Well, I just read that Good Pope Francis has given that argument a charge by changing the official Catholic Catechism to say that the death penalty is inadmissible in all cases.
Pope Francis has approved a change to the official teachings of the Catholic Church, calling for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty. The pope has frequently spoken out against the death penalty; in a speech in Rome last year, for example, Francis called the punishment “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” The new change to the Catechism, which is the official body of the Church’s teachings, formalizes that opposition based on “an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost, even after the commission of very serious crimes.”
In approving this change, Francis has sent a signal about his priorities—and his posture toward change. The Church has underscored its opposition to the destruction of any kind of life, even when that means defying the state. And Francis is willing to alter Church teaching to make that clear.
The Church has not always been a clear opponent of the death penalty. As Francis pointed out in his 2017 address, past popes presided over executions when they governed the Papal States, the territory in present-day Italy that was controlled by the Church until the late-19th century. Some of these killings were particularly gruesome: When Pope Clement VIII declared Giordano Bruno a heretic in 1600, the philosopher was tied to a stake, burned alive, and dumped in the Tiber.
Francis rebuked his predecessors: “Let us take responsibility for the past and recognize that the imposition of the death penalty was dictated by a mentality more legalistic than Christian.”
Every once in a while, when I'm not brawling in the comments, I like to look at the video of the announcement that Pope Francis was the one who was elected Pope, something I saw live because it was one of the days I was sitting with my very old mother who was glued to the TV when they announced it. As I've said, as soon as he came out and he was wearing a simple white alb instead of one of the three fancy papal vestments in different sizes that had been in the news as being what the new pope would wear, and as soon as they said he'd chosen the name "Francis" I knew he was going to be a different pope than his two immediate, imperial pope predecessors.
Now, let's see how fast the politicians who are anti-choice and anti-LGBT rights adopt this latest teaching of the Pope, since he's to blame for everything else they do. I think it's likely they'll adopt that stand before they have the positions he's got in common with even those two imperial popes that came right before him, economic justice, environmental justice, etc. Compared to any current United States politician I can think of, even they were radicals on those other positions. But, just in case you start holding your breath on them outlawing the death penalty anytime at all, don't. I really can't afford to lose readers.
Do you think Pope Francis the type who'd tell a young couple to abort a fetus with trisomy 21 because convenience?
ReplyDeleteLook, I don't support outlawing abortion because I know what will happen as a result. So don't even start.
But for you to pretend that the Progressive Left isn't encouraging a personnel eugenics that would appall you if some Darwinist were advocating is being a whitewashed tomb.
First, I have never advocated anyone having an abortion for any reason, it's not my business to do that. I also have criticized Richard Dawkins for encouraging women faced with the news that the fetus they are carrying has Down Syndrome to have an abortion, more than once and have written about the Canadian Dr. Margaret Thompson for having castrated boys with Down syndrome during Canada's eugenic period on the flimsiest of pretenses so their body parts could be used in scientific study (look at my archive) without looking it up I believe I said what she did was criminal. I have also compared people who have Down syndrome favorably with lots of people, many with PhDs as being of more good in the world.
DeleteI don't know what ideas I've expressed you believe you're addressing but nothing in your comment is about anything I've ever said. I certainly didn't pretend that anyone who encouraged women to have abortions for that reason were members of "the Progressive Left" and I never floated the idea that Pope Francis would ever advocate that.
Maybe you meant to post this comment elsewhere.
I would start by noting the difference between "personal" eugenics and state-sponsored eugenics.
DeleteWhich is not to excuse eugenics in any case. But rather like drug abuse, eugenics in some form will always be with us. That fact might color one's opinion about the choice of abortion, but it does not impose an absolute bar the way, say, murder does. I do not equate murder and abortion, but no society can allow the former; allowing the latter does not necessarily threaten social order in the way allowing the former would.
And the government that reserves the right to itself to execute prisoners in the name of decency and good order, but condemns killing by individuals, has an hypocrisy problem of its own.
It's a good point. People who like to equate things like that pretend that the fact that they're talking about what women decide about the state of their own bodies is either non-existent or unimportant. Since the legality of abortion is about the actions of the state, the interest (or illegitimate interest) of the state in determining that and that it in no way is superior to the woman's right to make that decision, it's the major distinction between the two.
DeleteI'd never encourage anyone to have an abortion anymore than I'd think the state has that superior interest to make it illegal to obtain one. I'd say if the anti-abortion people can't convince people through a normal level of persuasion then that's as far as they should be allowed to take it.
The issue of eugenics is a similar violation of personal ownership of their bodies to the effort to ban abortion or contraception.
"I would start by noting the difference between 'personal' eugenics and state-sponsored eugenics.
DeleteWhich is not to excuse eugenics in any case."
That was kind of my point. As Thomas Merton wrote, we owe an homage to the reality around us, and should call things by their right names.
"But rather like drug abuse, eugenics in some form will always be with us. That fact might color one's opinion about the choice of abortion, but it does not impose an absolute bar the way, say, murder does."
There is a difference between calling for an absolute bar (I'm not) and pointing out the refusal of many on the left to speak on this topic, lest they get labeled misogynist troglodytes. Whenever I bring up my position to the Mod here, I'm reminded what banning abortion will lead to. Funny, because I've never advocated banning the practice. But speaking about the abuses of it? He only likes to do that with easy targets, like Richard Dawkins.
"I do not equate murder and abortion, but no society can allow the former; allowing the latter does not necessarily threaten social order in the way allowing the former would."
Few behaviors would.
"And the government that reserves the right to itself to execute prisoners in the name of decency and good order, but condemns killing by individuals, has an hypocrisy problem of its own."
And I'm not an advocate of capital punishment. Quite the contrary. But a society that views children the way ours does is hardly lacking in hypocrisy. Look up the case of the Levy's of Portland, OR. Wonderful parents. They just wish their daughter was never born. And they want money. Lots of money.
I would answer this but as I didn't make the comment, I'll leave it as it is.
DeleteCapital punishment is a different matter. It isn't any person determining the condition of their own body, it's the state and its agents killing someone.
Oh, this is rich. :-)
ReplyDeleteToo rich for your intellectual diet? Not surprised.
DeleteI suspect you're going to run off to Duncan's Jr. High to lie about it now, aren't you.
Here's a clue, schmucko.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say "Sparky is writing a book a called THE HOLOCAUST: THE JEWS WERE AN AFTERTHOUGHT" that's not a lie. That's a joke. That's satire. What's a lie is you claiming not to understand that.
When I say Simps is a pathological liar who accuses people of antisemitism because he can't face the fact that people react to him because he's a massive asshole, that's not a joke, it's the truth.
DeleteAs I said to you any number of times, you are too stupid to recognize satire, you are too stupid to produce satire, you wouldn't know what satire is as compared to a stale joke that was never funny to start with.
Your idea of jokes are the equivalent of someone coming up with the bright idea to market canned scrambled eggs.
Wow. Seriously, wow.
ReplyDeleteYou have absolutely zero self-awareness.
Has BG noticed you talk to yourself in the mirror? Do you carry on conversations with the people on TV, too?
Delete"First, I have never advocated anyone having an abortion for any reason, it's not my business to do that."
ReplyDeleteThat's a fine progressive party line to toe, but you have posted many screeds trying to tell other people how to manage their various businesses. Even and especially on matters trivial. Like cake designing.
"I also have criticized Richard Dawkins for encouraging women faced with the news that the fetus they are carrying has Down Syndrome to have an abortion, more than once and have written about the Canadian Dr. Margaret Thompson for having castrated boys with Down syndrome during Canada's eugenic period on the flimsiest of pretenses so their body parts could be used in scientific study (look at my archive) without looking it up I believe I said what she did was criminal. I have also compared people who have Down syndrome favorably with lots of people, many with PhDs as being of more good in the world."
So, you're criticized a fiery, philosophical ignorant zoologist/village atheist, an advocate for a decades-gone eugenics movement, and compared people with Trisomy 21 to PhDs. Great! But you're silent as a monastery when modern liberals like Ruth Marcus or the Levy's of Portland basically advocate for just that. Woe to he who calls evil good and good evil (especially in the name of politics).
"I don't know what ideas I've expressed you believe you're addressing but nothing in your comment is about anything I've ever said."
Referring to people who oppose abortion as "anti-choice" was a clue.
"I certainly didn't pretend that anyone who encouraged women to have abortions for that reason were members of 'the Progressive Left'"
You don't have to state the obvious. The Progressive Left's view of abortion as a sacrament renders any abuse of said right (and let me remind you I have never advocated making the practice illegal) an issue not to be discussed publicly. Or, in some cases, justified, because back alleys.
"and I never floated the idea that Pope Francis would ever advocate that."
No, you wrote "Now, let's see how fast the politicians who are anti-choice and anti-LGBT rights adopt this latest teaching of the Pope."
What has one to do with the others?
Name one time when I advocated that the government had a right to tell people what to do with their own BODY.
DeleteThe only person I ever recall equating abortion with a sacrament is when Gloria Steinem said that if men could become pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. And she was being obviously sarcastic.
The rest of your comment doesn't seem to address anything else I said, either. I do rather get tired of people coming here to pick fights with me on the basis of things I never said but which they would like for me to have said but which I never have and never would.