Election 2008: Presidential Candidates on Social Issues

Jay

I definitely think embryonic stem cell research needs to be on the table. Huck and Paul are the only 2 that meet full Catholic criteria here IMHO.

I am so bothered by allowing experimentation on embryos... these are children...

It seems McCain (and Romney to an extent) would allow experimentation on dead embryos or frozen embryos ... They claim to be prolife. Pro Lifers view these as dead children, are they less human than dead adults? Do we in a right mind ever consider allowing experimentation on dead adults without consent? Their positions are untenable. If they can't reason out of this, I'm disgusted.

Worse is the frozen embryo that may never grow up to be a citizen. Well what about illegal immigrant adults or gitmo adults? Can we then use that argument and run them off to our version of a Nazi lab?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.stemcell.html

In Love

when we were one

Bad news, McCain just voted against a ban on waterboarding as did Sen Brownback.

With leading Republicans advocating torture and Democrats kneeling before the altar of abortion, both parties now hold morally reprehensible positions that cannot be negotiated.

Unfortunately, some American Catholic "defenders of the faith" also advocate waterboarding.

Burnt,
Hi!
I have to admit, I've never heard of waterboarding and did a google search on it. It was shocking and in no way do I condone such behavior. But I was wondering... should we group it in the same "league" as abortion? While waterboarding is wrong, these are criminals... many times withholding information needed during times of war. Babies are 100% innocent. One is a form of wartime torture of criminals (which I agree is wrong), but the other one is murdering helpless babies (the worst atrocity in human history). To me, the two don't compare.

I just hope democrats don't think this (waterboarding) gives them more leverage for their abortion platform.

Amen, Mary

I also hope that Catholics don't think that the abortion issue allows them to ignore or condone the moral depravity of the Republican party.

Waterboarding is in a smaller league than abortion but both abortion and waterboarding are both in leagues that cannot and must not be ignored.

As has been said before the Republican party has anti-abortion candidates, but it has almost no pro-life candidates once you widen the scope to include euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust warfare.

Hey Burnt,
I wasn't too thrilled with the main republican candidates either. I personally voted for Alan Keyes. I wish he could have gotten more press coverage, but I think the press doesn't like him because he's so smart and puts all of them to shame :-)

It looks like we're going to have to back McCain. Well, I definitely respect him as a military hero. His service makes me think that maybe he knows more about war and war stuff (including waterboarding)then I do since I've never served. I do know that the days of fighting a "gentlemen's war" are over. From flying planes into buildings killing hundreds of innocent civilians, to slowly beheading a soldier on video, these are nothing more than savage beasts!!! Just assume... a terrorist was captured, and this terrorist had information about the whereabouts of the "head terrorist", and this "head terrorist" was planning on attacking and killing hundreds of US citizens. Should we treat him with hospitality? I don't know. I hate torture (I also hate war), but I also love my country and the protection I receive here from our military. I have faith in our military that they wouldn't just "waterboard" anyone for kicks or for revenge. I think we're more civilized than that. I think there would have to be a very justifiable reason (like saving US lives) to do such a thing.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that euthanasia goes against the Catholic faith. On the same lines as abortion, these are innocent lives being taken, which would be murder.

I think capital punishment is not wrong according to Catholic doctrine. I asked my priest this (actually Monsignor... he's very wise) a few years ago when Pope John Paul spoke against capital punishment. He said that the Pope was not speaking infallably(?) and that it's fine for a Catholic to favor capital punishment. I was relieved to hear this. I knew someone personally who was murdered by a serial killer several years ago. She was a mother of three out for her morning jog. She was raped, strangled, then thrown over a bridge into a river. She was an acquaintance. I can only imagine if she were a close friend, sister, mother, or daughter. Yes, I'm in favor of capital punishment. A serial killer(or the likes of such) is not an innocent life.

God Bless,
Mary

double amen!

Soon we're gonna sound like Jack. Its really embarrassing that the most electable Catholic we could hoist up the ranks was Kerry.

In Love

wwwo

Burnt,

No comment on my February 25th post? Does this mean you agree? That's great if so.

Unlike abortion and euthenasia which involves killing innocent life, capital punishment and waterboarding are at least debatable.

Just thought I would ask....

God bless,
Mary

Mary, sorry I missed your Feb 25 post. I mistakenly thought WWWO's comment was right below mine.

To answer your question, no I do not agree with your position on torture or capital punishment. I have read Pope John Paul II's reasons for opposing capital punishment and agree with them. I have read Catholic defenders of the faith dismiss his position as "hopelessly naive" but the arguments they offer do not even address the important point the late Pope raised.

Although he wasn't speaking infallibly and although the issue is debatable, I have yet to see informed debate on this issue where both sides accept Catholic moral principles.

I would be more than happy to debate the capital punishment issue with you. I believe Pope John Paul II's opposition to capital punishment rests on the combination of two points:

Point 1: The only justifiable reason for the state to execute criminals when it is the ONLY possible way to protect its citizens.

Point 2: Given modern methods of incarceration, no modern country can claim capital punishment is the ONLY way to protect its citizens.

I consider the first point undebatable for Catholics but I do consider the second debatable for Catholics. Every promoter of capital punishment that I have met rejects the first point rather than the second.

For example, many fervent Christians (Catholic and Protestant) have told me that lifetime incarceration is too expensive relative to capital punishment (which means that they reject the first point not the second). When I point out that capital punishment is currently more expensive because of the costs of extra court appeals, they personally volunteer to do the execution to cut costs. At this point, it stops sounding like legitimate Catholic debate.

That being said, I think Gandalf makes the best "plain English" defense of the Roman Catholic opposition to capital punishment when Frodo says that Gandalf should have killed Gollum.

Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.

Burnt,

I didn't see my post till yesterday either. I thought you might have something to say about it though. haha

I hope you don't mind if I debate some of the things you said.

I'm somewhat sensitive when people group abortion and capital punishment together into the pro-life movement. I once had a college friend who was pro-choice. She tried to "trap" me into hypocrisy by saying, "How can you be pro-life and for capital punishment?" You see, she was for capital punishment also and was using this as a reason to justify abortion. This, to me, is like saying, "Since we are going to humanely kill this viscous murderer, it's OK to slaughter babies too." This makes NO sense. My point is: Being part of the pro-life movement has nothing to do with being for OR against capital punishment. The pro-life movement is about being against abortion and the killing of other innocent human life (such as Terry Schiavo).

Your tolerance for the scum of the earth is much greater than mine. I have 8 kids. My oldest three are teenagers. If one of them died an horrific death by one of these "animals", I wouldn't be able to bear it knowing the killer was eating 3 meals a day, watching movies, laughing, socializing, working out, continuing his education, etc...( did you see the Richard Speck tapes?). The only way I could go on would be knowing this beast was no longer here on this earth just as my child wasn't. Of course it's still not justice, he had time to get his "affairs" in order before his death, and he also went painlessly. But there would be some peace in his death. There are people all over this country dealing with the murder of their loved one, sometimes it was an agonizing death. Many times these people have to relive the entire ordeal over each time there is a parole hearing. I'm for capital punishment because I think the families of the victim should come first. They deserve a little peace. I know this is what I would want.

God Bless,
Mary

Burnt if I may cut in for 1 dance with Mary...

Mary I agree with your feelings of outrage and vengance. 2 things strike me though. (and again I'm not saying I wouldn't personally want the death penalty for above scenario).

But my animal desires must align to Christ's example. I note that God promises us eternal life and a bountiful earthly existence but he doesn't promise us vengance. Lev 19:18 "You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." Vengance is the Lord's. We should not steal from the Lord.

But lets say you had a son that died in a 911 type of tragedy by the hands of a crazed zealot that instead of hating the USA hated Catholics. In fact that zealot grows his army so strong, entire Cathoic churches are evacuated from cities as he goes on killing them. No doubt that man qualifies as a terrorist and even a war criminal... his penalty by the world court is death.

But that man is Paul of Tarsus. When we commit people to the death penalty, we steal a potential soul from God. And I have heard well God needs to act faster in their life or they had their chance... is that how Christ taught us with Paul's example?

In Love

wwwo

Mary wrote:I'm for capital punishment because I think the families of the victim should come first. They deserve a little peace. I know this is what I would want.

If someone killed one of my children, I would want the same thing you do and would probably hunt down the killer myself. I'm no more patient than you are and probably a lot less patient than you are as I only have four children.

Even under ordinary circumstances, there is a big gap between the lofty ideals I promote and my personal conduct. Under difficult circumstances I wouldn't be surprised at all if my conduct worsened.

That being said, I still maintain that as long as lifetime incarceration of prisoners is possible - it would be gravely immoral of me to advocate the killing of prisoners on death row. The real possibly that I might fall into immoral behavior under difficult circumstances is nothing new to my personal life.

Burnt and WWWO,

Sorry couldn't respond sooner, baby has been sick (especially at night). She's better.

I realize this is a very tough subject and that we probably will not change each other's minds. Hopefully though, we can at least understand each other's position. I appreciate both of your arguments.
Several points I would like to make.

First...
We need to remember who the real "animals" are. Families who want justice for their loved one's murder are not acting like animals.

Second...
Justice is not the same as vengeance or revenge. Vengeance would be having the murderer experience the same manor of death or pain as the victim. It would be done out of rage. We all know that capital punishment doesn't come close to vengeance. The murderer has time to make peace with his family and God. He also dies humanely. If you've ever seen a death by lethal injection, you will notice the families are not angry and outraged. This is not vengeance, but justice. The most serious punishment for the most serious crime. Remember our pledge "with liberty and justice for all". Victims and the victims' families deserve justice. The vengeance part is still left up to our Lord. Justice (the law of our land) does not take this away from our Lord.

My third point is...
Life in prison is not justice for the most heinous of crimes. Suppose the most gruesome of all crimes... a child kidnapping, rape, and murder. (Remember the little girl who was taken out of her bed while sleeping, raped for several days, and then buried alive?) Now suppose he receives life in prison. The family members of this little girl are more likely to never have peace and be full of bitterness, hate and outrage for the rest of their lives. Why? Because this is not justice for their child's death. Their child deserved justice. A perfect example of justice not being served is the Richard Speck case. Remember Speck raped and murdered a house full of young student nurses (except one who managed to hide all night under a bed). Each nurse was bound and gagged. One by one, they were raped and murdered while each one listened and waited for their turn. Can you imagine the terror? He received life in prison. Years later the Speck prison tapes were discovered. Speck was seen drinking alcohol (homemade), doing drugs, and having perverted sex with his inmate buddies. How horrible for the families of these girls to see this. Justice for their daughters' deaths was not served. They understandably become bitter, full of hated and outrage. NO JUSTICE...NO PEACE!!!

My fourth point is concerning the Lev. Bible verse...
First, as I said before, the Lord still gets his vengeance because justice is not vengeance.
Second, we can all argue about the meaning of this verse and who and what it applies to, but as Catholics, we know the only authentic interpretation is that of the Magisterium. As far as I know, capital punishment is not against Catholic Doctrine. Also, the Catholic Church is the leader of the Pro-life Movement. Capital punishment is not a factor in that movement.

I think that's it.... (I can be long winded). Maybe you can at least half-way know where I stand. (and many others)

I'm surprised neither of you have mentioned the most plausible argument against capital punishment...the possibility an innocent man may be put to death. DNA is now proving men on death row innocent. This is horrible beyond words...that innocent men have already been put to death. I only advocate the death penalty when the evidence is overwhelming and compelling, without any doubt. (as with Richard Speck)

God Bless,
Mary

Mary

I assume that 100% are guilty as charged in my scenario... I pretend that we have a video cam with them and DNA to boot... but that still doesn't have me righteously condemning Paul to death as my justice... Who am I? JP2 writes that fair justice is not death if possible. Who am I to tell JP2 that he doesn't understand what God means by justice.

In Love

wwwo

Mary wrote:As far as I know, capital punishment is not against Catholic Doctrine.

As far as I understand, Catholic Doctrine only allows for capital punishment in cases where incarceration is impossible. I have yet to meet a pro-capital punishment Catholic who actually accepts this mandatory moral principle.

Article 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads as follows:

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.

Burnt and WWWO,

It looks like we're at square one again. I've already talked to my priest (Msgr.) concerning capital punishment and the Catholic Church including what Pope John Paul said, but I will ask him again when I meet with him next time. I have great respect for my priest, and have often thought he would be an excellent pope himself.

My biggest obstacle keeping me from coming to your side of the fence is the fact that the prison system (as is today) is not a just punishment for the most cold-blooded, pre-meditated, viscous murderers. The statement in the pledge "one nation......... and justice for all" means something to me. The punishment needs to fit the crime. Here's an example: Suppose your son deliberately disobeyed you, and as punishment, you sent him to his room for the day. Now suppose he spent the majority of his day playing video games, watching TV and talking on the phone with his friends. Would this have been punishment? Of course not, chances are, as a good parent, you would have taken those things away from him so it would have been a just punishment. Likewise, criminals serving a life sentence for the most heinous crimes should not have it easy. I'm talking hard labor and sweat... three basic meals a day only... one hour of leisure time in a 16 hour day (this is pushing it)....and no chance of parole (the families shouldn't have to relive their loved one's death over and over.) I think you get my point, justice for all means justice for the victims as well. "Life in prison" would have to be a hard, difficult punishment. The Speck prison tapes proved what a sham "life in prison" actually is. As is, death seems to be the only just punishment for such viscous crimes. Maybe if you could agree that changes need to be made, and "life in prison" needs to be a very hard life for these murderers (serial killers, child killers etc..)then maybe we can actually come to a happy medium!

God Bless,
Mary

Were not people put to death for heresy in the middle ages?

skelly,

Yes, people were put to death for heresy in the Middle Ages. That doesn't make it right. Also keep in mind that at the time heresy and treason were one and the same. Most countries still have the death penalty for treason. Whether that is right is another question though.

Burnt,

I hope my question didn't seem accusatory but looking back it seems so. I apologize.

When did the Catholic Church begin to be against execution? for heresy, treason, murder or whatever?

When (if) the Church did so, was this a change in the Church's position and not a clarification of existing doctrine.

I know I may seem to be playing devil's advocate or being sarcastic but that is truly not my attitude. I am not looking to debate or argue or accuse...I would just like to know.

Thanks,

skelly

ps-nice to see new posts from Mary

skelly, sorry if I got defensive. The "executing people for heresy" issue is an area of confusion on my own part and I need to learn more.

As far as my sketchy knowledge goes, Pope John Paul II has officially and publicly apologized for incidents when the church historically used violent and coercive means to promote and defend the gospel.

That being said, this "non-violent" trend seems somewhat recent. Some Catholic apologetics material defends the Church's use of violent means and suggests that the current aversion to such measures reflects a lack of purity of faith in our modern world.

Pope John XXIII and Paul VI also heavily promoted a non-violent form of Roman Catholicism. Though judging from the reactions of some of the older crowd, I get the idea that they were being somewhat counter-cultural in doing so.

I am unaware of official magisterial opposition to capital punishment (I'm thinking of Evangelium Vitae and Catechism article 2267 in particular) which pre-dates 1990 though. I hope that this is due to my ignorance though sometimes I do wonder...

skelly

Here is a well researched article on heresy, the inquisition and penalty. A couple of interesting sentences include " Kings considered the pope "lax" because the Church encouraged bringing heretics back into the fold." Ecclesial inquisitors could not sentence a man to death, even if he was found guilty and refused to repent. Men who persisted in their heresies and refused to repent might be turned over to the state,"

As Burnt has noted, heresy and treason were linked in the middle ages by nations who went to war over minor theological differences... So this was heresy in re: to war. People often think that the Catholic church was running Europe... Indeed the faith of Europeans but as the many martyrs show the governments were often not friendly to the church.

I always find it interesting that the Spanish Inquisition is always brought up to represent the flaws of the Catholic church. But as the name clearly states, this was a Spanish thing done after 2/3rds of their country had been put to the sword by the Moors for what? 300-500 yrs. When they finally got it back, they aggressively protected it against false converts who claimed to be Catholic but continued to worship otherwise. They didn't go after those who never converted. Just the "claimed" Catholics who were subverting the faith.

What is funny is when you ask a Protestant about slavery or the genocide of native americans or the genocide of Africa or the Jews in WW2... they are quick to say those were only some Protestants not all of us. Well why does "Spaniards aren't all Catholics not jingle in the head?"

http://www.cuf.org/LayWitness/online_view.asp?lwID=1180

In Love

when we were one

Hi Skelly, good to hear from you too!

Hi Burnt and WWWO,
No middle ground? Well, I agree. Harsher prison sentences isn't going to happen. The liberals wouldn't allow it.

I've been doing some research and found these statements/sources from our most notable Catholic saints, leaders, and laity.

St Augustine explained St. Paul's teaching on the state's right to inflict capital punishment (City of God bk 1 c 21)

Pope Leo 1 (5th cent), Pope Nicholas 1,(9th cent), the Councils of Toledo (673), and the Fourth Lateran (1215) forbade the clergy to take a direct part in capital punishment, but stated the state may condemn and execute criminals.

St Thomas Aquinas defended capital punishment (Summa Theologica II, II, 64,2)

Pope Pius X (1905) in dealing with the Fifth Commandment of the Decalogue stated: There are some exceptions to the extent of this prohibition to killing. The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment, such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the state is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent life (The Fifth Commandment, 4)

Pope Pius XII (1955) provided a full doctrinal defense of capital punishment. He insisted that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity (CCC off vers., 2266)

Then- Cardinal Ratzinger ( Now- Pope Benedict XVI) in 2004 regarding John Kerry receiving Holy
Communion: Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthenasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthenasia.

Karl Keating (Catholic Answers) answers the question "Must Catholics oppose capital punishment?" Here are some of his comments:

"Section 2267 and "Evangelium Vitae" are not Church teaching in the proper meaning of the term, but reflect the "prudential judgment" of John Paul II." ...

He goes on to say "Father George Rutler, and Avery Cardinal Dulles stated that the decision to put a prudential judgment into a catachetical text is "problematic"...

"All Catholics must subscribe to Church teachings, but Catholics are free to disagree with the latter, since prudential judgments are not under the charism of infallibility and are not themselves authoritative pronoucements of the Magisterium. While they may relate to doctrines of faith and morals, they are neither one nor the other." ...

"Contrary to what some people claim, there had been no revolution in Church teaching on the matter" ...

"You are not bound in conscience to adopt one position or the other."

You can read his entire answer here:
http/www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

My priest (Msgr) said that a Catholic may oppose or not oppose the death penalty and still be a Catholic in good standing.

Blessings,
Mary

WWWO, it is not easy to distance ourselves from the blood of the Crusades and the Inquisition when pre-Vatican II apologetics materials spends considerable time defending the Church's activities during these events.

Mary, I actually agree that prison conditions are way too lax given that they enjoy a lifestyle which outstrips most hard working citizens. I have no qualms with anyone saying that harsher conditions would be an improvement over the lax conditions. I just do not believe that killing the prisoners improves things.

As for Karl Keatings comment: "Section 2267 and "Evangelium Vitae" are not Church teaching in the proper meaning of the term, but reflect the "prudential judgment" of John Paul II." ...

I would say that is only half true. The first part of 2267 says that capital punishment is only possible when it "is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor". This is not mere "prudential judgment" it is magisterial and normative. It provides clarifications on previous papal statements allowing capital punishment by providing the only conditions under which capital is justified.

The second part of 2267 which says "the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent" would constitute prudential judgment. I whole-heartedly agree that placing prudential judgment in a catechetical and normative document is highly problematic - it gives the faithful the mistaken idea that there are no limitations on the positions Catholics may adopt regarding capital punishment.

I agree with your Msgr's statement but would add that catholic can only legitimately advocate capital punishment when it "is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor". I would also like to add that I have yet to meet, speak, or read about a pro-capital punishment Catholic who is willing to confine himself or herself to the magisterial boundaries that have been set on this issue.

Some but not all positions favoring capital punishment are acceptable to Catholic morality and I have yet to encounter such a position.

Hi Everyone

WWWO

Thanks for the link.

Man, I didn't bring up the SI!

What comes to my mind is the Knights Templar when I think about it although I know there were other instances.

Burnt,

I think I remember some articles in the 90's about Pope John Paul II apologies.

Mary,
It seems to me that many Catholics just want to be consistent when it comes to life (abortion, euthanasia, death penalty. I can understand that. Most people don't care to be intellectually consistent and honest or just don't know what that means. But I agree with you that the death penalty and warfare are another category. But I can see wwwo and Burnts side too.

Thanks All

It is a moot point now, but did anyone catch Mike Huckabee on HannityandColmes when they asked him about John Hagee endorsing McCain. He wasn't going to go there but Holmes asked the direct question so then Huckabee said that Hagee is wrong about the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is not the antichrist and has been the moral center of the world especially on life where his denomination has been late and lacking in. He said he had many Catholic friend and Catholics on his campaign staff.

Besides his religious beliefs, he always had the most intelligent answers in the debates as well. He would have slaughtered Hillary or Obama in debates in my opinion we really missed the opportunity to have a chance at a smart and moral president who wasn't afraid to answer questions honestly and appeared on any show to be interviewed. I am not saying he's perfect but compared to the rest of these people...

PS-Imagine Hillary or Obama debating Alan Keyes one on one for that matter...talk about an intellectual slaughter

Skelly,

I agree that everyone in this "conversation" has really searched their hearts and consciences and are trying to say and do what's right.

In good conscience, I have concluded that capital punishment is actually more pro-life than life in prison. I agree with Pope Pius X's statement."the purpose of the law (capital punishment) is to protect and foster human life (innocent life)" Another way of saying this is that by exalting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life (innocent life). The pro-life movement of the Catholic church is about protecting innocent life.

The fact that capital punishment has been supported in the Catholic teachings for 2000 years is something every catholic should consider. Would our Lord allow his church to commit such an error from the very beginning of his church till the present?

Burnt,

The statement "A Catholic can only legitimately advocate capital punishment when it is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor" is very subjective.

You may translate this to mean that life in prison always effectively saves human lives.

Two issues come to my mind that make "life in prison" not effective in defending human lives:

!. Deterrent. Some people are just going to kill no matter what, with or without the death penalty.
Many murderers are not immune to fear (most are cowards) and are terrified of dying personally. The death penalty is a deterrent to those who may otherwise be less afraid of "life in prison". If this is true, then anyone who dies at the hands of a murderer may be a victim of our own inaction to punish correctly.

2. Life in prison? Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that cause "life in prison" to weather away. As long as the murderer lives, there is always a chance that he will get out and kill again. I'm sure if we researched, we would find numerous cases of this happening.

Have a great day. (it's a beautiful one here)
Blessings,
Mary

PS. Skelly, I preferred Alan Keyes to everyone else as well. I've stated before what an excellent debater he is and that the liberal press is terrified of him! I liked Huckabee as well. Maybe he will be on the Rebublican ticket as VP. I don't think it's been ruled out. That may cinch it for the Republicans!

skelley

Hey I voted for Huck in my primary.

In Love

wwwo

Mary,

I think we're making real progress here. Your objections based on deterrent and possibility of escape fall well within the boundaries of acceptable Catholic morality.If these are your reasons for promoting capital punishment, then I would agree that there are no magisterial pronouncements contradicting your position.

I would of course still disagree with your prudential judgment just as you would disagree with the Pope's prudential judgment. Are you willing to confine our capital punishment debate to the "defending human life" criterion? (Given that we both agree that harsher prison conditions would be more appropriate than the lavish lifestyle they lead today).

Mary,

That makes me think. Well put about protecting innocent life. That may circle you around to Burnt's argument, if he allows for CP when there is no other way, just as war is allowed when there is no other way...makes me think though...

wwwo-I did too. No Keyes on my ballot.

Burnt,

I'm not sure if we've reached a consensus or not. Let's give it a test and see:

Suppose:

A 12 year old girl is kidnapped while walking home from school. She is raped, strangled to death, then thrown away in a trash dumpster. The evidence against the suspect is overwhelming...video surveillance of suspect's car near dumpster....suspect's DNA found on victim...victim's blood found on suspect's clothing...suspect has history of child molestation and rape.

Should he receive the death penalty or life in prison?

I'll go first.
Yes, he should receive the death penalty for the following reasons:

1. By exalting the highest punishment for the most heinous crimes, capital punishment may become a deterrent for other potential murderers. Life in prison may not be incentive enough to make a potential killer stop and think carefully about what he's about to do. Remember, most predators are cowards when it comes to dying themselves. Therefor, in keeping with the statement capital punishment is appropriate when it "defends (and protects) innocent human life",the death penalty is the best option for doing this.

2. Life in prison may actually mean... 20 years?
Laws change, parole boards believe in rehabilitation, etc... This monster may eventually be released only to rape and murder another innocent child. (I still plan on researching into seeing how often this scenario happens). Therefore in keeping with the statement, capital punishment is appropriate when it "defends and protects innocent human life" the death penalty is the best option for doing this.

I suppose if prison sentences for such heinous crimes were harsh and served as a deterrent for other potential murderers...and that life in prison without parole ALWAYS meant that, I could possibly change my opinion and say life in prison was sufficient for such a crime, but this is not reality. Reality is that prison sentences are not harsh, and life in prison doesn't always mean that. I don't expect there will be a change in the system.

Your turn. (I've got my finger's crossed)

Peace,
Mary

Hey you're right Skelly, nobody sane likes war or likes executing people, but both are necessary to protect innocent life. In a utopian world, everyone in every country gets along, and there are no serial killers etc... no war, no death penalty. unfortunately, there will always be wars and rumors of war (I think that's in the bible?), and there will always be cold blooded murderers. Terrorists kill innocent civilians (women, children, etc). In order to protect innocent life, they should be killed.
Murderers (like the one in my scenario above), kill innocent civilians (women, children, etc). In order to protect innocent life, they should be executed.

By not doing so, we actually cheapen the value of human life, and put others' life at risk.

God Bless,
Mary

PS. Y'all please pray for me tomorrow (Friday). I'm having a sonogram to see if my little baby is OK.
I'm very nervous.

Skelly, Burnt, WWWO,
It looks like you have a real shooting match on the "antichrist" article. I've learned to steer clear of those kind of people. It usually doesn't do any good to argue with them, but hey, you never know. Some of what you said may actually sink in one day. Plant seeds, so to speak.

My sonogram didn't go well. The beautiful, perfect little baby doesn't have a heartbeat. I've decided to miscarry naturally instead of surgery. This may take up to 2-4 weeks. A tough decision mentally most women don't take. Please keep me and my family,(my husband and older children are grieving hard also) in your prayers.

Too sad for words.....maybe I'll post sometime in the future.

God Bless,
Mary

Mary,
I'm so sorry. God bless you.

skelly

Mary

I'm sorry about the baby. I'll pray for you. Are you familiar with the concept of redemtive suffering?

In Love

when we were one

Thanks Skelly and WWWO,

I may understand what redemptive suffering is by what a good Catholic friend wrote me yesterday. I've been somewhat mad at myself for insisting on that sonogram. The nurse had already heard the heartbeat and I have all the normal symptoms. I have never had a sonogram in the 1st trimester. In other words, If I didn't have that sonogram, I would be happy today and for the next 2-4 weeks ( I would find out when the miscarriage actually started happening) Instead, I've got the exact opposite, extreme sadness for the next several weeks. I told my friend, "Easter is ruined. I've had to cancel everything.(All my extended family was coming over)." She wrote me yesterday and said "God is asking you for some major suffering during this Holy Week. You know He asks suffering from those He loves the most and knows who will offer it up." I had never thought of all this in that way. I'm trying to change my way of thinking and offer everything (all the pain) up to the Lord. Is this what you mean?

Mary

Mary,

I have offered a decade of the Rosary for the repose of the soul of your child. May Our Blessed Mother bring you comfort as you walk this valley of tears.

Burnt,

Thank you for the offering. Every child is precious. I face each morning with a heavy heart, but somehow manage to get through the day. The encouragement and prayers from family and friends has been so helpful.

A friend of mine sent me this story that really touched my heart. I wanted to post it, but wasn't sure the best place, so I'll just post it here. It's fitting for all who are suffering. I've been asked the question, "Why are you Catholics so into Christ's suffering?" This answers that question as well.

The Wounds (Suffering) of Christ

There is a story told, a legend perhaps, about St. Teresa of Avila. One day the devil appeared to her, disguised as Christ. Teresa wasn't fooled for a second. She immediately dismissed him. But before he left, the devil asked her, "How did you Know? How could you be so sure I wasn't Christ?" Her answer: "You didn't have any wounds. Christ has wounds."

Christ has wounds! So does anyone who stands where He stands. This is spiritual wisdom. To teach anything else is a sham. When Jesus rose from the dead, the first thing he did was to show His disciples His wounds, now glorified. To become spiritually astute, as was Teresa of Avila, we must begin to understand what that means. Christ is ultimately recognized in His wounds (suffering).

Mary