[quote="BillP, post:13, topic:188702"]
My post was addressed to Ender, you are simply a co-conspirator so to speak.
Perhaps I should have said "permits" or "is okay with" instead of "approves", but I stand by my characterization. Ender was trying to misrepresent, either willfully or through ignorance, the Churches teaching on the death penalty and you were assisting him.
Never the less you lumped me in with this and is a mischaracterization of what I was saying.
That is, while technically true, very far from "accurate" in fact, it is a textbook example of sophistry.
You say "The Church does not teach that the death penalty is always wrong"
The catechism says:
[quote]2267 ....."Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself,** cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'**
The bolded part is where we can disagree. Putting the offender away in prison does not necessarily mean that he can not commit crimes (including murder) any more, it does not mean that society is protected unless you do not consder those in prison (both prisoners and those who work there) part of society and worthy of protection. There are many cases where those in prison commit crimes (including murder) against other prisoners and those who work there (especially prison guards).
You are also doing a selective reading of the paragraph, you must read it in whole.
Here is what you have chosen to ignore over the last part
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
This plays into my argument that locking a person away in prison does not always protect people's saftey from the aggressor. It just limits his agression to a smaller population.
(sorry I don't know how to do "text blocks")
To use text blocks look at the tool bar at the top of the text window, it is the tenth one from the left. High light the text you want to indent and press that button.
Or you can use the color option, which instead of quote in the ] you put the word color=blue (for example) the ending is just /color.
So if I did that it would look like this.
Hope that helps you out.
If you think your characterization is accurate, thats fine, I honestly don't care what you and Ender think, nor am I arguing with you. I just don't want innocent people coming to this board to read your stuff, without giving them access to authentic Church teaching and letting them judge for themselves.
When you stress one part of a paragraph of the CCC over the rest of it you are not giving the "authentic Chruch teaching", you must give it all.
The Death Penalty is not an intrinsic evil, like abortion, that some people wish to protray it as.
What about theft? Would you characterize the Church's position on theft as "not always wrong?"
No. Theft is always wrong, it is a sin and an intrinic evil, yet there are mitigating circumstances, as spelled out in the CCC that can lessen the severity of the sin incured.
Or do you disagree with that?