Catholic Bishops: Voting for Kerry is a Sin requiring Confession

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Any Catholics sufficiently offended are more than welcome to our parish.

Anabaptist?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
dannubis


that's only half of the definition of church and state. The other half is church stays out of politics. Or is the American definiton of seperation of state and religion different than what I'm saying?

as far as our constitution, yes it is different. The US con says the "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" IE it restricts the govt, it does NOT restrict religious organizations.

How we as individuals feel about religious groups making political statements is something else again, but thats our own individual views on the proper role of religious groups, not law.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I'm by no means an expert on Catholisicm but wrt capital punishment, I beleive the Church's position gets a bit fuzzy for certain circumstances. By and large opposed to it but not without wiggle room.

Definitely not the case tho' wrt abortion.

Can anyone (Ben Kenobi?) dig up the articles of faith describing church positions on the two matters.

This site provides a pretty nice summary:

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/DeathPenalty/default.asp

There's very little "wiggle room." Given that the Church actually objected to the execution of Timothy McVeigh, they should be regarding the Governor of Texas -- any Governor of Texas -- as the moral equivalent of Hitler and Pol Pot. I await the Church's acknowledgement of that.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


This site provides a pretty nice summary:

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/DeathPenalty/default.asp

There's very little "wiggle room." Given that the Church actually objected to the execution of Timothy McVeigh, they should be regarding the Governor of Texas -- any Governor of Texas -- as the moral equivalent of Hitler and Pol Pot. I await the Church's acknowledgement of that.

good point

[Shi Huangdi]

Rufus, if you check out your Cathecism, the Death Penatly is clearly not forbidden under the Church's teachings on faith and morals. And even it was, the people lost to the Death Penalty isn't nearly so large as the people lost to abortion

[DanS]

as the moral equivalent of Hitler and Pol Pot

Now you're being ridiculous.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DanS


Now you're being ridiculous.

No, I'm being strictly accurate. If you regard it as a sin for the state to put people to death, for whatever reason, then there is no moral difference between Hitler, Pol Pot, and a Texas governor. A difference in the number of times a sin is committed does not create a moral difference between the sins themselves.

[DanS]

Rufus, if you check out your Cathecism, the Death Penatly is clearly not forbidden under the Church's teachings on faith and morals.

Under our current system in the US (where alternatives exist), the death penalty is unjustifiable under the church teachings. This seems crystal clear to me.

[DanS]

No, I'm being strictly accurate.

It's a silly argument. You know and I know that Pol Pot was a vastly more evil character than a Texas governor who puts to death some 500 murderers (or whatever). It is self evident.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by DanS


Under our current system in the US (where alternatives exist), the death penalty is unjustifiable under the church teachings.

You know, I never really bought the "Alternatives Exist Nowadays" argument. Even back in the Middle Ages, you could always keep them chained to the wall to give them Life in Prison.

But in any case, where the Church has Authority to teach is on matters of Faith and Morals. It can say under which circumstances the Death Penalty is an acceptable option as a matter of Faith and Morals. But whether any specific case meets the criteria is a question of the facts which you are free to disagree with. Even if you strongly view that the circumstances as not allowing death penalty in this country, it is still not the same issue as Abortion is universally wrong, where as the DP may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances.

But even if you are a purist on the issue of the DP, Kerry has said he believes in the DP for terrorists.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DanS


It's a silly argument. You know and I know that Pol Pot was a vastly more evil character than a Texas governor who puts to death some 500 murderers (or whatever). It is self evident.

I agree with you. But I'm arguing that, within the logic of the Church's opposition to the death penalty, there can be no theologically valid distinction between one head of state who presides over state-sponsored executions and another who does the same thing -- even if the processes by which they legitimate such executions are very different. Hey, it's their logic, not mine.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


You know, I never really bought the "Alternatives Exist Nowadays" argument. Even back in the Middle Ages, you could always keep them chained to the wall to give them Life in Prison.

Shi, you can't both appeal to the Cathechism in support of the Church's position on the death penalty, and then reject the Cathechism when it turns out you were wrong about it. If being a Catholic means anything, it means this: Church teachings are all, and your opinions don't mean diddly. You can accept that logic or you can reject the Church, but don't pretend you can do both.

But even if you are a purist on the issue of the DP, Kerry has said he believes in the DP for terrorists.

Nobody ever said Kerry was a good Catholic. But Bush's stance on the death penalty exists well beyond the bounds of the Church's "wiggle room"; for that matter, his war in Iraq was condemned by the Pope. Yet the bishops are strangely silent about both these matters.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


This site provides a pretty nice summary:

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/DeathPenalty/default.asp

There's very little "wiggle room." Given that the Church actually objected to the execution of Timothy McVeigh, they should be regarding the Governor of Texas -- any Governor of Texas -- as the moral equivalent of Hitler and Pol Pot. I await the Church's acknowledgement of that.

Actually the first sentence of the site interests me more than the examples of opposing capital punishment.

"The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty in nearly all cases, and Pope John Paul II often speaks out against capital punishment."

In what cases do they think capital punishment acceptable?

[Adam Smith]

The official church position appears to be a bit different than what this bishop is expressing.

The letter's last paragraph also takes on Catholics who vote for candidates because of their pro-choice stance.
"If he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia," that Catholic too "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion," it reads.
That statement supports Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan, who on May 1 sent out a letter to his diocese saying Catholics who vote for candidates who support abortion, stem-cell research or euthanasia also should not take Communion.
But Catholics who vote for that politician on other grounds should not be penalized, the Ratzinger letter adds.(emphasis added)

Note: Cardinal Ratzinger is the Vatican's doctrinal chief of police.

Rufus:
I don't think Catholic doctrine is nearly as rigid as you make it out to be. Any parish priest would consider both scale and intent when hearing a confession. Moreover, as I understand Vatican II, church teaching is not the sole, dogmatic province of the clergy, but is to be informed by the experience of the laity in daily life.

All that said, the invation of Iraq is ample moral and political reason to vote against George W. Bush, which I fully intend to do.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Given that the Church actually objected to the execution of Timothy McVeigh, they should be regarding the Governor of Texas -- any Governor of Texas -- as the moral equivalent of Hitler and Pol Pot. I await the Church's acknowledgement of that.

twit. The governor of Texas has almost no power over executions, it is almost all (after the courts) in the board of pardons and paroles (much of the executive power of Texas is distributed to idependant boards/commisions [some elected, some appointed for staggered terms] and elected officials other than the governor) The only clemmency the Governor can exercise on his own is 1 temporary 30 day stay per death row prisoner. Other than that he can not act except with recomendation by the board. You should should to to have some minimum knowledge about a subject before making such a grand pronoucement. The governors office in texas actually does very little of the executive administration of the state. Its few powers are mostly political rather than adminstrative in nature: appointments, vetos, calling special legislative sessions, submitting legislation.