Originally posted by Nemesio
Look, you made the following claim:
If the State is going to make law - it must be based on moral principles - there is no way to avoid that. No wall can separate moral principles and civil law.
I found two walls which make this claim utterly invalid: pornography and adultery. Unless you
want to make the claim that these two immoral things (from a Christian viewpoint) ought to be
illegal, then you need to revise your claim.
Not quite. I think the point he (she?) is making is that some (not necessarily Christian) code of ethics/morals is at the root of all laws. So pornography, for instance, might be permitted under the law because banning it would violate a higher priority moral/ethic/tenet of freedom of expression. It is still a moral decision.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt might make it clearer to no1 but it just muddles it up when you say the pope cant punish a politician for an act against church teachings but can for for forcing a different one on non-catholics
For a few reasons:
1. The Pope's statements were part neither of the infallible Magisterium of the Church, nor part of those teachings that require "religious assent of intellect and will" under Canon 751. So, while his comments deserve serious consideration, acting otherwise is not a canonically punishable offence.
2. The Pope did not have a ...[text shortened]... icitly and publicly, did not, should IMO be denied Communion.
Hope that makes things clearer.
Originally posted by frogstompHuh?
It might make it clearer to no1 but it just muddles it up when you say the pope cant punish a politician for an act against church teachings but can for for forcing a different one on non-catholics
Let me see if I'm getting you right - you're asking me why a politician can ignore or even oppose the Pope's statements in one matter but not another, correct?
The answer is simple - not everything the Pope says is part of Church teaching, just as not everything Tony Blair says is Government policy.
Originally posted by Nemesio
This is very interesting, because the Catechism I have makes no
mention of the death penalty in CCC 2267.
It's the very first sentence of CCC 2267:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
Originally posted by Nemesio
Given 2267, this seems to point to the notion that capital punishment
ought never be used; incarceration for life is a bloodless means of
defending human life against the aggressor and protects the public
order and safety of persons.
There are some scenarios where incarceration for life may not be practical for defending human lives. Some examples I can think of:
1. Where a reasonable chance exists that the aggressor may escape and pose a threat to the lives of more people
2. Where the aggressor can incite violence or (through an agent) pose a threat to the lives of more people even though incarcerated
Furthermore, given the studies that capital punishment is unevenly
applied across racial lines and does nothing statistically to reduce
crime. These are all clear violations of the intention of this teaching.
As such, the way in which capital punishment is applied in the US is
demonstrably unnecessary from a theological point of view.
That might very well be true - I do not know enough about the US penal system to make a judgment. My point simply is this - a politician does not violate Church teaching merely by holding that the State has the right to recourse to the death penalty.
I am aware of this, and the late Pope said explicitly that this is not
a just war. As such, the war is unjust and a violation of Church
teaching.
See my response to no1.
I do not consider these 'red herrings' in the first place (because the
way in which the death penalty is applied is clearly in violation with
Church teaching and because the war is unjust). Even ignoring those
two aspects, given that the Church has not denied Communion to
those who support divorce and contraception (that is, those who don't
fight against it) only indicates to me the degree to which the Church
has become an entity interested in manipulating politics, not
encouraging morality.
The answer to this is in Canon 1341:
Can. 1341 An ordinary is to take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender.
Plus, as I've said elsewhere, it is not the case that politicians who do not spend every minute of theirs in Congress/Parliament trying to create legislation that will outlaw contraception and divorce automatically support it (tacitly or otherwise).
Originally posted by Coletti
Well then by your own standards killing left-handed-Twinkie-eaters would be a matter of personal belief. So if you believe that's OK, then who am I to object.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Idiot.
Why? It's a perfectly valid objection. Unless you recognise certain limitations to the right to freedom of religion. If so, please clarify what those are.
Originally posted by frogstompLet's start again, shall we? This time, with less rancour.
If you posted something you didn't actually mean it's up to you to correct it, but until you do there isn't any reason for me or anybody else to look for a different meaning because what you wrrote was perfectly clear.
I cited Can. 1369 and Can. 1399 as the ones that IMO would apply to pro-abortion politicians. They are reproduced here:
Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
N.B.: It should be obvious that the relevant clause is "gravely injures good morals" in this case.
Can. 1399 In addition to the cases established here or in other laws, the external violation of a divine or canonical law can be punished by a just penalty only when the special gravity of the violation demands punishment and there is an urgent need to prevent or repair scandals.
To which, your first response was:
Not forcing non-catholics to follow RCC doctrine is a grave sin?
1. Neither canon says anything about inaction; they both deal with (positive) actions.
2. Neither canon even obliges a person to publicly affirm Church teaching.
3. I referred you to the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae:
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. (DH n.2)
N.B.: Clearly then, forcing non-Catholics to accept RCC doctrine is more likely to be a grave sin than not forcing them to.
N.B. (2): DH does make it clear that there are limits to religious freedom. This is easy enough to understand - if I were a follower of a religion that mandated human sacrifice (e.g. the Aztecs, some Kali sects in pre-20th century India), I would not be allowed to practise those aspects of my religion in most countries of the world today. The right to freedom of religion, then, does not supercede the right to life of other human beings (persons or otherwise).
You also wrote:
Not representing the Pope in Congress is grounds for punishment?
I said no such thing (see point (2) above).
My meaning was perfectly clear to everyone but, apparently, you.
Originally posted by lucifershammerso "just wars" isnt part of church teaching?
Huh?
Let me see if I'm getting you right - you're asking me why a politician can ignore or even oppose the Pope's statements in one matter but not another, correct?
The answer is simple - not everything the Pope says is part of Church teaching, just as not everything Tony Blair says is Government policy.
Originally posted by frogstompThe concept of "Just War" is part of Church teaching. Whether a particular war is/will be or isn't/won't be a just war is not.
so "just wars" isnt part of church teaching?
Further, the Church actually teaches that "evaluation of these (i.e. Just War) conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good" (CCC 2309), which includes the Government/politicians. Not to say that every time a Govt. decides a war is just it is so, but the Govt. has the authority to make that evaluation, and act on it.
Originally posted by lucifershammerthe biggest clarification possible : religious freedom is for everyone , not just the pope. telling Catholic politions the have to get in line or else,,is trying to get them to infringe of others religious freedom,,if short , you are making a mockery of "religious freedom.
Originally posted by Coletti
[b]Well then by your own standards killing left-handed-Twinkie-eaters would be a matter of personal belief. So if you believe that's OK, then who am I to object.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Idiot.
Why? It's a perfectly valid objection. Unless you recognise certain limitations to the right to freedom of religion. If so, please clarify what those are.[/b]
and voting for a war is a deed done, sharing responsibility to every death in it. the equivalent of personally authorizing an abortion
You want it both ways but I see the pope as being disingenuous just like he was in latin american concerning "liberation theology".
Apparently the only time killing is wrong is when it's not done ifor the the advancement of a right wing cause.
Originally posted by frogstomp
the biggest clarification possible : religious freedom is for everyone , not just the pope. telling Catholic politions the have to get in line or else,,is trying to get them to infringe of others religious freedom,,if short , you are making a mockery of "religious freedom.
Let's see if I can keep this really simple:
1. Religious freedom does not override the right to life of another human being - including an unborn fetus.
2. If a Catholic politician wants to publicly oppose the teachings of the Church, fine. No one's going to shoot him. Just don't expect the Church to hand him our most sacred institution on a platter when he walks back into church on Sunday morning like a saint.
3. If resident of the US breaks the law, the Govt either puts him in jail or deports him back to wherever he came from (if an immigrant) or both, right? Why should you be surprised if the Church acts likewise when someone breaks its laws?
There, that clear enough for you?
Originally posted by frogstomp
and voting for a war is a deed done, sharing responsibility to every death in it. the equivalent of personally authorizing an abortion
Possibly. Not if the war is just and conducted justly.
Originally posted by frogstomp
You want it both ways but I see the pope as being disingenuous just like he was in latin american concerning "liberation theology".
Think what you like.
Originally posted by frogstomp
Apparently the only time killing is wrong is when it's not done ifor the the advancement of a right wing cause.
Ditto.
Originally posted by frogstompCan a war actually be conducted justly?
and voting for a war is a deed done, sharing responsibility to every death in it. the equivalent of personally authorizing an abortion
Originally posted by lucifershammer
Possibly. Not if the war is just and conducted justly.
[/b]
Seems to me that once the lead is in the air, justice flies out the window following only truth as its predecessor.
Originally posted by eagles54A very acute observation. Without comment, here is what the Church has to say on the subject:
Can a war actually be conducted justly?
Seems to me that once the lead is in the air, justice flies out the window following only truth as its predecessor.
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."108
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."109 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe problem that comes to my mind is that a right and true Christian can, in defense of self or of a fellow soldier, commit terrible sin because of the nature of warfare. In Hell, as war has been aptly described by a man who saw too much of its awesome horror, the wrong decisions in many instances can be counted upon to be made relating to one's mortal destiny because of the split-second nature of the questions asked of an extremely frightened, stressed human being.
A very acute observation. Without comment, here is what the Church has to say on the subject:
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war ...[text shortened]... omic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
Originally posted by eagles54Again, from the CCC:
The problem that comes to my mind is that a right and true Christian can, in defense of self or of a fellow soldier, commit terrible sin because of the nature of warfare. In Hell, as war has been aptly described by a man who saw too much of its awesome horror, the wrong decisions in many instances can be counted upon to be made regarding one's mortal desti ...[text shortened]... plit-second nature of the questions asked of an extremely frightened, stressed human being.
Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone's death, even without the intention to do so. (n. 2269)