priesthood or membership of a monastic order? Well I do accept it and if I am ever appointed rector of a seminary or abbot of a monastery I will ensure it is carried out.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 18, 2004.

Steve, let's tone this down shall we? I'm not putting words in your mouth - here's your quote to me:

"I agree that a couple of thousand lives being taken annually by capital punishment is small compared to the millions killed by war and abortion. But a couple of thousand, or hundreds in an “advanced” country like the USA alone, sure doesn’t seem to be “virtually nonexistent”"

So YES, you did suggest that thousands were executed in the USA. If only hundreds are (still to be confirmed), then that makes the penalty even rarer considering how many thousands of murders occur per year thanks to the drug/vice industrial complex.

I was only responding to your own words.

As for Catholic teaching... you agree that the Church has never banned capital punishment outright. Changing CIRCUMSTANCES make current prelates and popes decide that the penalty could be withheld while justice still done and society still protected.

But CIRCUMSTANCES are CONTINGENT realities - not categorical, thus should circumstances change... the moral judgment would also have to change. That's all I'm saying.

CP is not of the same category as abortion or euthanasia. We both agree on this.

We both agree that prisoners ought to be visited and conselled and helped to convert and change their ways.

We both agree that diplomacy ought to be sought first rather than war.

But in both CP and war, you believe that only in exceptionally rare circumstances can the evil-doer be morally put to death whereas I believe that they can be put to death in merely rare circumstances.

Thus, I don't believe nuking North Korea (or conventionally invading) would be a just war given the principle of proportionality and chances for success. There is no one-size-fits all solution to world problems.

And Jesus agrees: in his parable about prudence he talks about a king with 10,000 men deciding whether to wage war with a king with 20,000. He didn't teach that the king ought to surrender or "unilaterally disarm to give him good example". No. He just said that if the king decides he can't win, he ought to send a delegation to sue for terms of peace.

Classic Catholic Just war criteria there! If the consequences of battle would be too horrible, then seek peace. If you can easily win, then win. Prudential decision on contingent questions of circumstances. Nowhere did Our Lord condemn soldiers and no where did he claim that Rome had no authority to execute criminals.

But God has always condemned in no uncertain or circumstantially contingent ways the killing of children and old people.

I just find it extremely odd that you should be trying to protect the worst criminals and tyrants on earth while paying lip service to the "yeah abortion is bad" issue.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 18, 2004.

Joe, I say “exceptionally rare”. You say “merely rare”. I believe I come closer to the Church’s “very rare, if not practically non- existent”.

You must have missed my comma after the word “thousands”. It’s obvious I was referring to world, not USA, totals, unless you think that “millions” are killed in wars in the USA!

The story about the king with 10,000 men is a PARABLE. Not be taken literally. Jesus wasn’t talking about just war. In another parable Jesus praises the astuteness of a dishonest steward who defrauds the master who has sacked him so that he can gain new rich friends. Jesus wasn’t telling us to commit fraud.

I am not simply “trying to protect” criminals, but trying to protect myself from murder being committed in my name and the name of my people. I resent your claim that I merely “pay lip service” to opposing abortion. Not only have I resolutely opposed it in this forum and elsewhere in the face of vehement opposition, I have also several times had to oppose it in real life.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 18, 2004.

Steve, fair enough. I apologize for implying that you don't care about abortion.

You do agree then that the "virtually non-existent" qualifier hinges on specific circumstances in prison systems though, right?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 19, 2004.

It hinges on “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 Chruch permits CP only in the context of reasonable defense. It’s not enough to say that the offender MIGHT kill someone in jail. To justify CP you’d have to prove that he is LIKELY to kill someone and that CP is the ONLY way of preventing him doing it. I don’t think there is anything about US jails, as compared to jails in other civilized countries, that makes it much easier for inmates to kill others, even if in solitary confinement.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 20, 2004.

As usual, the way you interpret everything controversial is self-serving.

''The Church permits CP ''only in the context of reasonable defense.'' ...That is not true.--- ''It’s not enough to say that the offender MIGHT kill, etc.''

It's enough to presuppose that an existing death penalty statute can and does exert influence on inmates with nothing to lose by slaying other inmates or correctional officers. Abolish that statute and the murders will certainly occur with time.

Though this is hy[pothetical, we can assert that YOUR arguments are hypothetical too, when you exceed the intent of holy mother Church's teachings. You aren't even a theologian, much less a qualified judge of Church doctrine.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 21, 2004.

".I don’t think there is anything about US jails, as compared to jails in other civilized countries, that makes it much easier for inmates to kill others, even if in solitary confinement. "

A former priest convicted of child sex abuse has been killed in prison in the United States. John Geoghan, a central figure in the Catholic Church's abuse scandal in Boston, was injured in an incident with another inmate at the Souza-Baranowski Correction Center, in Shirley, Massachusetts, according to jail officials.

He died shortly after being taken to Leominster Hospital. Authorities say Geoghan appeared to have been strangled and fellow prisoner Joseph Druce, serving a life sentence, will face murder charges in relation to the death.

Department of Correction spokeswoman Kelly Nantel said Geoghan had been held in protective custody.

Jails can't even protect a man from being killed in protective custody.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 21, 2004.