Pro-life witness at Kerry rally: How it happened

[D'Arcy]

Part 1
Part 2

So much for "tolerance".

[warning]

Interesting reading D'Arcy. I was hoping to see the pictures but couldn't view them for some reason.

For both sides, unfortunately, tolerance sounds great on paper but is much harder to practice when someone is in front of you with an opposing position.

[Enough]

I would be a lot more impressed with the pro-lifers crowd if they ever took it upon themselves to equally pressure their conservative boosters to stop supporting capital punishment. A life is a life after all right? The incongruity of thought in most pro-lifers I have met when it comes to capital punishment tends to make me believe their calls for Kerry to be a good Catholic, to be refused communion, etc. are nothing more than political fodder/propaganda for the Bush campaign. I have yet to see a single pro-lifer demonstrate against Bush's incredible record of presiding over the death chambers of Texas. Until the pro-lifers gain some moral consistency in their stances, the Democrats have every right to be hostile or suspicious to their presence.

All of that said, I am just as fed up with both parties using the ubiquitous "free-speech" zones and other methods at stifling the speech of their opponents. Both major party conventions are excellent examples of this. So I ding both the pro-lifers and the Kerry campaign here. The pro-lifers are clearly political tools or they might try to be a bit more morally consistent and attack republicans for support of the death penalty. While the Kerry supporters/campaign get low marks for tolerance as you point out.

[noun]

We were hailed as pedophile hypocrites who needed to clean our own house before we tell them what to do.

You have to admit, they have a point there. Until sex offender priests start receiving some actual punishment as opposed to a papal transfer to a new district, a lot of people are going to have a hard time taking anything a Catholic authority figure says too seriously.

So these people were verbally confronted, while people were kicked at the Republican convention. Which was worse?

[Exodor]

So these people were verbally confronted, while people were kicked at the Republican convention. Which was worse?

Both are understandable but unacceptable, I think.


I didn't like the story of the three schoolteachers being kicked out of the Bush event here in Oregon, and I don't like this story either.


I do have to chuckle at the idea that the behavior of a few thugs at a political rally is sufficient basis to write off the entire Democratic party, however.

[Padre]

I have yet to see a single pro-lifer demonstrate against Bush's incredible record of presiding over the death chambers of Texas. Until the pro-lifers gain some moral consistency in their stances, the Democrats have every right to be hostile or suspicious to their presence.

I'm no pro-lifer (and I detest the death penalty), but I'd still like to point out that it is perfectly possible to believe in the death penalty and be anti-abortion at the same time. After all, unborn children can hardly be equated in terms of their moral distinction with murderers on Death Row.

You can be for protecting the life of innocents while also being for taking the lives of the guilty.

[Exodor]

I'm no pro-lifer (and I detest the death penalty), but I'd still like to point out that it is perfectly possible to believe in the death penalty and be anti-abortion at the same time. After all, unborn children can hardly be equated in terms of their moral distinction with murderers on Death Row.

You can be for protecting the life of innocents while also being for taking the lives of the guilty.

Possibly, but when the first image that loads on that site is:




Then you damn well better be anti-death penalty as well, if you want to avoid the big "H" label.

[godhugh]

But can you really call yourself "Pro-life" then? Shouldn't you just be "anti-abortion?

As I understand it, pro-life means you believe that all human beings have a right to life. Is it your position that there are activities which can take that right away from someone?

[Tareeq]

So these people were verbally confronted, while people were kicked at the Republican convention. Which was worse?

It's a tie noun. Go back and read the story.

These people were indeed verbally confronted, but the final verbal confrontation came from police officers who told them that they would be forcibly ejected if they didn't leave voluntarily.

Police only come when summoned, in this case by the Kerry campaign. So a pox on both houses, die hypocrites die, etc.

Libertarians have many faults, but at least they have the honesty to use their own fists in settling disagreements.

[Edmond]

But can you really call yourself "Pro-life" then? Shouldn't you just be "anti-abortion?

Exactly.

[Guy Incognito]

I have yet to see a single pro-lifer demonstrate against Bush's incredible record of presiding over the death chambers of Texas. Until the pro-lifers gain some moral consistency in their stances, the Democrats have every right to be hostile or suspicious to their presence.

I'm no pro-lifer (and I detest the death penalty), but I'd still like to point out that it is perfectly possible to believe in the death penalty and be anti-abortion at the same time. After all, unborn children can hardly be equated in terms of their moral distinction with murderers on Death Row.

You can be for protecting the life of innocents while also being for taking the lives of the guilty.

A lot of people throw around the term pro-life like its only connotation is the anti-abortion stance. A lot of people that call themselves "pro-life" are in fact not.

The St. Louis Catholic Archbishop recently sent out a letter giving guidance for Catholics. He dismissed war and capital punishment as even factoring into the equation when the canidates have differing views on abortion. The reason, he claims, that war and capital punishment don't factor in is that sometimes they can be justified while gay marriage and abortions are instrinsicly evil. He painted a pretty little picture of how (w/o naming names) when one guy is pro-choice and the other guy is only allowing abortions in particular cases that you have to pick the lesser of two evils. Voting for the pro-choice guy is a sin and you've neglected to fulfill your moral obligations if you don't vote at all, according to him. So, effectively all political races are supposed to come down to a single topic.

I read it and it boggled the mind. It came across as a thinly veiled endorsement of Bush while saying it was a sin to vote for Kerry. If he outright endorsed a canidate, they'd lose their tax-exempt status but he probably won't be taken to task for it.

[Defiant]

.

[noun]

It's a tie noun. Go back and read the story.

Oh, I read it. I just wanted to see if anyone else came to the same conclusion. Good work.

[Edmond]

I also wonder why today's religion in this country is defined by a simple formula:

faith = (anti-abortion) + (anti-same-sex-marriage) + (anti-stem-cell-research)

It isn't this simple, I understand. But that's what the impression you get by reading national news.

An article I read some time ago said it best:

One of the great cliches of liberal criticism of the Christian right is the idea that these people are wrongheaded because they profess to know the will of God. H.L. Mencken put that one best, and perhaps first: "It is only the savage, whether of the African bush or the American gospel tent, who pretends to know the will and intent of God exactly and completely."

These criticisms sound like they make sense. But I think they are a little off-base. The problem not only with fundamentalist Christians but with Republicans in general is not that they act on blind faith, without thinking. The problem is that they are incorrigible doubters with an insatiable appetite for Evidence. What they get off on is not Believing, but in having their beliefs tested. That's why their conversations and their media are so completely dominated by implacable bogeymen: marrying gays, liberals, the ACLU, Sean Penn, Europeans and so on. Their faith both in God and in their political convictions is too weak to survive without an unceasing string of real and imaginary confrontations with those people -- and for those confrontations, they are constantly assembling evidence and facts to make their case.

But here's the twist. They are not looking for facts with which to defeat opponents. They are looking for facts that ensure them an ever-expanding roster of opponents. They can be correct facts, incorrect facts, irrelevant facts, it doesn't matter. The point is not to win the argument, the point is to make sure the argument never stops. Permanent war isn't a policy imposed from above; it's an emotional imperative that rises from the bottom. In a way, it actually helps if the fact is dubious or untrue (like the Swift-boat business), because that guarantees an argument. You're arguing the particulars, where you're right, while they're arguing the underlying generalities, where they are.

Once you grasp this fact, you're a long way to understanding what the Hannitys and Limbaughs figured out long ago: These people will swallow anything you feed them, so long as it leaves them with a demon to wrestle with in their dreams.

Read the rest here.

[Grifman]

I would be a lot more impressed with the pro-lifers crowd if they ever took it upon themselves to equally pressure their conservative boosters to stop supporting capital punishment.

And I would be alot more impressed with the anti-death penalty liberals if they cared as much about innocent unborn life I guess this can cut both ways, can't it?

A life is a life after all right?

No, I don't know how you get that. One is a person convicted of a capital offense, the other is totally innocent of any offense. How can you say these lives are the same. I find the comparison ludicrous.

The incongruity of thought in most pro-lifers I have met when it comes to capital punishment tends to make me believe their calls for Kerry to be a good Catholic, to be refused communion, etc. are nothing more than political fodder/propaganda for the Bush campaign. I have yet to see a single pro-lifer demonstrate against Bush's incredible record of presiding over the death chambers of Texas. Until the pro-lifers gain some moral consistency in their stances, the Democrats have every right to be hostile or suspicious to their presence.

There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about believing guilty murderers should be executed while innocent fetuses should be allowed to live. Indeed one can argue that because life is sacred that the only time it should be taken is when it is punishment for taking someone else's.

That said, I'm not in favor of capital punishment, but there are gaping holes in your logic.

Grifman

[Grifman]

As I understand it, pro-life means you believe that all human beings have a right to life.

Then you don't understand, you misunderstand

Is it your position that there are activities which can take that right away from someone?

It is your contention that people who are "pro-life" give up their right to self defense?

Grifman

[setaside]

There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about believing guilty murderers should be executed while innocent fetuses should be allowed to live.

I can agree with this. But there absolutely IS an inconsistency when you believe this and call yourself pro-life.

Where do we (yes me) who believe in pro-choice AND the death penalty fall?

[Grifman]

Possibly, but when the first image that loads on that site is:



Then you damn well better be anti-death penalty as well, if you want to avoid the big "H" label.

Do you have any evidence that the person wearing this shirt is not against the death penalty?

Grifman

[Grifman]

There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about believing guilty murderers should be executed while innocent fetuses should be allowed to live.

I can agree with this. But there absolutely IS an inconsistency when you believe this and call yourself pro-life.

No, it depends how you define pro-life.

Where do we (yes me) who believe in pro-choice AND the death penalty fall?

Pro-death?

Grifman

[Grifman]

I also wonder why today's religion in this country is defined by a simple formula:

faith = (anti-abortion) + (anti-same-sex-marriage) + (anti-stem-cell-research)

It isn't this simple, I understand. But that's what the impression you get by reading national news.

And I wonder why today's liberal is defined by a simple forumla:

belief = (pro-abortion) + (same sex marriage) + (stem cell research)

That's the impression you get from reading the national media.

Funny how easy it is to turn this stuff around, isn't it?

Grifman

[setaside]

There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about believing guilty murderers should be executed while innocent fetuses should be allowed to live.

I can agree with this. But there absolutely IS an inconsistency when you believe this and call yourself pro-life.

No, it depends how you define pro-life.

I suppose. It all depends on which dictionary definition of life you use.

Where do we (yes me) who believe in pro-choice AND the death penalty fall?

Pro-death?

I guess I'm ok with that. I need to start on my plans of world genocide soon though or I won't be able to finish in my lifetime.

[Poleaxe]

There was a time when there was only pro abortion and anti abortion. Abortion proponents decided that no one was really pro abortion (rightly) and the euphamism pro choice was born. Abortion opponents soon decided that pro choice sounded better than anti anything (rightly) and so pro life was born.

[Zarathud]

I would be much happier if religious leaders weren't so hung up on this abortion/homosexuality thing. If you look solely at the Ten Commandments, there is a broad prohibition against ANY killing for ANY reason ("Thou shalt not kill.") and nothing about sodomy (compare "Thou shalt not covety thy neighbor's WIFE" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery"). The true "Defense of Marriage Act" would be to repeal easy (or any) divorce laws -- but that's WAY too controversial, so the homosexuals take the brunt of the abuse instead.

Where is the political and moral outrage about the following:

- Thou shalt not steal.
- Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's goods.
- Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

And the message of Jesus was primarily about social justice, such liberal works as feeding the poor, clothing the sick. Where are the real outrage about the CORE messages of Christian faith? This is why my wife's family and family friends have a signficiant number of ex-Catholic priests (who saw the moral decay and the collapse of good works) and have voted Democratic since they came to this country.

Me, I'm just a philosophical Buddhist. What comes around, goes around.

[Enough]

Griff, you missed the point of my post. I understand your mindset fine, but that doesn't make any excuses for folks of say the Catholic faith or other where their church has formed the core values against abortion. In many of those cases the core values espoused by the official positions of their church equally apply to the death penalty. Of course this is most true with the Catholic faith and we are right back to where the Catholic pro-life movement is pushing to deny Kerry communion as a political stunt, yet is ignoring the official position of the Vatican and not going after pro-life candidates who support the death penalty such as Bush.

So at best I guess you have shown there are people who are pro-life that don't subscribe to a Catholic-type view re: the death penalty. Something I am pretty sure most of us already knew.

It's a deeper convo than I am in the mood for at the moment, but it's quite clear to me that if the sanctity of life is the basis for a prohibition against abortions it is hypocritical to not oppose the death penalty on moral grounds. We know innocents will get fried under the death penalty but even if we could avoid that problem capital punishment is wrong if one subscribes to the 10 Commandments. And we also know per many Christian faiths that God doesn't really like it when we humans play him and decides who lives and dies.

Zarathud touches on a lot of what I am getting at in his post above about the moral relativism I see many Christains use to justify their sins while denouncing a woman who doesn't share their faith's views re: abortion. The social justice and works aspects of Christianity is a huge draw for me and is where much of my faith is grounded.

But the linchpin here is that Kerry is a Catholic running as pro-choice but anti-death penalty contrasted to Bush who is no better from a Catholic pov. He may oppose abortion but yet he is obviously pro-death penalty, fought a war opposed by the Vatican and perhaps not noticed by the pro-life folks, statistically the incidence of abortion has actually increased in numbers under his watch reversing the previous downward trend during Clinton years. So again I ask why do some Catholics feel it consistent at all with their faith to rip Kerry but support Bush.

I stupidly over-generalized pro-lifers and should have restricted my comments to those who are Catholics or in a similar faith that holds both abortion and the death penalty to be horrid sins. Someone will likely respond that nobody has to subscribe to all the tenets of their faith to which I say fine if we are allowed to pick and chose our dogma that would excuse Kerry for supporting the right of a women to make a determination based on her own faith rather than his. He made it very clear he does not support abortion, he only supports the right of people to shape their beliefs/actions on the issue based on their own faith, ie not from a government prohibition against abortion.

I find your over-generalization about pro-choicers naive. I know many folks who are pro-death penalty and pro-choice, heck we've even had one already check in on this thread.

[D'Arcy]

Voting for the pro-choice guy is a sin

In that exclusiveness, the statement sounds rash and doubtful. As the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger, recently wrote in a leaked memo to the US Bishops,

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

If you look solely at the Ten Commandments, there is a broad prohibition against ANY killing for ANY reason ("Thou shalt not kill.")

Inconsistent. The very same book that contains the Ten Commandments, Deuteronomy, also contains prescriptions for the implementation of the death penalty. If you wish to read "thou shalt no kill" as opposed to "thou shalt not murder", you must assert that the author of Deuteronomy was a rambling fool who forgot what he had written a few chapters earlier.

The true "Defense of Marriage Act" would be to repeal easy (or any) divorce laws but that's WAY too controversial, so the homosexuals take the brunt of the abuse instead.

Temporal law is made for the unbelievers as well and requires their general assent. In principle, there is nothing wrong with implementing only that subset of just directives which is not too controversial among the citizens. But the more compromises the state is forced to make this way, the further it removes itself from its responsibility as instrument of order, justice and common good.

And the message of Jesus was primarily about social justice, such liberal works as feeding the poor, clothing the sick.

Offensive to pious ears. For us and for our salvation Jesus Christ came down from heaven, not as a cooler version of Gandhi.

I understand your mindset fine, but that doesn't make any excuses for folks of say the Catholic faith or other where their church has formed the core values against abortion. In many of those cases the core values espoused by the official positions of their church equally apply to the death penalty. Of course this is most true with the Catholic faith

You are confused as to the different levels of "official positions" and their binding force on the church. That abortion is inherently evil is a constant teaching of the Magisterium, directly related to divine revelation and proposed definitively and universally, even in several Papal encyclicals.

As far as "official positions" go, all that could be surmounted against the death penalty is a recent statement by the Patriarch of the West, in which he described it as imprudent. Even if you agree with him, it would be illicit to censure as uncatholic those who don't, as said penalty is part of the divinely revealed Mosaic law and has always been upheld as a viable option for states.

where the Catholic pro-life movement is pushing to deny Kerry communion as a political stunt

I'm certain that there are many partisans who do view it as a political stunt. However, when a pastor suggests such a thing, he does it, on the one hand, out of grave concern for Kerry's soul, conscious of the biblical warning against eating and drinking unworthily, without discerning the body. On the other hand, denying communion to a politician who scandalises the faithful through his outrageous public conduct until he repents is not without good precedence.

the sanctity of life

A dangerous phrase. It borders on esoteric pantheism and certainly isn't genuinely Christian. First and foremost, only God is sacred. Then, man was also sacred, being a creature made in the Creator's image. However, man has lost this sanctity. He is fallen and corrupted. The sanctity can be regained only through the precious blood of the Redeemer.

We know innocents will get fried under the death penalty

Innocents will also be locked up for life. Unfortunate, but unpreventable, as long as the judge is fallible.

[Guy Incognito]

In that exclusiveness, the statement sounds rash and doubtful. As the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger, recently wrote in a leaked memo to the US Bishops

Thanks D'Arcy for the Ratzinger quote. The St. Louis Archbishop's letter didn't explain it quite that well and was much easier to confuse. I think he could have been MUCH clearer.

[gbasden]

And the message of Jesus was primarily about social justice, such liberal works as feeding the poor, clothing the sick.

Offensive to pious ears. For us and for our salvation Jesus Christ came down from heaven, not as a cooler version of Gandhi.

OK, I'll admit I'm not a highly religious fellow, but this just rings false to me. Are you actually arguing that in the Bible, Jesus did not speak about helping your fellow man? I remember these passages about him accepting the social outcasts of the day, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, etc. How is this offensive to pious ears?

If you are devout and believe that Jesus came down to save you, great - but I don't know how you can argue that a great deal of the New Testament does not advocate compassion and good works.

[D'Arcy]

The offense lies in the word "primarily" and the anthropocentric connotations of the whole passage. Primarily, Jesus' message was about God, not man.

"Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength."

That is the most important commandment in the words of Jesus. Loving your neighbour comes second and, in fact, is impossible without loving God first and recognising his image in man.

[Enough]

Well I will say this. Darcy's responses in religion threads are always bound to be a fascinating read, much like when the Grund gets going on certain topics. I will grant that there are Catholics (neo-Catholics I've seen used for this subset) who don't find the death penalty inconsistent with their beliefs. But being a subjective manner I would say as a Christian (I'm not Catholic but did date one seriously for years) the death penalty is not something my god would condone. You are of course welcome to your beliefs.

As far as "official positions" go, all that could be surmounted against the death penalty is a recent statement by the Patriarch of the West, in which he described it as imprudent. Even if you agree with him, it would be illicit to censure as uncatholic those who don't, as said penalty is part of the divinely revealed Mosaic law and has always been upheld as a viable option for states.

That's funny, I fully trust you are much better Catholic scholar than I but even in my rookie state I can find multiple much stronger statements against the death penalty by Catholics. John Paul II abhors the death penalty, and as pope he has to have a bit of pull, eh?

In his January 1999 visit to St. Louis, Missouri, the Pope again called for the end of the U.S. death penalty saying, "the dignity of human life must never be taken away even in the case of someone who has done great evil." (He also personally appealed to Missouri's governor to commute the sentence of a triple murderer from execution to life in prison. The governor agreed.)

That statement seems to be a bit stronger than simply saying it is "imprudent."

"Abolition of the death penalty is most consonant with the example of Jesus, who both taught and practiced the forgiveness of injustice." -- US Bishops, Statement on Capital Punishment, Article 13

I found many more browsing a couple of informative websites here and here.

I'm certain that there are many partisans who do view it as a political stunt. However, when a pastor suggests such a thing, he does it, on the one hand, out of grave concern for Kerry's soul, conscious of the biblical warning against eating and drinking unworthily, without discerning the body. On the other hand, denying communion to a politician who scandalizes the faithful through his outrageous public conduct until he repents is not without good precedence.

Darcy it is a political stunt. It is the Catholic church playing politics and it sets a dangerous example. In the past the pope would even sell pardons into heaven for the sinful politician, so yes the church has played politics before. And your example doesn't exactly help your case. First he wasn't kept from entering the church due to his stance on abortion, he was kept out for his actions in what he saw as capital punishment for unruly subjects that were endangering the state.

The Emperor Theodosius (about 346 - 395) - in armour and a laurel wreath - is prevented from entering Milan Cathedral by Saint Ambrose (about 340 - 398), bishop of the city. The saint had banned Theodosius from the cathedral after the massacre of a subject population in Thessalonica.

Basically, in 390 Ambrose excommunicated Theodosius for ordering the massacre of several thousand citizens of Thessalonica, in order to put down a rebellion that had included the assassination of his military governor in the city. I'm sure not defending Theodosius's bloody massacre, but it seems consistent with the same ideology that approves of capital punishment. I would say I have much less of a problem with what Ambrose did with Theodosius than what the politically motivated Catholics are doing to Kerry today. However, I know they are a minority of Catholics based on the ones I know in my life being nearly universally embarrassed and bothered by the church's moves against Kerry.

I'm sorry your faith prevents you from seeing this, but preventing communion for Kerry really has no comparison to a man who murdered thousands. This is apples and oranges to the extreme. Kerry has specifically stated his opposition to abortion, and there is no evidence he has ever been party to one in his own life. What he realizes is that one's views on abortion are still primarily an element of faith and as such it is for each woman to decide if she needs one. He is for a proactive course that attempts to lessen the circumstances that fuel the demand for abortions. And again I remind you such a course netted fewer abortions and a downward trend for Clinton, that has now been reversed with Bush. I've also seen official catholic statements that it is ok to vote for a pro-choice candidate if on balance he is the better of the two candidates. And of course many Catholics do indeed vote for pro-choice candidates.

A dangerous phrase. It borders on esoteric pantheism and certainly isn't genuinely Christian. First and foremost, only God is sacred. Then, man was also sacred, being a creature made in the Creator's image. However, man has lost this sanctity. He is fallen and corrupted. The sanctity can be regained only through the precious blood of the Redeemer.

Esoteric pantheism eh? Seems pretty funny coming from one who invokes the dignity of human life to argue abortion is wrong, no? I'll take being an esoteric pantheist over being a moral relativist any day, heh. Again matters of personal faith, yada, yada. But you may want to conference with the multitudes of pro-lifers who regularly use the phrase "sanctity of life." Are they hooked on the esoteric pantheism too? Is the pope one too when he comments on the "dignity of human life?" You also should clue in all the Catholics who put together the CACP.

"Capital punishment feeds
the cycle of violence in
society by pandering to a
lust for revenge. It
brutalizes us, and deadens
our sensitivities to the
precious nature of every
single human life."
-- Most Rev. David B.
Thompson, Bishop of
Charleston, S.C.,
December 3, 1998

Innocents will also be locked up for life. Unfortunate, but unpreventable, as long as the judge is fallible.

I totally agree which is possibly the primary reason I find myself against the death penalty. You can free an innocent man in jail, but if you execute an innocent it is murder by the state and obviously can never be corrected. There are countless contemporary examples of innocents being wrongly executed.

[Enough]

I just had a thought, not sure how valid it is but...

Abortion is to adoption as the death penalty is to life imprisonment.

I think that is what the pope is getting at in his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) issued March 25, 1995.

[noxiousdog]

This thread gives me hope that the demise of gg related forums is greatly exaggerated.

kudos all around.

[D'Arcy]

I will grant that there are Catholics (neo-Catholics I've seen used for this subset) who don't find the death penalty inconsistent with their beliefs.

If they find the death penalty inconsistent, i.e. impossible to harmonise, with their beliefs, then their beliefs aren't catholic in this matter. The primary purpose of punishment is retribution, and the tradition of the church affirms the moral legitimacy of capital punishment. This remains true and must be affirmed by a Catholic, even if he abhors the death penalty for other reasons.

But being a subjective manner I would say as a Christian (I'm not Catholic but did date one seriously for years) the death penalty is not something my god would condone.

Does your god condone the Old Testament and the code of law contained therein? Will your god pay the wage of sin? Will your god send the accursed into the eternal fire on the day of judgement?

You are of course welcome to your beliefs.

In a sense, I am. In another sense, who, if not the church has guarded and preserved the apostolic faith throughout the ages, has accredited the scriptures and appointed the teachers? When I therefore believe against the church, how welcome am I? Do I want a church that is right when I am right, or one that is right when I am wrong?

John Paul II abhors the death penalty, and as pope he has to have a bit of pull, eh?

Well, he's a well-respected, sanctified man, so yes, his opinion is rightly cherished. But it must be kept in mind that he only gave his opinion in this case. The opinion might be wrong, and no member of the church is bound by his prudential judgement, whereas all are bound by tradition.

There are some who make more triumphalistic claims about the Petrine office's extent of power, but I'm not one of them. Interestingly, John Paul II isn't either.

That statement seems to be a bit stronger than simply saying it is "imprudent."

That little word also prompted a lot of rhetoric from Antonin Scalia, but as Avery Dulles explains, it refers to the application of doctrine to changing conrete circumstances. Avery Dulles, by the way, also wrote an article for FT in which he gives his interpretation of the Pope's statements in much greater detail. I happen to agree with his analysis.

In the past the pope would even sell pardons into heaven for the sinful politician

I hope that wasn't a reference to indulgences. You can do better than that.

I'm sure not defending Theodosius's bloody massacre, but it seems consistent with the same ideology that approves of capital punishment.

Nonsense. An indiscriminate massacre has very little in common with the punishment administered after a fair trial.

However, I know they are a minority of Catholics based on the ones I know in my life being nearly universally embarrassed and bothered by the church's moves against Kerry.

Many Catholics I know are embarassed by such things as demons, hell, divine wrath or Thomas Aquinas. What kind of indication is that supposed to be?

Kerry has specifically stated his opposition to abortion, and there is no evidence he has ever been party to one in his own life. What he realizes is that one's views on abortion are still primarily an element of faith and as such it is for each woman to decide if she needs one.

And that is the core of his conflict with the Catholic hierarchy. He thinks that faith is a private matter, for each man or woman to decide on their own. That makes him at best a Protestant, at worst a Gnostic. If he wishes to go that way, fine, but his bishop has every right, and even responsibility, to rebuke him for his continued abuse of the "Catholic" label. The church holds the trademark and has an interest to protect the brand. So to speak.

Esoteric pantheism eh? Seems pretty funny coming from one who invokes the dignity of human life to argue abortion is wrong, no?

I don't recall doing that, but if I did, I hopefully pointed out that, as Aquinas said, the dignity of manhood is dependent on man's adherence to the order of reason, and that, by departing from this order, the sinner falls away into the slavish state of beasts.

Is the pope one too when he comments on the "dignity of human life?

Dignity. Not sanctity.

You also should clue in all the Catholics who put together the CACP.

Whether the necessity to censure dangerous-sounding statements justifies diminishing their zeal for a good cause is a call their bishop has to make, not me.

"Capital punishment feeds the cycle of violence in society by pandering to a lust for revenge. It brutalizes us, and deadens
our sensitivities to the precious nature of every single human life."

That's a powerful argument. As Dulles explains, the cause for this lust lies in the nature of contemporary society, not in the nature of capital punishment. If society had retained (or regained) its appreciation of transcendent justice, the force of this argument would fizzle, however.

You can free an innocent man in jail, but if you execute an innocent it is murder by the state and obviously can never be corrected.

Never? If execution is equivalent to elimination, to removal from the only community that will ever exist, then it is truly a godlike act which shouldn't be left in the hand of human beings. However, if Christ returns, if he will resurrect our bodies, if he will judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end; if, that is, the final verdict is rendered by God, then we can be rest assured that our occasional errors will be overturned at the ultimate tribunal.

[Padre]

You can free an innocent man in jail, but if you execute an innocent it is murder by the state and obviously can never be corrected.

Never? If execution is equivalent to elimination, to removal from the only community that will ever exist, then it is truly a godlike act which shouldn't be left in the hand of human beings. However, if Christ returns, if he will resurrect our bodies, if he will judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end; if, that is, the final verdict is rendered by God, then we can be rest assured that our occasional errors will be overturned at the ultimate tribunal.

D'Arcy, your words chill my blood.

" if, that is, the final verdict is rendered by God, then we can be rest assured that our occasional errors will be overturned at the ultimate tribunal."

In other words, we can safely kill them all and let God sort 'em out?

I appreciate you're far from justifying mass killing, but I still gape in horror at the idea that we can really even consider taking such a carefree attitude to the dissemination of justice.

If we're going to keep making the "occasional mistake", would it not perhaps be wiser for us to just leave the whole business up to God?

EDIT: Pleasenote, I'm entirely in agreement with you as to what is the offical Catholic position (based on Scripture and tradition) in this matter; I just happen to abhor that position. I should probably also point out that I'm an atheist, although I'm willing to argue from a theocentric perspective on this one.

[Bakhtosh]

So should we leave all punishment up to God? If someone pulls a gun on a cop, should the cop not return fire, because that person has a right to live and the law has NO authority to take that life?

So the distinction you make is that one is self-defense. The other is killing someone who is already imprisoned and no longer a danger.

Capital Punishment is community self-defense. If that murderer escapes that prison, the entire community is at risk. No prison is escape proof.

[Enough]

So should we leave all punishment up to God? If someone pulls a gun on a cop, should the cop not return fire, because that person has a right to live and the law has NO authority to take that life?

So the distinction you make is that one is self-defense. The other is killing someone who is already imprisoned and no longer a danger.

Capital Punishment is community self-defense. If that murderer escapes that prison, the entire community is at risk. No prison is escape proof.

Well then since we have so many folks who sit on death row for countless years prior to execution I'm sure you have some empirical examples of how one has escaped and harmed the community? And what about the fact that in order to ensure proper checks for a death penalty sentence that make it a necessity for those on death row to hang out in prison for years, doesn't that sort of invalidate much of your claimed community safety benefit?