Weekend question
So what do you think?
In his public message to Gov. Sebelius, KS Archbishop Joseph Naumann wrote, in part…
May.10, 2008 8:19 pm |
Weekend question |
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I hope she respects the rules of the Church, just like she respects federal and state laws.
Excellent. Good for KS Archbishop Joseph Naumann. I doubt Sebelius will listen because of her pride and arrogance.
Way to go Archbishop Naumann!
Let’s see if Gov. Sebelius can step up to the plate.
If you’re reading this, governor, think Thomas More.
What’s cool is how the archbisop recognizes how extremely difficult for someone in her position and authority to make that call.
And his letter was pastoral, yet firm; no character bashing, threats, no one calling her an idiot…
Rae, 8:37 p.m.
I second that!
“What’s cool is how the archbisop recognizes how extremely difficult for someone in her position and authority to make that call.”
Carder, I don’t understand..what is so difficult about respecting human life?
Selebius will not step up to the plate.
No one can serve two masters.
Which master does she despise?
Jasper,
Political fallout. If she values human respect more than her faith, it’s going to be mighty difficult for her.
Kinda like “giving up” certain things for Lent, except alot deeper.
“What’s cool is how the archbisop recognizes how extremely difficult for someone in her position and authority to make that call.”
Huh? She received a mandate from the people’s representatives and vetoed it. She opposes the legitimate consent of the governed. She imposes her own opinion and thwarts the real authority in a free society, the people!
That’s great; I just wish the archbishops were just as tough on every other issue. Why not ask catholic politicians to not take communion over the death penalty, torture, or unjust wars, as well? After all social justice does touch the lives of every person born or unborn.
Basically, what Rae said :)
Com’on PIP. Can you for once as a pro-lifer speak up for the 49,000,000 unborn children killed in this country? and stop lumping them in with terrorists, despotic regimes and convicted murderers!!!
Jasper..what are you talking about? Pip has a point. The Catholic Church is against the death penalty so why aren’t pro-death penalty Catholics asked to abstain from communion??
As lovers and the followers of the Mighty Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Lamb of God, Lion of Judah, Rose of Sharon, Prince of Peace, Lord of Lords, King of kings, I Am, The Way, The Truth, and The Life, Redeemer, Son of God, King of the Jews, Alpha and Omega, Beginning and the End, Bread of Life, the Christ, just to name a few, we cannot serve two masters.
PIP:
Please…..
this is sick! this is about innocent unborn children. Millions. You liberals have to see the diiference….
Ohhh, I get it..so innocence determines your right to life then?
“You liberals…”
I’m not a liberal..but I can’t imagine THAT generalization helps the pro-life movement.in.any.way.
“Ohhh, I get it..so innocence determines your right to life then?”
they have more of a Right to life than murderers and terrorists. yes.
@Jasper: All life is important. As mere human beings, we do not have the right to take the life of other human beings as we are all equal, be we born or unborn, Christian or Muslim.
The death penalty is unjust as it is nothing more than legalized revenge killing. The death penalty cannot be truly retributive because we cannot kill the person the way they killed their victims, nor can we kill the individual multiple times in retribution for the multiple victims.
The only time I’d make an exception to this is when a society has prisons that are not secure- ours are secure, so we have no reason for keeping the death penalty other than out of our own bloodlust for revenge, which we gussy up as “justice” (sounds awfully familiar…killing the unborn which is gussied up as “choice”).
The Archbishop has bent over backwards for her and has given her every possible opportunity to change –he had no other choice. She has gone to extremes in her actions, creating public scandal time and time again. Had he not done this, it would appear as if he were condoning abortion. It was the right thing for him to do at this point in time.
She is entrenched in the culture of death and we need to continue to lift her up in our prayers for conversion and the salvation of her soul.
“they have more of a Right to life than murderers and terrorists. yes.”
@Jasper: Oh? Well dang Jasper, I thought all humans had a Right to Life- as we are ALL equal regardless. The right to life cannot be taken away, nor can it be “lessened” for some people.
Murderers and terrorists are human beings, just like the unborn- and all human beings have a right to life, you cannot deny that.
Rae Rae,
Amen!
they have more of a Right to life than murderers and terrorists.
Says who? You?
Well people think the unborn have less of a right to life than other human beings..soo I guess you guys are in the same boat then.
Taking a cue from PIP, it’s too bad President Bush isn’t Catholic. Instead of just “condemning” the ongoing occupation of Iraq, the church could ask him not to take communion until he withdraws all our troops.
Regarding Sebelius:
She has gone to extremes in her actions, creating public scandal time and time again.
That may be your point of view, Jean, but if the good people of Kansas keep re-electing her, they obviously do not share it.
Archbishop Naumann has done the correct thing here.
NO Catholic can simply believe one thing in Church and another in the legislature. Apparently Sebelius places little stock in upholding divine law.
CC2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”
Rae, Elizabeth and PIP,
back to the post. do you think Governor Selebius should recieve communinion before should she confesses and changes her position?
CC2261 “Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.”[61] The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.”
No, Jasper..I believe I already agreed with the very first comment from Rae.
God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end
..well, that just throws your whole theory out of the water then doesn’t it? Only God decides who lives and who dies. Thanks for that.
Jean, Nice informative blog – i’ve bookmarked it!
@Jasper: Those catechism passages are only discussing abortion.
My stance has nothing to do with the catechism though. It’s human rights. Every human being has a right to life Jasper, and you have NO right to deny ANYBODY that, even if they are a murderer or a terrorist.
As for the topic at hand, I already stated my opinion on it, read the first comment of the thread.
Cardinal Ratzinger made this point recently in connection with abortion and euthanasia on the one hand and capital punishment and war on the other. In his letter,
I like that when people can’t answer things for themselves..they quote someone else.
The Catholic Church is still AGAINST the death penalty..so if Pro-death penalty Catholics support death penalty legislation..they shouldn’t have communion either. Fair is fair.
The church needs to stand by Biblical principles and proclaim them without fear and wiithout regards to the consequences.
God has no place for cowards in his fold.
“I like that when people can’t answer things for themselves..they quote someone else.”
Yes, you’re right Elizabeth. I don’t have all the answers. Pope Benedict is wise man and the leader of the Catholic church. He’s know’s better than you or I.
Oh, did he change the Catholic church’s position on the death penalty? No..well then pro-death penalty Catholic politicians shouldn’t be having communion either.
But because the death penalty is okay in your mind, those Catholic politicians can keep taking communion.
It seems a bit like a double-standard to me.
“But because the death penalty is okay in your mind, those Catholic politicians can keep taking communion.”
I’m against the death penalty Elizabeth. I just don’t think it has the same moral weight as abortion, do you?
@Jasper: I think abortion and the death penalty have the same moral weight. Both are state sanctioned killing. Both are wrong.
I think the taking of any human life for any reason (besides self-defense) bears the same moral weight as any other. Humans determing the worth of other humans is what has led us down this path to where abortion is okay.
Elizabeth
You have to realize that in historical times when countries in Europe, for example, had Catholic monarchs, if those leaders acted in a unjust way, waging war on innocent nations etc, they WERE in fact called in on their actions by the reigning Pope. Some were required to do public penance for their actions and were in fact excommunicated until such penance was undertaken. Many Catholic monarchs took their duties quite seriously and their actions and decisions were influenced by their Catholic faith.
We really don’t have that kind of political situation anymore. However, Catholic politicians are still expected to act in a manner that reflects their Catholic beliefs.
I would argue that abortion has more moral weight than the death penalty. A person sentenced to death has committed a heinous crime. Abortion is the murder of an innocent child.
I don’t support the death penalty for several reasons BTW.
Murder is murder is murder.
No matter what the circumstances, they still end up with the same result. Death. At the hands of other human beings.
My opinion? That if the governor makes this an issue of integrity in public service, she should accept as embracing integrity in her faith the judgment of spiritual authorities in the religion of her choice.
A person who is willing to hold public office in a way that might compromise their faith, should not self-righteously claim for herself the prerogatives of that faith against the counsel of those by whose authority the sacrament finds its significance in the first place.
Something like that.
How hillarious.
A murderer is executed for…………..murdering a human being!
The state is defending its citizens from a murderer.
A execution is taking the life of a person who is the son of Cain. He is not innocent.
Abortion is taking the life of innocent human beings. And the church, or a moral person would and should defend innocent life.
And there lies the difference.
But, if one wants to be fair and reasonable in making a murderer into a innocent person, should not the murderer sacrifice his life? Would not a person who respects God’s creation, not offer up a sacrifice to God? Which is to say to Rae, let us leave it up to the murderer when he wants to atone for his playing God and take his own life.
Leave a rope in his cell. Give the murderer a needle full of morphine to inject at his time of chosing, which is more then he gave one of God’s innocent creations.. Afterall, it’s nothing more then a mercy killing, Rae. Are you against “mercy killing” a murderer, Rae?
@Yllas: I am against mercy killing. Innocence is IRRELEVANT when it comes to killing. All non-self defense killing is IMMORAL. If you want to “defend citizens from a murderer” stick that murderer in a tiny little cell and never let them out. Don’t need to kill them. Killing them is nothing more than extraneous violence out of a desire for revenge- not justice.
And I’m not basing this on the Bible. All humans have a right to life (yes, even nut bars like you, Yllas)…and as fellow human beings, we do NOT have the right to take the life of another. Period.
@Yllas: Why do we prosecute those who kill people who are not innocent? Why do we prosecute people who kill rapists or pedophiles? Rapists and pedophiles are *far* from innocent- so if they’re not innocent, why do their deaths matter in the court of law? Why are those who murdered rapists or pedophiles charged and often convicted of committing murder even though their victims weren’t innocent?
Soo Sad, But many murderers who have done there time for murder, get out, and……….murder again.
Soo, the state is defending itself and innocent life by executing a person who has gotten out of prison and done taken another innocent life.
We are defending innocent life against the known murderer. Which is more then God does Rae. I don’t care about God in this issue either. Soo, it’s my pov against your pov. And why should a murderer take food from the mouth,through taxes, of innocent citizens,including the realtives who might need that food for their family?
Execution is just and fair. Not all life,since it has been given a chance to live is equal. Period. One chose to murder, which is exactly what a abortion is.
And IRL, Rae, your playing nothing more then a silly defence lawyer defending the murderer. In essence, your the devil’s advocate.
@Yllas: No, I’m not. I do think murderers must be punished, I just don’t think death is a punishment for them. I don’t believe in an afterlife, so I don’t believe murderers go to Hell, so there is no “eternal punishment” coming for them- so I believe they should be punished here on earth, to me, death is merely an escape into nonexistence.
I don’t believe murderers should be able to get out…ever. Same with rapists and pedophiles. They should be locked up until they die a NATURAL death.
A murderer is still a human being, and thus still has the same rights as an innocent person. They have a right to live until their natural death (even though they cruelly denied that to others), and they should serve a penance of sorts by imprisonment.
Execution is not just and fair. You cannot kill a person the same way they killed their victim, nor can you kill them for each person they killed (can’t kill somebody 3 times if they killed three people).
Let’s be simple. Are you pro abortion Rae? Yes or no?
@Yllas: I’m going to respectfully stop discussing this with you until you obtain a maturity level that allows you to not make an argument without assumptions, ad hominems, and straw men on your part towards myself and others. Plus…it’s late, and I need to get up early to go home tomorrow to visit my parents.
Have a good evening/morning.
@Yllas: No. I am not pro-abortion.
A simple question. Are you a principled person Rae? Do you hold a position, or value to be universal as you are arguing about not talking the life of a non-innocent person named a murderer?
Are you for abortion Rae? Yes or no?
@Yllas: I would like to think so. Nobody has the right to take the life of another human being, be they innocent or not innocent.
It is immoral to kill an unborn child because they are human beings. It is immoral to kill a small child because they are human beings. It is immoral to kill teenagers, adults, and the elderly because they are human beings. Murderers are human beings as well.
All human beings have a right to life. No human being has the right to violate that right (except in self-defense, and in some cases, self-defense is a valid reason for the death penalty- but only in cases where prisons are unsafe and insecure and unable to protect the general population from criminals, this is not the case in the US).
No, I am not for abortion. I am against it. It’s immoral because it involves the killing of an unborn human being.
Didn’t see your position is Not pro abortion, Rae.
Since the state authorizes a execution, and there being no other authority to deny the execution, then the nation/citizen is justfied in the execution. Don’t like the law? Change it. Simple Rae.
I’m sorry I was not clear on my position on the abortion issue.
I think the Catholic Church should excommunicate all pro-choice American Catholics.
SoMG,
You’ve got to stop using the phrase “excommunicate”…no one is talking about excommunication here…sheesh. That’s like the zillionth time we’ve said this.
I agree tho…all pro choice Catholics should refrain from taking communion.
Rae and Elizabeth,
Don’t yell at me…
I myself feel that the death penalty is wrong. I’ve said so many times. I think it’s wrong because it affects our own souls.
HOWEVER,
I agree with Jasper and Patricia and Yllas, the gravity of the sin of abortion far outweighs the gravity of the sin of capital punishment. One is a grave matter and requires refraining from receiving (nice alliteration) and the other, while it could be considered a sin, is not a grave matter and would not require refraining from reception.
Yllas,
You’re argument that capital punishment is state sanctioned can’t be used, because abortion is also state sanctioned…and we know that argument doesn’t fly regarding abortion.
Back to Rae and Elizabeth,
Think about it this way. We now have secure prisons and there is NO reason to put criminals to death. But there are circumstances (countries where the prisons are not quite so secure)where capital punishment would be considered just.
So we could say that under certain circumstances, capital punishment would be morally acceptable.
But under NO circumstances could you say the same about abortion or euthanasia.
Also, take into consideration that just because a person gets sentenced, it doesn’t mean he will serve out his full sentence. To abolish capital punishment, we would first need to make darn sure that certain offenses mean LIFE in prison, in not just words, but actuality.
So while I am not saying that capital punishment is justified, (I don’t believe it is), I am saying that it is not a serious enough matter to forgo the reception of the Eucharist.
If however, a person that is for capital punishment, actually cheers at an execution, I would say they really need to reevaluate themselves as a Catholic…
MK, I still say, the Church should excommunicate all pro-choice American Catholics. I’d love that!
Couldn’t you make the following argument: Politicians who vote pro-choice are enabling women to get abortions. Shouldn’t they therefore be excommunicated latae sententiae like anyone else who enables a woman to get an abortion?
A Catholic politician who votes for ANY proabortion legislation cannot receive Holy Communion. Governor Sebelius certainly falls well within this.
Happy Mother’s Day to all you moms!
@MK: And abortion is “okay” in the case of ectopic pregnancy because of the Law of Double Effect.
“Think about it this way. We now have secure prisons and there is NO reason to put criminals to death. But there are circumstances (countries where the prisons are not quite so secure)where capital punishment would be considered just.”
Pretty sure I already said that because the second case would be considered self-defense. :)
And I agree, life in prison should mean life in prison. No parole, limited appeals. You fark up big time- no more “freedom” for you. You go make license plates for the rest of your life (or sit in a cell for the rest of your life never to see the light of day again if you were a particularly savage bastard).
I think rapists and pedophiles should also get life in prison- you cannot rehabilitate sexual predators. Lock ’em up in solitary so they can’t victimize their fellow inmates.
I agree tho…all pro choice Catholics should refrain from taking communion.
Posted by: mk at May 11, 2008 5:41 AM
And those on birth control to prevent pregnancy. And those on their second marriage.
Jasper, you quoted the pope on this issue, when I said specifically that I just disagree. i think that standards should be the same. I think murder is murder is murder is murder–whether it is the abortion of an unborn child, the euthanasia of a sick person, or injecting a prisoner with a killing drug not approved for animal use–it is wrong, and each murder is the same as the next. I think Benedict made a mistake by saying that. I can understand maybe saying that abortion has a greater sense of urgency because of the numbers- or that euthanasia is threatening because it is not yet legal but may be in the future- but it is wrong to say that those two situations are in any way worse than shooting Iraqi children, beating up an Iraqi prisoner to death, or tying an American prisoner to a table and subjecting him to killing treatments we forbid on animals.
All of them are affronts to the dignity of human life, all of them need to be stopped, and NEVER should they be put on different planes of importance. Asking Catholic politicians to adhere to some doctrines in the legislature but not others is hypocritical.
“The Catholic Church is still AGAINST the death penalty..so if Pro-death penalty Catholics support death penalty legislation..they shouldn’t have communion either.”
Elizabeth, I don’t know if anyone addressed this already, but that is not quite right. Although in JP2’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae, he more or less says that the circumstances that would warrant the death penalty are almost non-existent, the Church does not teach that the death penalty is intrinsically wrong, and hence Catholics may hold differing opinions on the death penalty and still remain in good standing. God love you.
Bobby,
the way I understood it, it was basically, “it is only acceptable if there is no other practical way” which would constitute as self defense. So, the death penalty is wrong because of its assault on the dignity and life of another human being, and there is no excuse for it anymore.
If a Catholic approves of the death penalty regardless of the circumstances of the penal system, then they would be in the wrong. That is how I read it, anyway.
On a side note, one of my bunnies almost died today :( It was a scary experience.
@PiP: Oh no! What nearly happened to your bunny!?
My roommate and I are packing, and she has a lot of plastic bags and stuff for her things. I was letting the bunnies out to run around like usual and Paul got a string from a victoria’s secret bag around his neck. He was flailing around hysterically and it was only getting more twisted and I was crying, OH MY GOD HE IS GOING TO BREAK HIS NECK, and when I got close to him he let out this blood curtling scream (this is usually indicative that they are in mortal terror). I reached out and I simultaneously ripped it while he bounded backwards and It came off. He had to sit shaking in the corner for about 15 minutes but I think he’s fine. After getting some treats he hopped back into his cage. It was so scary :((
HI PIP. I’m glad your bunny is OK :)
So here are the paragraphs from Evangelium Vitae that I had in mind. Especially note the second and third paragraphs:
“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”.46 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. 47
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”.48″
While it is pretty clear where JP2 stands, especially given the last sentence of the second paragraph, it does seem to leave the death penalty open for under extreme circumstances. I don’t know if you’ve seen Bookdock Saints, but I often think of the father from that movie. He was like this super dangerous criminal who, if he wanted, could have kept of killing many, many people even while in prison. That’s the kind of person that it seems to me is being discussed in the encyclical. However, I don’t think such a person really exists in real life, which is what I think JP2 was referring to when he talks about the need for the death penalty being practically non-existent. Just some ideas. God love you, PiP.
But Bobby,
This still doesn’t oppose what I’m saying. Most people who oppose the death penalty will give way when it comes to the inability to protect society. But for those who support it Texas style, for even those who have been model prisoners, who have become Christians and only request a change from death to life, that is pretty clearly against the Church from those paragraphs. He’s saying for those reasons it could be allowable but that doesn’t mean that the Church supports the philosophy behind pretty much every other state murder. Those who do should refrain form communion the same as those who condone the murder of the unborn or sick. I daresay if Bush Jr. was a Catholic he would (or..should) be heavily censured by the bishops and pope for all of the death sentences he signed, and the way he mocked a prisoner he refused to grant clemency to.
OK, I see more now what you mean, PiP.
I am sorry PIP. What a horrible thing for a bunny and a bunny’s momma to go through!! Hope you are both ok.
Thanks Carla, it took a while for both me and him to stop shaking, but I think we are okay now :)
I have heard that a rabbit screaming is a very heart wrenching sound…is that true?
Carla, it’s terrible. I don’t mind saying that’s when tears started building up. It almost sounded like a young child screaming. I really thought he was going to die :(
What’s worse, I have to board my bunnies for four weeks due to the class I”m taking in the ozarks (I begged the coordinator he told be an absolute no on pets) tomorrow. He almost died and I don’t even get to spend more time with him..I feel terrible :/
AND THEN on my way to pick up my new apartment keys I got a flat tire and missed the appointment. I pretty much have had tons of bad luck today.
I’m sorry PIP. :(
I hope you found someone wonderful to give your bunnies the TLC they need.
Thanks Carla me too :)
“All of them are affronts to the dignity of human life, all of them need to be stopped, and NEVER should they be put on different planes of importance.”
Ok PIP.
I’ll agree only if they NEVER get out of solitary
confinement.
MK, I still say, the Church should excommunicate all pro-choice American Catholics. I’d love that!
Posted by: SoMG at May 11, 2008 6:27 AM
SOMG, why do you want to see fewer Catholics?
SoMG: Are you an ex-Catholic?
The entire charade of Sebelius posing as a Catholic, is just that: A charde.
It’s all a front to make her look good and appeal to her people…when in fact, anyone with any sense can see right through her. She’s as transparent as glass and her support of abortion instantly blows the mask right off of her.
She is just as guilty as Tiller when it comes to having the blood of innocent children on her hands.
Mk.
Yes it flys, simply because one is not innocent(murderer) v. the innocent new life.
Second, this argument about the death penalty is ridiculous.
Follow the logic.
The court is lawfully taking the life of a murderer, just as if the person who was murdered, would have taken the life of the murderer in self defence. Is defending oneself murder? No.
The nation/citizen/court is nothing more then the “murdered citizen ” defending his life and doing what the “murdered” citizen would have done, which is to execute/kill his murderer before he completed his murder.
It is in the fact of “delayed time” that you are arguing about.
The state is not “time bound” to not kill in self defence(the state being the “murdered person” still defending himself in the fight for his life), as a private citizen may not kill in self defence a “week/month/year later”. Although it has happen, and the person killing a murderer(see family member) is not found guilty by the state. But the state can and does, since there is no time limit on the state defending itself(the state IS YOU, the “murdered citizen”) and killing the murderer.
The reason you have courts and law is to make the murderer not able to threaten a family or brother/sister/aunt/uncle etc., by threatening murder of them too. The murderer’s problem” is not with the family, but with the large and numerous state.
Let us remove all law and so called order and take a example of self defence.
There are three people.
A murders B,leaving C, and A, people.
C “see’s” the attack and is trying to stop A’s murder of B.
C fails to stop the murder, but does kill/execute B, after B completed the murder. And minutes after the murder of B. Make it a hour from C being exhausted in trying to stop the murder of B.
Does C have a right to kill B? Yes, stopping a murder is moral and right of course.
And btw, A, also had “told” C, that if he tryed to stop his murder of B, C was next.
It is self defence by the state to execute or kill a murderer for the simple fact that with no law or courts one will kill a muderer a week/month year later from knowing the murderer might murder you!!!! That is reality where no courts and law abound, and you and PIP and everyone here would “murder” a murderer from trying to sleep with one eye open!!!!
Now, the state is doing what should have happen in the first place, and the murderer should have been killed by the citizen in self defence.
Just as a police officer can and does “murder” a citizen who is/has murdered a citizen. Or would you preferr the police officer not to defend a citizen?
It is in the fact of the “time delay”, of the state apparatus of killing in self defence that your argument actually rest. Whether one kills a murderer right after he murdered a person(which is a police officer) or kills a murderer years later, is only from delayed self defence being allowed!! Think about it.
“All of them are affronts to the dignity of human life, all of them need to be stopped, and NEVER should they be put on different planes of importance.”
Posted by PiP
PiP, I have a hard time agreeing on that one. IMHP it is not nearly as great an affront to hmanity to execute a confessed mass murderer as it was for said killer to murder his innocent victims. Not even close.
oops, thats imho and not imhp
Yllas,
I hear ya. And I understand what you’re saying. I was only trying to say that stating something is okay simply because it is law, undermines our argument that abortion is wrong despite the law. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a difference between executing a murderer and killing an unborn child.
As I said, I am not against the death penalty because I’m soft, but because I think it darkens my own soul. A while ago, months and months, I said that I wouldn’t be opposed to dropping these guys in the middle of a shark infested spot in the ocean and allowing them to “go free”…if they manage to swim 2000 miles to shore, well, good for them. (tongue in cheek)
If anyone got the impression that I equate depraved criminals with innocent babes, I apologize. I recognize these twits for what they are. Rae pretty much summed it up: “And I agree, life in prison should mean life in prison. No parole, limited appeals. You fark up big time- no more “freedom” for you. You go make license plates for the rest of your life (or sit in a cell for the rest of your life never to see the light of day again if you were a particularly savage bastard).
It’s not out of sympathy for these guys that I oppose the death penalty, but rather, out of self preservation…of my soul that is.
Jasper..what are you talking about? Pip has a point. The Catholic Church is against the death penalty so why aren’t pro-death penalty Catholics asked to abstain from communion??
Elizabeth,
The Catholic church acknowledges that it is legitimate in some cases for the state to impose the death penalty.
As such, it doesn’t make support of the death penalty grave mortal sin. I’m sure in some cases, should an individual Catholic push for the death penalty unjustly, but that is not persisting in unrepentent grave sin.
You may disagree with the Cahtolic Church’s teaching on this, but it doesn’t make her hypocritical with regards to medicinal penalties such as interdict or excommunication.
That having been said, Gov. Sebelius is as much a child of God as those innocents which her actions have condemned. We need to pray that the medicinal penalty helps to change her heart and save her immortal soul.
Everyone,
When I see what a murderer has done it gives me a sense of outrage, and I often want him or her to get the same treatment they gave other people.
But, feelings have little to do with whether something is right or wrong. You may respectfully disagree, but I think murder is wrong–no matter who is murdered. It’s hard to ethically argue otherwise. Is there a difference between the murder of a person on the street and the murder of a prisoner strapped to the table? Our senses tell us, sure it is. Typically one dies faster than the other, less painful, etc. If we believe both are persons, its pretty hard to argue that one murder is ethically “worse” than the other. And if that is true, if we judge personhood based on the person’s actions, then we must also look at the murder victim. Maybe they were less of a person because they have killed someone in the past or has horrible problems with empathy. Then it becomes even more gray. Anyone seen the movie seven? Maybe that person is guilty of one of the “seven deadly sins”? Does these things have an affect on the personhood of the guy walking down the street and therefore does the murder mean less because of it? If we make a distinction between different types of murders being ethically “worse” than the other, these questions have to be considered too. What is innocence? What is guilt? How many executions equal one aborted baby, or murdered people walking down the street? If they are no way equal this must be addressed.
And, I will not oppose the death penalty in cases where they cannot be protected from society. And I think self-defense can be a valid reason to kill someone. So Yllas you are throwing out a lot of assumptions, as usual.
I like that quote from Rae that mk quoted. I think prison needs heavy reform. But there is practically no reason to kill them anymore. And I’ve seen no logical reason to the claim that one murder is less bad than the other, in terms of dignity of the person.
I agree completely with the Catholic Church’s teachings on capital punishment. God is just and merciful and we should be also.
A good article on the subject:
Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice
by J. Budziszewski
Copyright (c) 2004 First Things (August/September 2004).
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=370
Now, the state is doing what should have happen in the first place, and the murderer should have been killed by the citizen in self defence.
Lordy, lordy, I’m over forty…. And I agree with Yllas – John McDonell should have stayed to see this day.
In some cases, *poof* and they’re gone, IMO that’d be best.
Yet I also agree with PIP, at least to an extent:
But there is practically no reason to kill them anymore.
I’d say it’s really not practical to execute them, given the nature of our system and the appeals process.
Janet, thanks – that is a good article indeed.
Thanks, D:)
Yes Doug, there are both practical and moral reasons against the death penalty, I’m happy to talk about either :)
PIP, hello darkness my old friend…
I think it’s crazy to spend literally millions of Dollars on the appeals process for one inmate.
Some people think that life in the can is more of a punishment that the death penalty. Who knows?
Really, what I’m wondering is why do you believe in God, and what type of God is it, exactly?
Well Mk,
Killing a murderer is natural law. Period.
As I said, the state is the citizen in many forms in the USA. That is what civil rights actually is about, including abortion issues. What is occcuring at this board is Tolstoy love, which is not natural and actually a great big joke towards human nature defending itself against murder.
Would it “darken your soul” to have not stopped the murder of a child, but seconds later kill the child murderer? Would you be feeling guilty/offended Jesus, in killing the murderer of the child, even thought you failed in the three way fight?. In the
“three way fight” at that crucial moment where life was in your fighting hands, and you failed.
Jesus, God,Jesus, and the holy spirit has given you by natural law the right to kill a murderer.
It does not darken the soul to kill that which murderers life.
Taking the life of a murderer is a right of life, either by the state, you or a soldier at war.
It does not weaken the position of pro life,since executing a murderer is defending innocent life as is pro life is defending innocent life. Again it is in the tome delay that the appeal for allowing a murderer to live is hinged upon. Time means nothing.
Doug, I agree!
I believe in God for several reasons. But mainly, I feel his presence with me, and he’s definitely helped me through times of struggle whether it is emotional, physical, or philosophical. I grew up in the Catholic church and I still sort of identify with that, but I take God as a spiritual, complex being that can’t be “boxed in” like I see much of Christianity doing. So I’m just hanging in there ;)
Thanks PIP, interesting.
And the people bowed and prayed,
To the neon god they made
Ah commercialism. Isn’t paul poetic ;)
I grew up with Paul and Art, played those albums countless times. Thank goodness for CD players – now you can hear the same song or group of songs a thousand times in a row if you want.
Yllas: Killing a murderer is natural law. Period.
Who/where do you get this idea from? What happened to “Thou shalt not kill?”
What is occcuring at this board is Tolstoy love, which is not natural and actually a great big joke towards human nature defending itself against murder.
Tolstoy love? Please explain.
Pip,
I throw out no assumptions. Killing a murderer is natural and good. Yes or No, PIP. Your playing Tolstoy love and doing a bad job of it.
You do not resist murder Pip, and that is a fact by reading your attempts at “Tolstoy writings”.
Again, it is only you and Mk, making “time a factor” in killing the murderer, which is ridiculous in truth.
To kill a muderer yesterday or tommorow or next year is natural to humanity, as is abortion is natural to Dogma Doug. Always has been, always will be. Straight fact jack, no assumption made.
Janet,
Everyone knows Tolstoy from one book,which almost no one has read, War and Peace, and Anna Karina. Tolstoy also wrote Resurrection. A blasphemous book where there is no resurrection. Where God Is Love Is, a short story by Leo Tolstoy, sums up PIP’s writings here at this board on the subject of the natural law of humans killing a murderer. Or as the hippies learned it, and Pip is in love with, All you need is love. That’s Tolstoy love shortened to its basic appeal to a love that never defends life in war or peace.
Quite silly and actually dangerous thinking which has allowed thousands of murderers to murder again by appealing to emotion based upon redemption,man is naturally good. But, this is hillarious for PIP to take such a weak position on killing a murderer, when her strident belief in Darwin sets up a contradiction of truth if one thinks about it beyond some emotional display of never killing a murderer. It is natural to kill a murderer , as natural as evolution.
The archbishop is but one voter among many. He is not the king of Kansas. The governor acted according to the wishes of the people who elected her. That is her job.
There’s nothing wrong with the governor taking communion. She hasn’t participated in an abortion or any other mortal sin. Vetoing a bill is not a sin.
Janet, just read your post about thou shalt not kill. Hmm, maybe that commandment is thou shalt not MURDER, which makes more sense then you shall not kill. You lead yourself into a situation where one discusses some far fetched idea that killing a murderer is against the word of God.
Reality.
The religion has every right to deny her anything they want,since the church or religion has it’s laws and boundries of right and wrong as the state does. Religion is voluntary, the other puts you in jail and can lawfully kill you. Try again.
“I grew up with Paul and Art, played those albums countless times. Thank goodness for CD players – now you can hear the same song or group of songs a thousand times in a row if you want.”
True that, but at the same time, I have pretty much every S and G album on vinyl, because then I am listening to them as they originally sounded…gorgeous…
(PS I sent Paul and Artie, my bunnies, to the vet today to be boarded for 4 weeks. Awwww :( I wanted to leave a CD for them and a picture of me so they won’t feel lonely but then that would just be weird)
Funny yllas that you mention “emotion” when I had posted a paragraph on the subject.
I don’t know I’m kind of tired of talking to you yllas because all you do is lay personal attacks on me, when you really have no idea who I am. Toodles.
You take things personal PIP. Is killing a murderer natural to humanity? Yes or no.
As for you not knowing the basis of your philosophy of not killing a murderer, it began with Tolstoy and was the theme of hippies in the sixties. Before him was Rousseau, who got to see his Xanadu world end in a reign of terror. You know, the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker all went to the razor. Since you have a slight passing interest in music from the sixties, what was Dylan “saying” in his song, I Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine. He had you in mind PIP. And that is a fact also PIP.
Yllas,
I know my philosophical basis against capital punishment. Don’t assume otherwise. I’ve thought about it quite a long time.
Anti-capital punishment sentiments started gaining ground around the enlightenment period, as far as I know…and leaps and bounds in philosophy and thought seems a pretty big part of our nature.
PIP.
Fine, chapter,verse and page number of the “Enlightenment period” that denies the right to kill a murderer please. I gave you Rousseau and his total failure of not stopping murder, but increasing murder via the end result of the Reign of Terror. BTW PIP, this is the post modern era which is two philosophical eras away from the so called Enlightenment era. Besides, all that Enlightenment ended with Jacque-Louie David, and his magical, mystical, heavenly light decending upon the painting of that coward, Marat. Now there was “cheap imitation” painting of the so called Enlightenment, elevating a coward into the “heavenly light” always reserved for Jesus.
Again PIP, is killing a murderer natural to humans? Yes or No.
yllas,
clearly the idea was started around the enlightenment period, although its application didn’t work well. Catherine the Great claimed she was against it, but she had several people killed. Yes, Roussaeu can be used as an example. Now we possess the technology that it can work out. We are the only western country that has the death penalty; each case costs millions of dollars and there is absolutely no evidence that it is a deterrent.
And yes I do realize that we are not in the Enlightenment Period…I’ve taken history class. Enlightenment was a while back. But you were delving into the philosophical basis which became more widespread in that period. Enlightenment was a fascinating time..it’s interesting to see the leaps and bounds in the sciences that it led to and set the standard for the future.
I don’t know, all of this rambling about the 60’s or whatever..it doesn’t really matter to me, yllas. I simply looked over the arguments, thought about it carefully, and came to a decision. I decided that we don’t have the right to take away human life when we “feel” like it (retribution, inconvenience, etc), nor can we ignore the need for a decent (at least) quality of life for all humans. That is the basis of a lot of my social leaning. I can’t say I’m influenced by anyone in particular.
But most of all, I think a grave breach of ethics that the lethal injection has caused for medical professionals is a problem. God bless the bishops of Oklahoma who drafted this statement on the subject:
“the use of health-care professionals and the health-care industry, whose occupation is to maintain human health and prevent death, to kill, we find to be both repugnant and open to dangerous developments. This use of health-care professionals could condition both the professionals and the public to accept the notion of death at the hands of the physician”
They also mentioned the Nazi prison doctors, who like these medical professionals were just following orders from the state, rather than following their own ethics and the ethics of the profession.
I think doctors or other medical professionals that take part in the killing of a person, prisoner or not, should have their license removed. Lawyers get disbarred for doing less damage.
I can’t tell you what would be “natural” to humans, because defining that is so non-specific. You could easily say abortion is “natural” to humans, because many animals, including chimps, commit infanticide, but that doesn’t mean it is right or acceptable. Even Darwin recognized the difference. Most atheists do, too.
To kill a muderer yesterday or tommorow or next year is natural to humanity, as is abortion is natural to Dogma Doug. Always has been, always will be. Straight fact jack, no assumption made.
Wrong yet again, yllas. The dogma is on your part, pretending that “your way” is what is “natural.”
Some people will think the death penalty is a good thing, and others will not. That’s what is natural, the same as some people will want to end pregnancies and others won’t.
You’re just stating your opinion, and pretending it’s somehow an “absolute.” The assumptions are on your part.
yllas: maybe that commandment is thou shalt not MURDER, which makes more sense then you shall not kill.
Holy Crow, girl, this is like twice I’ve agreed with you in the past week.
Indeed, to pretend that “all killing” was prohibited in the Old Testament is ludicrous.
But, feelings have little to do with whether something is right or wrong. You may respectfully disagree, but I think murder is wrong–no matter who is murdered. It’s hard to ethically argue otherwise. Is there a difference between the murder of a person on the street and the murder of a prisoner strapped to the table? Our senses tell us, sure it is.
This is the difference between killing a new born puppy, and killing a vicious dog who has injured multiple people.
The killing of the puppy is evil. The killing of the vicious dog is necessary.
Not always, but sometimes, it’s necessary to apply the death penalty to protect society. One very notable example was Saddam Hussein. Had he been kept in prison for the rest of his natural life, his followers would have been kidnapping and killing innocent people to try and gain his release.
His death stopped that threat.
Tony, I’ve addressed this. Most anti-death penalty people will make exceptions for extreme circumstances.
Yllas,
I don’t pretend to be an expert on the death penalty; I believe the Catholic Church’s teaching on it, it makes sense to me. I’m just curious on how you reconcile “Divine Mercy” (the feast/teachings based on St. Faustina’s diary – in the Catholic Church) with man’s desire to pass judgement and convict someone of the death penalty? Have you thought about this? Aren’t we in effect “playing God” by taking the life of a murderer before his natural death?
Speaking of Tolstoy, I read “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” in H.S. , I remember I liked it, that’s it. I tried to get through War and Peace in H.S., but couldn’t – managed to pass the test on the Cliff’s notes. Did you actually read the WHOLE thing?:)