MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
You throw “justice” around quite lightly as if it were self-evident.
I join you in your hope for mercy.
With regard to this matter, Jimmy has thrown nothing around lightly.
This is plainly evident in this post: http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/a_disheartening.html
Please don’t throw such accusations around so lightly.
I don’t know ’bout justice, but the only mourning I am doing is that I didn’t have him on my dead pool list for 2006. Coulda won outright instead of a 3 way tie. Oh well.
Sic semper tyrannis.
(Is my spelling correct?)
From BBC News, ‘Reaction in quotes’
THE VATICAN
“A capital punishment is always tragic news, a reason for sadness, even if it deals with a person who was guilty of grave crimes…
“The killing of the guilty party is not the way to reconstruct justice and reconcile society. On the contrary, there is a risk that it will feed a spirit of vendetta and sow new violence.
“In these dark times for the Iraqi people, one can only hope that all responsible parties truly make every effort so that glimmers of reconciliation and peace can be found in such a dramatic situation.”
[Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6218597.stm
To paraphrase St Thomas Aquinas: even if it is necessary to restrain an injustice by using lethal force [and majority Catholic thinking does not think lethal force was necessary in this case], we may not wish ultimate harm on our neighbour. We should pray that Saddam be saved. Jesus died for all, if Jesus can love, forgive and die for someone whose crimes are considered so grave, then Jesus can love, forgive and die for me …
“We should pray that Saddam be saved.” Did you really think we don’t?
We’ll have to leave his eternal fate to God. If he repented, good; but if not, too bad.
On a lighter note, When I saw Saddam’s pic, I first thought that was Col. Sanders.
Now he’s in Gods hands.
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)
While I’ll say nothing of what majority Catholic thinking says in this case, even according to the strict standards set forth in the latest CCC, I would say that this merited the death sentance. Saddam clearly posed a danger to Iraqi society even while having been locked up.
“A capital punishment is always tragic news”??
It certainly wasn’t tragic news when the various Germans were executed after WWII, why should this be any more tragic?
Yes, I certainly pray for mercy for his soul. I should be inhuman if I did not do so. I hope that he was converted (although his last words, words of mockery, don’t give me much hope), and I pray for his soul.
Matt, although I am satisfied justice has been done, it remains true that any unnatural death is tragic, especially when a state must put to death one of its members or one of its previous rulers. Death and sin are not what God intended for any of us. Saddam Hussein’s life has ended in failure and woe. Although for his millions of victims’ sake we can be happy now, for him we cannot be happy that his life was given over to evil. God have mercy on him, because he really needs it.
I hope he regreted what he did.
On the odd side, the first place I found out ’bout this was my husband-to-be, while playing World of Warcraft; ten seconds later, I land in Orgrimar (orc Capital City) and the news is being yelled from the roof tops. Out of hundreds of folks who are usually idiots because they find it funny, only one person had the bad taste to try to make a joke of this.
You spelled the Latin correctly, bill912.
Leo, you were wrong to write these words:
“… and majority Catholic thinking does not think lethal force was necessary in this case.”
When I said that you were “wrong,” I mean that you were wrong in at least one, and possibly two ways.
First, it could be that the “majority” of “Catholics” in the world approve of this execution. You have certainly taken no poll of the world’s Catholics, so you spoke rashly.
Second, even if more than half of Catholics (or more than half of Catholic priests, or more than half of Catholic bishops, or more than half of Vatican prelates, or more than half of Catholic theologians) DISapprove of this execution, that in itself would not make it wrong.
Why? Because it is not the role of Catholics to rule on the subject. Instead, Catholic teaching is that the decision lies in the hands of “the state” — in this case, the Iraqi government. They, and ONLY they — not you or I — have the ability to judge whether or not the execution was necessary for societal self-defense (the key factor in Pope John Paul’s development of Capitol Punishment doctrine). It is for us now to respect the jugment of the Iraqi government.
I am certain that Saddam Hussein is a bad man.
I am certain he did many evil things.
I am not against the death penalty.
What I am not so certain about is that we should of invaded Iraq, whether the invasion was right, whether it brought any good, whether it was necessary to fight terrorism or was counterproductive, whether or not Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam.
Jared,
Either Jimmy threw the word “justice” around lightly or the Vatican did…I stick with the Vatican on this one. Expand your horizons.
If the justice of the invasion was doubtful to begin with, isn’t the legitimacy of the invader-established court which made the decision also in doubt?
Political legitimacy is a horribly tricky subject, but it’s a question that needs an answer.
“For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.”
Romans 13:3-4
Or perhaps you think you know better than Me?
“Self-evident” was a good way to describe it.
Bill,
I suppose that “self-evident” justice escaped even the Vatican:
Vatican responds to the execution of Saddam
Michael: No, dude, you made a false accusation. I’m not saying we can’t disagree on the justice of it but your statement about the word “justice” being thrown about lightly was plainly false as he’s done no such thing. Why can’t you just admit you were wrong and back off? Maybe you could engage in a debate without accusing the other side of shallow thinking.
And again the accusations fly with your statement to me. You have no idea how “expanded” my horizons are. I never even stated an opinion under this post. For all you know I might be against the death penalty, as the only thing I said was in defense of how lightly Jimmy used the word “justice.” You need to stop attacking the individual and start debating the ideas. Otherwise, everyone here is going to see you a just another troll.
Jordan,
I quite agree with you that Saddam’s corruption is a cause for sadness, and that death and hell were not God’s plan for all of us. We don’t know what happened to Saddam after death, but even if he went to hell, I DO NOT rejoice in anyone going to hell. Such would be most unchristian.
I just don’t know if I could call his death tragic. I believe that justice was done in his case, even within the strict parameters of CCC 2267. I do not rejoice over his death, as do those who are now dancing and shooting guns in the street. And I absolutely do not rejoice in his corruption. I sincerely hope he was converted. But in that justice was done, I rejoice in justice.
Death was not God’s intent in having created us, but the reality of free will allows for us to say that there may be some way in which death is God’s will, even a death which is caused by the legitimate arm of the state. This is evident from reading Sacred Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments (see 1 Chron 13:10, 1 Kings 18:40, Acts 5:1-11, Rom 13:4).
Jared,
One of Socrates’ greatest contributions to Western thought was his insistance on the need for proper definition of terms. Now, when we have Jimmy Akin declaring “Justice is Done” amid a number of statements from the Holy See that “justice”” is not done, then we clearly have a conflict over the concept of “justice” either through definition or through judgment. When such situations arise, Socrates would demand that we find out what “justice” is before we continue using it without knowing precisely what “justice” truly is. Otherwise, one or more parties will continue to use the term lightly without regard or respect for honest discourse. Now, has Jimmy Akin provided us with any definition or guidance for his term “justice”? No. Has the Vatican defined its concept of “justice”? Yes. So, is Jimmy denying the Vatican’s understanding of “justice” or is he using the term without really possessing an understanding of what “justice” is? Giving him the Catolic benefit of the doubt, I do not believe him to be denying the Vatican’s concept of “justice”. Thus, by induction I am forced to conclude that Jimmy Akin is tossing around the term lightly. At this point, only he can clarify the matter.
Now, if this is not attacking the ideas, then I do not know what would be, dude.
If the justice of the invasion was doubtful to begin with, isn’t the legitimacy of the invader-established court which made the decision also in doubt?
YES
THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COURT IS IN DOUBT
REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF SADDAM AND HIS ACTIONS
UNDER THAT STANDARD WE COULD TAKE ANY LEADER
INCLUDING PAST POPES AND BUSH HIMSELF AND TRY THEM FOR KILLING 150 PEOPLE
It is certainly surprising that while European social thought is evolving to the point that it excludes just about every traditional Church teaching, in the area of capital punishment the two lines of thought, at least as popularly understood, are apparently in complete agreement. This alone gives me pause about what contemporary Catholic teaching really should be. It’s especially troubling when high Vatican officials contradict the plain teaching of the Catechism they published only a few years earlier. Further, it’s hard to read Romans 13 any other way than granting the State the power to put evildoers to death. Cardinal Martino’s latest statement seems categorically opposed to St. Paul’s.
I can only point out that the “Vatican” has not actually pronounced on what happend to Sadaam. This statement Cardinal Martino’s opinion, not magisterial teaching. Jimmy’s statement is his opinion, not magisterial teaching. They have two different opinions on how magisterial teaching should be applied. Why should we be surprised that two Catholic theologians should have differing opinions on how to apply Catholic teaching in concrete situations? Until and unless the Vatican itself condemns one of the two opinions, we must be free to draw our own conclusions from an informed application of the Church’s teaching.
Matt,
I do not know if you have seen this, but the Vatican came out with a statement today on the Saddam execution, declaring it to have not served justice:
Vatican responds to Saddam’s execution
The problem is that Cardinal Martino’s statement is in explicit disagreement with what the Catechism says about capital punishment. The Cardinal says the State does not have the right to inflict the death penalty, period. The Catechism says the State has this right. This is not a mere difference of opinion. It is also a problem when a Cardinal in the Vatican itself doesn’t seem to acknowledge that Catholics may legitimately disagree on the subject. Jimmy does.
“The Cardinal says the State does not have the right to inflict the death penalty, period.”
This is your error interpreting the Cardinal’s remarks. See the links in my earlier comments for a discussion of the Cardinal’s intent.
Michael –
As the AP reported (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SADDAM_QUOTE_BOX?SITE=TXBEA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT): Saddam’s execution punishes “a crime with another crime. … The death penalty is not a natural death. And no one can give death, not even the state.” – Cardinal Renato Martino, Pope Benedict XVI’s top prelate for justice issues.
Forgive me for not looking back over your previous comments – that’s really helpful – but unless this is a blatant misquote of the Cardinal, how is that statement not in direct conflict with the Catechism, not to mention Romans 13?
Once again the Vatican is playing up to the Moslem world for the most part and being populist instead of adhering to the teachings of the church which has always taught under certain circumstances capital punishment was just. If it was not for Capital punishment our Lord would not have been crucified and opened the gates of heaven. When will the church once again stand up for justice even when it is not popular?
If it was not for Capital punishment our Lord would not have been crucified and opened the gates of heaven.
That has to be the most demented argument for capital punishment ever forwarded. One could just as easily say: “If it was not for executing the innocent our Lord would not have been crucified and opened the gates of heaven.”
The Council of Trent decreed: “[well founded is] the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”
While we have JPII in Evangelium Vitae and now the Vatican calling this as “tragic”.
Another clear contradiction against a doctor of the church in St Thomas and a dogmatic council that JPII and the Vatican once again disguard and go upon their merry way and decide to reinvent the church day by day as it suits their needs and why the church today does not get the respect for upholding faith, morals and justice that it used to be the standard bearer around the world, but instead would rather compare the life of a brutal dictator somehow along the same lines as the unborn
Aside from the question about the morality of capital punishment, there is one other really big problem with the statement from the Vatican press office. Unless I somehow missed it, I don’t see any serious expression of condemnation of the awful crimes that Saddam committed. Not only killing people, but doing it in exceedingly brutal ways like throwing them into meat grinders, beheading them and depositing the heads on the doorstep of their family homes, and other horrific things.
It leaves the impression that the “Vatican”–or whomever is claiming to represent it–is not coming to terms with the evil that was so much a part of Saddam’s reign of terror. The net effect is to give the impression of excusing it.
Has Cardinal Martino expressed any outrage at these crimes, or any real sympathy for Saddam’s victims? If so I would like to know about it. If not, his words rings pretty hollow to me.
Geeze, John. You can make a slam on Vatican II, JP2, and B16 out of anything, even an execution. I have to congratulate your persistence, if not your failure to submit to the lawful authority of the Church.
Tim
This is all very interesting. Earlier this month, I debated several of you concerning the Church’s current revisionist stance concerning capital punishment. One of my assumptions has proven true: There’s a lot of confusion in the Catholic world regarding what the Church really believes because the Church’s current stance directly contradicts all previous teaching on the issue. That’s because most Catholics are functionally illiterate when it comes to Scripture and Church history.
Furthermore, protecting society is not the ultimate criterion in determining whether a punishment is appopriate. The ulimate criterion is whether that punishment is proportional to the offense. That’s a fundamental teaching stemming from Scripture, particularly the Mosaic Law, where “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” meant proportional punishment, not vengeance outside of due process (which is the only arbiter of proporitonality).
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Catholics — especially the bishops — have become so infatuated with their own revised definitions of “vengeance” and “justice” that they scarcely recognized the principles from a divinely inspired source, such as Scripture.
BTW, if it isn’t apparent from my last post, I’m arguing that the only appropriate punishment for Saddam’s crimes is execution. To argue otherwise is to side effectively with the perpetrators of evil rather than the victims of evil.
“I’m arguing that the only appropriate punishment for Saddam’s crimes is execution.”
Yeah, I’d guessed that.
Cardinal Ratzinger’s words seem pertinent here:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia”. (Cardinal Ratzinger – Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles)
Michael,
I’m sorry I haven’t read your blog as much as I probably should, but I must admit, the comments you have made on this site and others (esp. Closed Cafeteria) make me NOT want to go there. You tend to come across as snarky and as knowing better than anyone else who dares to disagree with you. Of course, that’s only my opinion (but at least I recognize that my opinion should in and of itself carry no more weight here than anyone else’s).
Justice is done.
When did the Catholic Church turn so effeminate? Was it during the 1960s?
Michael says:
“YES
THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COURT IS IN DOUBT
REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF SADDAM AND HIS ACTIONS
UNDER THAT STANDARD WE COULD TAKE ANY LEADER
INCLUDING PAST POPES AND BUSH HIMSELF AND TRY THEM FOR KILLING 150 PEOPLE”
I would suggest you view this four part series on the crimes and atrocities that occurred under Hussein.
Here is part 1: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPLd_ghpL2I)
I find it amazing that some people hate George Bush SO much that they make excuses for Hussein’s incredible atrocities and try to make Bush the criminal. Some Catholics have a very short sighted concept of Social Justice that is summarized by “vote Democrat”. While you hate Bush (trust me I’m not a big fan), what have “catholics” like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, et al done to protect the unborn or even basic morality? Do you realize I can’t even sit down with my children and watch a show on the Family Channel for fear of what trash is going to show up at the next commercial? I suggest you redirect your energy to saving this country from the atrocities of abortion and immorality.
Pardon me. I believe I incorrectly attributed a quote to Michael that should have been attributed to Kasper. I am new to Jimmy’s blog and got confused as to whether the author is noted above or below the post.
Out of curiousity, does anyone know anything about who writes these Vatican statements?
Thou shalt not.
If you mean murder, you’re right.(Which is what the Hebrew of the 5th Commandment means).
Been throwing batting practice long?
Tim stated:
“Geeze, John. You can make a slam on Vatican II, JP2, and B16 out of anything, even an execution. I have to congratulate your persistence, if not your failure to submit to the lawful authority of the Church.”
Tim, the lawful authority of the church are you refering to the Council of Trent (you do know what that is dont you?) which stated:
“[well founded is] the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”
Or the revisionist of JPII who basically denied anything pre 1962-1965 and like you and many think that the church and her teachings started with John XXIII, Vatican II and the present hodgepodge of mixed up contradictory teachings that are being spewed all over by Priests, Cardinals, and Bishops alike?
If I am not mistaken it was Paul VI who created the Synod of Bishops which basically emasculated the power of the Papacy and put the decicison making in the hands of thousands of Bishops each with their own view hence you basically are no longer “One” as in church but many little fiefdoms all over the world so I question what your concern is.
“Out of curiousity, does anyone know anything about who writes these Vatican statements?”
When it comes to the Vatican Press Office, that’s a question people have asked more than once.
Anyway, regarding the legitimacy of the current Iraqi government, until the Pope makes some kind of statement or gesture indication they do not recognise it, all we can do is treat it as the de facto government, which is thereby divinely endowed with the authority to execute justice.
I’m sorry about my joke above in bad taste. But putting that aside: Pardon my ignorance but at least according to the Laws of the Church, is Saddam’s execution permissible?
What the Church is doing is the same kind of thing it’s always done. “Yeah, war is okay. But geez, people, why don’t you have a truce of God on Sundays and holidays and stuff? Wouldn’t that be classier and more Christian? And howsabout staying away from the crossbows for the sake of common decency, huh?”
So yeah, governments have a prudential right to execute people as part of their legal powers. But the popes have recently been taking the opportunity provided by the culture to try to get everybody to tone it down for good.
There are plenty of things which are legal under church laws (like certain marriages, or my spiritual life) which still could be done better. It’s a priest’s job to nag you to do better than just avoiding sin. We may disagree on the prudential value of the advice we’re given or the manner in which it is done, but we can’t say he doesn’t have a right to say it at all.
I’d shoot him.
Well said, Maureen. I’m more of the opinion that the Vatican doesn’t HAVE to feel the need to issue a response to everything that happens in the world. There are many times when diplomatic silence would best serve all parties.
The cardinal’s remarks seem to only add to the confusion. To say that the death penalty is a damned shame is only fair, but to say “the Catholic Church is against the death penalty” is very confusing – especially if that is not, in fact, the case.
The Vatican may be personally opposed the the USE of the death penalty in every case, but the actual teaching of the Church just does not support such a sweeping statement as “the Catholic Church is against the death penalty”.
You could kill a lot of people by the Saddam standard.
Capitol Punishment is a debatable issue and prudential.
The invasion and thus probably the court was not legitimage despite the horrors that Saddam did.
But there are horrors committed by Assad family in Syria, the Saudi royal family, and many other countries far worse than Iraq.
The United States in claiming to liberate Iraq visited more death and destruction, perhaps unintentionally, than Saddam ever did.
Well John, I recognize the authority of the One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and ALL the ecumenical councils. Also, Trent is not at odds with modern teaching on the death penalty. The Church teaches that the State has the RIGHT to execute, but that this right should be exercised sparingly.
If you want to get medievel, how about all those writings to the effect that failure to submit to the Pope is anathema?
You pull out this darned hobby horse on every conceivable thread. If you are so unhappy with the Church, why don’t you just call it quits and join the sedevacantists or SSPX (unless you’re already there, which I suspect might be the case). Last time I checked, both groups are excommunicated, but my diocese is still in communion with the successor to the throne of Peter. You know Peter? That nutty apostle upon which Christ founded His Church?
Saddam was a brutal dictator who definitely killed people.
Saddam also was better to the Christian community, especially to Chaldeans (in union with Rome) and less so to Assyrians (both Monosphytes and Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox), than the current anti-Christian chaotic qausi anarchist Shia actual and de-facto “government” now.
Saddam and the Baath party gave more rights and killed less people (sometimes proportionally if a small country like Kuwait) than Saudi Arabia (ask them what they do to villages who try to assasinate), Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Israel, Morocco, Algerian, Jordan and certainly Sudan.
Saudi Arabia took in Idi Amin and we did not invade.
The Baath party was a secular party founded by Christians based on non denominational principles and a pan-Arab modern philosophy. Iran has gained more power as of the current US action and terrorism worldwide (in London, Spain, Bali, Chechyna) has increased not decreased. The world is a more dangerous place for tourism and business with more death and destruction.
Women had more rights (for example the minimal right to drive) than in Saudi Arabia. Women did not have to were the full Burqa. Christians could have churches and rights in government and society. Other minorities like Jews and Zoarastians and/or Bahai existed better than in Iran, Saudi, or Kuwait.
So womens rights and religious freedom was better under Saddam than our allies.
Why not try Prince Bandar? or the Kuwaiti royal family? Or invade Israel? Or invade Iraq or Syria? Or invade and stop the violence in Sudan?
Or stop the violence that happened in Cambodia, the former Soviet Union or Cambodia?
What was the crime rate in Iraq pre-the current invasion to today?
or the health rates of disease, infant mortality, portable water?
What was the death rate since 1990? or since 2003?
What about the destruction of infrastructure in Iraq (or Lebanon with our blessing)?
How many Billions of dolllars?
How many people (Iraqis) are dead? because of the US? compare before and after Sadamm
the late Hafiz al Assad and father of current Bashir Assad killed 30,000 fundamentalist Islamicists (Assad is a qausi Muslim Alowite who honor Jesus more and have Babylonian and gnostic pre-Islamic roots with some Islamic superficial exteriors) in the city of Hama
Ariel Sharon in his autobiography Warrior talks about revenge killings on Bedouins
and there are plenty of killings on all sides
Saddam did many evil things
That does not justify an US invasion under false pretenses
and the things he did are done by many, many, many other leaders in the world
This does not mean the death penalty is never justified
nor does it means anyone, or at least this writer supports Ted Kennedy or Harkin
What it does mean is that the current state of Christians in the Middle East is farrrrrr worse now
It also means that Iraqis are worse off now with no light at the end of the tunnel
“The United States in claiming to liberate Iraq visited more death and destruction, perhaps unintentionally, than Saddam ever did.”
Can you show me where you got this information?
Tim J.,
Go over official US DOD statistics. Just count up all the people that Saddam killed, than count up all the people the US killed (perhaps as you say without intent).
What a surprise. A post about justice, the death penalty, Saddam Hussein and Iraq and some people feel compelled to once again bring up the whole issue of whether or not the invasion was right.
The invasion was right or it was not right. What do you mean by right? Would rather he were back in power? Blah blah blah.
I love the audacity of people who think they deserve to be ruled by angels and not by fallible humans. The war on terror needs to be fought. More mistakes, setbacks, tragedies and travesties are to come. If this makes you want to quit, you don’t know the half of it.
But I still choose to fight. Even if “there is no end in sight.”
And that is all I will say about that.
Right on, StubbleSpark!
Or the revisionist of JPII who basically denied anything pre 1962-1965 and like you and many think that the church and her teachings started with John XXIII, Vatican II and the present hodgepodge of mixed up contradictory teachings that are being spewed all over by Priests, Cardinals, and Bishops alike?
Double, triple and quadruple right on, John!
Georges, you say that “the current state of Christians in the Middle East is farrrr worse than it was.” Really? Well, considering that Muslims persecute Christians constantly (ask the Palestinian Christians or the Copts in Egypt) regardless of who is in power, this is a distinction without a difference.
Besides, Georges, does the idea that Saddam treated Christians in union with Rome better than other groups (which is a chimmera considering that Saddam routinely played groups against each other for his own Sunnis’ benefit) have any moral meaning in a brutal, sadistic tyranny? Or have Catholics like you become so materialistic that they ignore such little things as freedom and liberty?
This is somewhat off-topic in this particular thread, but I believe it’s mostly appropriate:
Thank you, Stubblespark. If ever you consider teaming up with another mastermind with a secret island lair, look me up.
My wife’s hankerin’ fer adventure!
Stubblespark,
The war on terror and the invasion of Iraq are not one in the same.
Do you want to indict Don Rumsfield, special envoy to Iraq under Reagan, when we were supporting Saddam? We wanted secular Saddam to fight Islamic fundamentalists like the Shia ones in Iraq who tried to assasinate him and more importantly Iran. We helped Iraq under Saddam in the Iran v Iraq war. Iran was a theocracy, and Iraq was secular.
Al Queda did not like the Baath run Iraq nor Saddam.
There were no Al Queda links to Iraq. None.
Let alone the WMD or any threat to the US.
There were other pre-Al Queda mostly pro-Palestinian terrorists like Abu Nidal who got safe harbor, but under that standard any nation in the Arab world would of been invaded.
Don Rumsfield went to Iraq AFTER the crimes for which Saddam was convicted and we gave him support. Tim J may want links. Or Hippolito may think all Arabs or Muslims are bad.
And Stubblespark YES,–I think that it would of been better to leave Saddam in power than to allow real terrorist Shia Islamic fasicts takeover Iraq and make Iran even more powerful as is happening. I would rather have a secular Saddam fighting Islamic extremists in Shia cities, not allowing Al-Queda groups in, and fighting Iran. Iraq was more modern, pro-Western, secular and helpful to US interests and anti-Iranian Shia, and Al Queda Sunni interests than any other leader in the region.
Saddam is certainly guilty of natural law crimes, but the trial was a pre-determined conclusion just as was the justified but also pre-determined conclusion of Nuremburg. The trial was a joke.
“Or the revisionist of JPII who basically denied anything pre 1962-1965…”
Except he didn’t.
“… and like you and many think that the church and her teachings started with John XXIII”
Also baseless.
I mean, you’re just raving now.
The fact that YOU don’t understand how legitimate development of doctrine works does not oblige the Church to abandon the whole enterprise in defernce to your ignorance.
I don’t really know much about Iraq or Saddam Hussein. Like Joni Mitchell, I’ve seen the Iraqi war “from both sides now.”
I just know that this morning at Mass (it is Sunday evening in New Zealand now), I couldn’t help praying for Saddam Hussein, for the poor Iraqi people (we have a lot of their refugees here), and somehow I was moved to pray for Saddam Hussein’s mother, as well. Christ have mercy on us all!
jj
PS – and I was glad that a few days before his death he appealed to the whole of Iraq to stop fighting, to be at peace, to forgive one another. I have no doubt that he did many evil things. May God set this appeal against them, somehow.
jj
Where do you find the official DoD statistics detailing the collateral damage and the killing of civilians? Usually when someone says “go look at the evidence yourself,” and fail to give you a place to find it, it usually (not always) means that they have no idea where to find such evidence, or have no idea what they’re talking about.
Joseph Hippolito: The situation is worse off for Christians in the Middle East now than before. Israel was over 20% Christian in 1948 and now is 1%–this was a conscious policy by Israel and also Israel funding Hamas to pit Christians against Muslims.
No doubt I agree with you that Muslims are treating Christians bad in Egypt (somewhat secular) or Palestine (although that was not true previously you are right it is true today with a more religious and less urban and modern power structure)
I also agree with you Joseph that from a Human Rights, and Tolerance and Religious Freedom point of view (I agree with Vatican II on this) it does not matter if they are in union with Rome or not.
All should be respected. So non Chalcedon Copt or Assyrian does not mean less rights.
The point I think was made is that Chaldean rite Catholics had it better off than some other Christians like Assyrians. Although I could be wrong. Also, the point is that Iraq was the best or maybe second best to Syria, nation for Christians to live in terms of rights and prosperity better than Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran etc.
The Christians were protected by Saddam and Saddam allowed more religious freedom than practiced now or than most of the other countries in the region.
This is not a distinction without a difference this is thousands of human lives and hundreds of thousands of refugees.
I don’t think anyone has argued that Saddam was not brutal. The point is that what is happening now in Iraq and the Middle East may be more brutal.
The US and Israeli policy(ies) have devestated Christians in the Middle East.
The Iraqi Christian population, the Israeli Christian population, the Palestinian Christian population–have all been killed or left because lack of freedoms of economic opportunity, education and travel.
The rise in Islamic fundamenstalism, which was not present in the more secular PLO under Arafat or under certain wings like Christian and communist influenced George Habasch, or the Baath and minority religious governments in Syria and Iraq. The anti-Syrian (which is justified at least vis a vis Lebanon) current policy (even though they helped against al Qauda and in the Iraqi invasion), and the Iraqi invasion which has increased Shia fundamentalist power, or the support of Israel which has alienated the whole region and destablized secular modern pro-Western regimes and leaders—ALL work against the goal of a peaceful Middle East (but Israel wants a destabilized Middle East), and against the War on Terror.
The War on Terror should be against Terrorists and not against all Arabs including Christians, or non Muslims governments with Muslim majorities.
Even our secular, non Arab, pro-Western, pro-Israeli ally Turkey (which even helped NATO and Croatia in getting terrorists in the former Yugoslavia) committed atrocities against Kurds (like Saddam did) and violates human rights and kills people. I don’t want to invade Turkey or have show trials to bring anyone to justice.
That would increase religious radicals.
If the goal is to decrease Islamic terrorism and fundamentalist power–our actions are not accomplishing our goals and working against us.
I don’t like nor care about Saddam. Joseph Hippolito is completely uncaring about Christians in the Middle East and is blinded by his radical Zionist agenda–just look at his hate filled website. The clash of cultures is real, but it doesn’t mean we should do wrong or be stupid in actually protecting ourselves or our ultimate goal.
As an end not I certainly believe that military force is necessary and in certain cases that morally under Catholic teaching and the sublime logic of Aquinas a/the death penalty is justified.
The question is: Is there something worse than Saddam?
Well lets consider this:
The Americans role out wherever they please going into countries in the name of democracy and by force putting a “democratic”government.
How democratic is it to kick the government that people are KILLING on the streets because you took it away. I am not saying Saddam is good.
I am simply saying the US is not the best country to promote and do such things.
It needs to be a Catholic nation that its laws are in line with the Gospel.
In essence a legitamately established government loyal to the Church and Her laws.
None exist you say, then everyone is as bad as the other guy.
And on the predetermined thing,
well the overwhelming amount of evidence kind of makes the trial a mere formality.
But you see what really worries me is,
when will the time come when the nations will point fingers at the Sons of the Light?
The danger of the death penalty these days is that at any momment, it will be used against the Church and Her sons and daughters.
That is why the Church has attacked the death penalty. Not because of that itself, but those who use it.
“The danger of the death penalty these days is that at any moment, it will be used against the Church and Her sons and daughters.”
At any moment, it could be and is and always will be used against the Church. It is not possible that the Church could achieve heaven by any other road than the one Her Lord first walked, the road to Calvary. Even if the whole world abolished the death penalty, it would eventually be reintroduced if for no other reason than to martyr Christians.
Tim J stated:
“Or the revisionist of JPII who basically denied anything pre 1962-1965…”
Except he didn’t.
Well what would you call during JPII’s pontificate:
New Code of Canon Law
New Catechism
All new Sacraments some in both form AND matter
Ecumenism such as Kissing Korans and Participating in pagan worship which forget about prior church teachings is against the 1st commandment and countless others abuses where ecumenism was condemned by every pope Prior to 1958
Liturgical abuse gone wild and a new mass that is a free for all and cant even to this day get a translation correct
Pedophilia looked at and ignored (Cardinal Law where are you?)
Talk of “One World Religion”
Excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre while countless Bishops (China anyone?) are openly defiant and schismatic bishops and Cardinals are overlooked, and groups prayed with.
Oh Tim….Wake up and smell the coffee!!!
Joseph,
BTW, if it isn’t apparent from my last post, I’m arguing that the only appropriate punishment for Saddam’s crimes is execution. To argue otherwise is to side effectively with the perpetrators of evil rather than the victims of evil.
Thank God we don’t all get what’s coming to us.
John,
Even before I got to your name, I knew it was you that posted.
What’s wrong with a one world religion if it is Catholicism?
Why do you always assume the worst?
If you don’t like the Catholic Church, I invite you to join the SSPX, Old Calendarist Orthodox (of various jurisdictions) or other church who has valid Sacraments but who despise the Catholic Church of today.
The question is: Is there something worse than Saddam? Sure, for Iraq it would be, George Bush!
Wow! What a bunch of losers are posting comments here! Poor James, to have to be aware of the ignorance of so many of his readers! I don’t understand how such people are capable of using a computer, getting on the Internet, etc.. And to think that they have the right to vote! No wonder the world is in such a horrendous condition.
“Oh Tim….Wake up and smell the coffee!!!”
Well, who can argue with logic like that?
Re: John (idm)’s comments above:
Not to mention the ignorance of the fact that Jimmy Akin goes by Jimmy, not “James…”
“What’s wrong with a one world religion if it is Catholicism?”
Depending on what era you select, a lot or a little!
Dr Eric posted:
“John,
Even before I got to your name, I knew it was you that posted. What’s wrong with a one world religion if it is Catholicism?”
Dr Eric-Of course there is nothing wrong with Catholicism being the only religion-but you obviously do not know what a “One World Religion” means and what John Paul II was refering to!!
The One World Religion was the dream of John Paul II and many ecumenists. Ecumenism was the cornerstone of John Paul II’s pontificate, which was denounced by all popes before John XXIII and which is clearly apostasy. Ecumenism is apostasy, because it reduces all of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith to relativity.
With ecumenism, all religions are seen to have a certain part of the truth, and all religions are seen to therefore have a certain value. For this reason, John Paul II has frequently repeated the heresy of Vatican II: that the Holy Ghost has not hesitated to use non-Catholic religions as means of salvation.
Ecumenism is directly contrary to the assent of faith, and therefore is a serious violation of the First Commandment of God: I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange gods before me. But that did not stop JPII and to this day even with B16 bringing all of the faiths together at Assisi and now at Fatima to worship, even the Hindus who are clearly pagan
Why does one need to go and seek out these faiths if the church itself holds all of the truths? It is because of the masonic principle which ecumenism and modernism was born and Pope St Pius X warned us against. The ecumenist is constructing the great ecumenical religion, a great ecumenical church or temple (Assissi and now Fatima)in which all religions will be able to co-exist, no matter what their internal beliefs, as long as none of them holds that its beliefs are absolutely true, and exclusive of beliefs which are opposed to it. What happened to go forth and teach the nations of our Lord and savior as scripture tells us to do and as martyrs died rather than give one inch to these false faiths
This is an apostasy as Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos, referring to ecumenical congresses, said:
“Clearly Catholics cannot approve of these undertakings in any way, since they are based on that false opinion of those who think that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, all of which, although not in the same way, equally manifest and attest to that innate sense which is implanted in us, by which we are drawn to God and to the devout recognition of His sovereignty. Those who hold this opinion not only err and are deceived, but also, since they repudiate the true religion by distorting the notion of it, gradually turn towards naturalism and atheism. For this reason it clearly follows that whosoever adheres to such things, or takes part in their undertakings, utterly abandons the religion revealed by God.”
Incidentially, the legitimacy of the government, and the invasion, are not quite that important to the question of whether justice has been done to Saddam.
If two murderers kill each other in a quarrel over the loot, they had no right to do justice, they did not even intend to do justice, but nevertheless justice has been done.
Paulo Libertini, before you engage in more empty rhetoric about my “radical Zionist agenda” and my “hate-filled Web site” (aka, Front Page Magazine, aka http: http://www.frontpagemag.com; thanks for the plug!), I suggest you read the following from Father Pierbattista Pizzaballa, who represents the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land, which governs church property. Pizzaball bluntly described the difficulties Palestinian Christians face in a 2005 interview with the Milan newspaper Corriere della Sera:
What do you mean by difficulties between Israel and the Vatican? We Christians in the Holy Land have other problems. Almost every day – I repeat, almost every day – our communities are harassed by the Islamic extremists in these regions. And if it’s not the members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, there are clashes with the ‘rubber wall’ of the Palestinian Authority, which does little or nothing to punish those responsible. On occasion, we have even discovered among our attackers the police agents of Mahmoud Abbas or the militants of Fatah, his political party, who are supposed to be defending us.
I also suggest you read the following from Renzo Guozo, a sociology professor at the University of Trieste who specializes in Muslim fundamentalism. The excerpt is taken from Guozo’s 2003 book, “Xenophobes and Xenophiles: Italians and Islam;” the pope in question is JPII:
…the pope´s approach, which some in the Catholic world define as “dialogue to the point of extremism,” generates widespread criticism among the bishops and even in the Roman curia….By purifying the historical memory of the Church, asking forgiveness for the Crusades, and fawning upon the “persecutors” of Christians, the pope, according to his critics, is exposing the Church to deep humiliation. Moreover, it transforms ecumenism into a sort of syncretism in which every religion seems as good as the next. This is tough criticism, which out of respect for papal authority and the state of John Paul II´s health does not manifest itself as open dissent, but it nevertheless deeply marks the ecclesial body.
The pope´s approach was rejected by the majority of cardinals during the 1994 consistory at which John Paul II expressed his intention of asking forgiveness for the “wrongs” of his predecessors. But despite the contrary opinion of many ecclesial sectors, and not only the openly traditionalist ones, the pope decided to proceed with his plan. Many responded with hostile silence: some of them recalled how Wotyla, who ordinarily speaks about all topics, had spread a veil of silence over the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries.
Now tell me who shows no concern for Arab Christians, Paolo.
Joseph Hippolito: Nobody is arguing that Islamic extremists are hurting Christians. Of course they are.
The point is that Islamic extremists are created by the US when they replace secular regimes with Islamic fundamentalist regimes or create a leverage on the balance of powers in favor of Islamic fasicsts. By taking out Saddam, more Islamic fundamentalists have become empowered and Iran is more powerful in the region.
Moreover, you can qoute one priest or an Italian academic, which may have some legitimacy, but the fact is that since the creation of Israel, they have had a policy of forcing Christians out of the Holy Land. At one time Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jericho, all had Christian majorities. The entire region was over 20% Christian–now it is less than 1% Christian. There has been a huge exodus in population. By not dealing with the secular and Christian influenced PLO (albeit corrupt with many problems) (Arafat’s last wife is Christian, Hanna Ashrawi is Greek Orthodox Christian, and Catholic Archbishop was in the governing council, George Habasch was born a Christian although probably a communist aethiest by belief but certainly not a nihilistic fundamentalist) I do NOT agree with him but Edward Said was Christian and made some good points. The point here is that Israel through her policies created (by direct funding and spycraft) a more fundamentalist Muslim society and political support. I can link plenty of articles (mainstream) on this. Israel wanted to destablize the PLO and play divide and conquer and in doing so created a bigger problem.
Israel is not friendly to the Christian population in terms of educational opportunity, economic opportunity, and land rights. That is why there has been a huge exodus.
Now, Israel is not the worse, it is certainly better than US allies like Saudi Arabia or genocidal maniacs like in the Sudan.
The fact is that US and Israeli policy has been devestating for Arab Christians and other non Arabs in the Middle East (like Assyrians, Armenians outside of Armenia, and non Arab Lebanese in and out of Lebanon)
Maybe some people think Bush should be hanged for all the people he killed.
The Usury he has increased.
Bush I and Barbara who are pro-abortion and all the unborn children.
All the women and children killed in Iraq.
Dresden was a war crime.
Hiroshima was a war crime.
Did we put Truman to trial?
Roe v. Wade predated all the European abortion laws.
Slavery present in the US after all of Europe and even Anglo Protestant England banned it and 300 years after papal encyclicals banning slavery.
The Enrons, and Cheneys in Haliburton and the profitting of war or the Iraqex/Lincolns, or Custar war groups LLC
The Skull and Cross bones, inside dealer business deals from anti-Catholic baby killing Chinese, to the oil wealth of those who fund terrorism
the Bushes have a case to be hanged
Michael:
I think that one can say that justice was done in that Saddam Hussein was punished for his undoubted crimes.
Whether this punishment was the one that best fit the crimes and the circustances in Iraq and of the day is debatable. But Saddam was a brutal man who regularly committed crimes against humanity. It is normal for people to crave a sense of retributive justice and to feel a sense of satisfaction that justice was done.
Kevin:
I don’t think that questions about the original invasion negate the legitimacy of the present government, which is no mere puppet of the US but rather the result of free elections.
The point is that Islamic extremists are created by the US when they replace secular regimes with Islamic fundamentalist regimes or create a leverage on the balance of powers in favor of Islamic fasicsts. By taking out Saddam, more Islamic fundamentalists have become empowered and Iran is more powerful in the region.
No, Paolo. Islam creates Islamic extremists. Islam itself is an extremist religion that advocates totalitarianism and encourages the genocide of non-Muslims who refuse to convert.
Besides, do you seriously think that Ahmadinejhad would *not* be seeking nuclear weapons if Saddam had remained in power? Remember that Ahmadinejad’s primary target is Israel.
BTW, Paolo, you never mention Islamic support for anti-Jewish genocide (such as through suicide bombing, which also is genocide against the Palestinians who engage in it). Why is that?
You know this reminds me of when the cubans started saying that St. Thomas defended tyranicide.
They just forgot that he said only when a safe and fully functional government will take over right away. Chaos is inferior to illegitamate government. So another question is this new “government”invented follows the requisites.
John,
Ecumenism is directly contrary to the assent of faith, and therefore is a serious violation of the First Commandment of God: I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
It depends on what definition of ecuminism one is using. That used by V2, for example, would have no application to Islam, but only to other Christian faiths.
I want to point out that the Vatican statement — which AFAIK has zero magisterial weight — does not say that the execution of Saddam was itself unjust.
It says “The execution of the guilty party is not a path to reconstruct justice.” This is a larger and more abstract consideration than whether “justice was done” regarding Saddam himself in his execution.
I don’t think there’s any question that “justice was done,” in the sense that Saddam surely deserved to die. Whether this was the best way to bring about justice is a prudential call. The Vatican statement represents one (non-authoritative) opinion; others will have different opinions.
I agree that justice was done and that Saddam should in fact have been executed, since his very existence in prison was a danger to the world.
However, have you seen the clips of the video they have been showing on the news? A bunch of guys in black hoods yelling things like “Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!” (the name of the worst Shiite militant) and “Go to Hell!” and Saddam being brave and saying as his last words “There is one God, Mohammed is his Prophet” which in Arabic apparently makes “Mohammed” his last word.
This makes it seem like a gang of Shiite terrorists captured and killed a Sunni leader out of hate and revenge, very similar to the famous beheadings of Americans we have been seeing.
JR
If this is true what you say then I have an issue with the way this was carried out as it should have been punishment for the mans crime and not a Sunni-Shite thing, but the Islamic world is so full of hate for everyone from Jew to Catholic to other Moslems that I cant fathom why the Pope would even try to reach out to them and do what he did
To be honest in my prior posts against ecumenism I really have no major issues with the reaching out to the other Christian faiths as I admire the Evangelicals and Orthodox somewhat-but ecumenism was somehow used by JPII to reach out to these pagan in the case of the Hindus and Budhists and hate filled in the case of the Moslems that I cant understand why B16 whom I admired 10x more than JPII would do what he did
Correct. Ecumenism is dialogue with other Christians; dialogue with non-Christians is interreligious dialogue, not ecumenism.
WHat does Joe Hippolito want to do?
Kill all the Arabs?
I’m new to this blog – in fact, I have not been very much involved in any blogs. No time. But I must say I haven’t seen such a flamefest since the old days in usenet.
I think that Saddam Hussein called his fellow Iraqis to peace a few days before his death. Maybe he had a thought there…
jj
John,
but ecumenism was somehow used by JPII to reach out to these pagan in the case of the Hindus and Budhists and hate filled in the case of the Moslems that I cant understand why B16 whom I admired 10x more than JPII would do what he did
No, it wasn’t. JPII never used ecuminism with non-Christian faiths.
I am going to suggest something radical — in the true sense of the word — John. Take a closer look at what Pope Benedict did. (Put aside Pope John Paul II for a moment, and stick to Benedict.) Compare it to what you have read before, the principles there have not changed. Pope Benedict has not re-written history. At most, he is challenging you (and the rest of hte world) to use your mind. The principles from before are still valid. When you compare what he has done, to what was said before and prayerfully reconcile the two, you will start to see that perhaps he is not so far off the mark. Perhaps when he uses a term he means something slightly different than St. Pope Pius X or Pope Pius XI did with the same term. Perhaps he is using a term here or there in a different context. Give him the benefit of the doubt, for a moment, and try to hear what he’s saying.
I think you’ll be surprised. I’m not asking you to start worshipping John Paul II. But if the man is declared a saint (I think even you can admit that he might be), you will have to adjust to the fact that perhaps God was trying to tell us something with this good and holy man. And when God speaks, we should listen.
Peace.
John,
I cant fathom why the Pope would even try to reach out to them and do what he did
The Holy Father is the one man who literally has the weight of the world on his shoulders. Not just the weight of the Catholic world, not just the weight of the Christian world. He is responsible for the souls of the entire world, including the Muslims.
Forgive him, a moment, if he is evangelizing the world the best way that he knows how. And again, you are talking about a good and holy man who, to say the least, takes his Catholic and Christian faith seriously. He is well aware of what his predecessors have written, and he is making every attempt to be a good steward with what he has received. Perhaps, he has an insight or two that the rest of us do not have.
What is the St. Francis DeSales qoute about baking Truth with sweetness?
Is the movie the Deer Hunter about Russian Orthodox or “Rusyn” Ruthenian Eastern Rite Catholics?
This man was a prisoner of war. We kill prisoners of war?
Of course, we already detain without due process and believe torture is a valid method of interrogation. We’re all men of the world, aren’t we?
And when we come to judgment?
JW,
We, as in the United States of America, didn’t kill the poor evil former dictator. The Iraqi government did.
Brother Cadfael, it’s always good to see your posts. To the point, eminently reasonable and just plain make sense.
Mary Kay,
Thanks. Have a blessed new year.
Ever heard of the Nuremberg trials? Prisoners of war who were found guilty of war crimes and/or crimes against humanity were put to death, yes.
More on the popular reaction to Saddam’s execution. One has to be concerned with the state of the souls of those who are gleefully jubilant at the thought of sending another person, no matter how evil, to hell.
“Is the movie the Deer Hunter about Russian Orthodox or “Rusyn” Ruthenian Eastern Rite Catholics?”
The latter.
What does this have to do with the topic?
Happy New Year, all(in spite of the grim discussion on this thread)!
The US should of done a wetjob on Saddam without invading the country
Assasinations on Slobodon Milosevic and Saddam Hussein could of saved a lot of money and time
Brother
Evangelization would have involved the Pope asking the Imams to visit a church to pray to Our Lord and savior and possibly while they were in the church the holy spirit would have come down upon them
To date all I have seen is the Pope praying silently towards mecca to Allah, as well as him in a synagogue praying with Jews (during his visit to Germany during WYD) for their “Messiah” with no rabbis joining in participation of holy mass, and likewise for JPII
So if evangelization is praying with these faiths on their turf-then maybe I and they have missed something over the past 1958 years how past popes and missionaries had done it before as the way they are doing it gives credence to these faiths and denounces Catholicism as a man is judged by his actions and my children seeing the Vicar of christ praying in a mosque gives credability to this faith that denounces the holy trinity and makes them feel that they can do likewise and pick and chose what truth they want to adhere to
The fallacy of looking for morsels of truth in all of these faiths is heresy-not evangelization
Has Turkey experienced a groundswell of Catholic conversions this past month? I doubt it but good try
John,
Please tell us how, exactly, you know that Pope Benedict was praying to Allah in the mosque? Please reply briefly and without rancor. Thank you.
John,
Evangelization would have involved the Pope asking the Imams to visit a church to pray to Our Lord and savior and possibly while they were in the church the holy spirit would have come down upon them
You are too intelligent to believe that there is only one “right” means of evangelizing.
To date all I have seen is the Pope praying silently towards mecca to Allah, as well as him in a synagogue praying with Jews (during his visit to Germany during WYD) for their “Messiah” with no rabbis joining in participation of holy mass, and likewise for JPII
Have you seen everything that the Pope has done, including behind the scenes? Have you read everything he has written, so that have the appropriate context? Have you discussed with him his intentions, so that you might know what he has in mind, but has not publicly discussed?
The fallacy of looking for morsels of truth in all of these faiths is heresy-not evangelization
According to Article IX of the Roman Catechism (Trent), “a person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity. Since, therefore, it is impossible that anyone be infected with the contagion of heresy, so long as he holds what this Article proposes to be believed….” The Roman Catechism further describes the sin of heresy as “rejecting what holy mother the Church proposes for our belief,” and in this regard, Article IX stresses that “the Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, … the visible one, the Pope….”
Now are you really proposing that you have been more faithful to Article IX than Pope Bendict XVI has?
Has Turkey experienced a groundswell of Catholic conversions this past month? I doubt it but good try
Again, you are too intelligent to actually believe that evangelization must produce immediate, not to mention visible, results before it is considered authentic. And do you really suppose that you have been responsible for the conversion of more souls than Pope Benedict XVI?
How can one pray for mercy upon Saddam while advocating his execution? If we pray one way and act another, aren’t we lying to ourselves and to God?
(To the tune “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”)
They made a noose,
They checked it twice,
They knew he was naughty
And never nice…
Saddam Hussein was finally hung.
They strung him up.
His cohorts as well,
When that trapdoor opened
He was sent to Hell…
Saddam Hussein was finally hung.
He murdered Shities and Sunnis,
He killed the Kurds too,
He tried to kill my Daddy
So I knew what I had to do.
So we invaded Iraq,
And ended his rule,
It’s cost us 3,000 troops
I don’t care, I’m just a fool…
Saddam Hussein was finally hung!
Saddam and his sons butchered hundreds of thousands, gassed thousands of Kurds, raped and mutilated hundreds of young girls, tortured and dismembered those who disagreed with them,and wiped out whole families down to the littlest infants.
I can understand the prudential arguments against executing him. I can also understand the prudential arguments in favor of executing him.
But, frankly, considering his bloody record, I hope he didn’t repent before death and is in one of the worst corners of Hell as imagined in the great Italian poet Dante Alligheri’s: THE INFERNO.
One reason I think our church had the homosexual-pedophile priest crisis is because of the lack of sheer outrage at the gross sins some evil people commit. Outrage so strong that only the ultimate penalty can be seen as “payment in full” for the injustices committed.
“…I hope he didn’t repent before death and is in one of the worst corners of Hell…”
I don’t see how we can possibly take this view. Jesus died for me when I was certainly hell-bound. Did He just die for those whose sins weren’t too awful?? That one should wish Saddam in Hell IF HE DID NOT REPENT is, I think, unavoidable. How could one want an unrepentant man in Heaven? But I thought that “God was not willing that any should perish”
Perhaps I just don’t understand, but I have prayed quite a bit for Saddam both before and after his death, and I hope there are those praying for me and who will pray for me when I have died. I know some of the terrible things I did before I was a Christian, and quite a lot of stuff I would not tell any of you about SINCE become a Christian.
God have mercy on us all – including Saddam!!
jj
John J.– God gave us the gift of Free Will. With that said–either there are at least some people in Hell or Free Will is meaningless and all the New Testament mentions of Hell (and the magisterium’s teachings on Hell) a fraud. I’m sorry, I have two sons who were altar servers and whenever I read of evil people like Saddam, I think of what could have happened to them if they ran into the wrong priest at the wrong time. And I then think of what CHRIST said about some evil people being better off if they had been thrown in a lake with a millstone around their necks. CHRIST was not a jellyfish, bootlicker to evil so many modern Catholics seem to have become. And if Christ can virtually wish evil ones to get the punishment they so rightly deserve–so can I.
The one thing the secular media was right about in the priest scandal was the anger, disgust, desire for strong justice, that they advocated—although mostly a show and born of a streak of bigotry.
I am convinced our high tolerance for evil –in a warped sense of forgiveness for even the unrepentent–is the source of so many of the recent scandals our church has had to endure.
To Deacon John:
Understood, and I was not speaking of tolerance of evil, but of hope for repentance. To be thrown into the sea with a millstone around one’s neck is to experience physical death. But are you saying that the Lord was also saying that in such a case, He willed the eternal death of such a person? Somehow that does not seem right to me. That men will go to Hell if they will not repent is absolutely true and right. That God wills anyone not to repent is the Calvinism which I left to become a Catholic.
If it is true that God does not will the damnation of anyone, then when I pray “Thy will be done,” surely I am also asking that all should repent. That not all will repent testifies to the reality of free will – but not, I hope, to the double predestinatory will of God.
Or so it seems to me.
jj
“Saddam Hussein was finally hung.”
We speak English around these parts. Make that, “Saddam Hussein was finally hanged.”
Deacon John,
Your comments are the most frightening I have seen at any time in any combox on any post. If Saddam was unrepentant, then hell will and should be his reward.
But to HOPE that that he did not repent, to HOPE that he is in hell, is as close to the unforgiveable sin as one can get. No evil, however egregious, is beyond God’s mercy. I beg of you to consider your words carefully.
Forgive us our sins as we forgive others.
Nate,
How can one pray for mercy upon Saddam while advocating his execution? If we pray one way and act another, aren’t we lying to ourselves and to God?
There is not necessarily any inconsistency between advocating his execution and praying for mercy. That would be a “lie” only if there were nothing beyond this world. If the Resurrection were a lie.
Whenever someone sets up a false dichotomy like Nate did, there is always someone on the other side of the false dichotomist who jumps headlong into said dichotomy. The result is usually either horrific or idiotic or both, but I’m beginning to suspect that doing so is an ingrained facet of original sin.
Jordan
I think it is a rhyme and a song
also it is GW Bush and Dan Quayle English grammar
Saddom should be executed.
I am glad he is out of power and dead.
I will still pray for his soul.
Nobody should necessarily be in Hell for eternity.
Let God judge.
Our whole faith is one of redemption, even for the greatest sinners, even after consciousness, even at the last breath of life.
I doubt if Saddom is saved and in heaven.
But that option was open to him.
Pray for him.
Judge him in human terms harshly and give more sympathy to his victims.
But pray for his soul.
Pray for some peace and stability in Iraq for our troops and all people.
“Nobody should necessarily be in hell for eternity.”
Hell is God’s respect for our freedom of choice. All those who are in hell have chosen to be there, because they can’t stand the sight of God. They hate being in hell, but they would hate heaven even more.
There are people in hell.
The point is that God’s mercy is greater than his justice and he allows redemption up to the last millisecond which is why the statement of no one is necessarily in hell.
Not to sound like a Protestant, but we are all unworthy (Romans) and could be in hell.
But with God we all, even this very very bad man, have the possibility of redemption.
Vitae
Accounts from the event show him in a posture of Moslem prayer with him mumbling the words of the Imam and this is from the AP not myself. What exact words really do not matter as just the fact he was there is the error. Sort of like telling your children that drugs are very bad and you must follow strictly to this rule, but that you yourself sometimes go out and visit drug dens and maybe even take a puff of that bad stuff now and then. If we are the One true church, and no one is pushing any violence towards these faiths, but why do we need to pray and worship with them unless the goal is the Masonic idea of one World religion under One God (Hence the new notion that we and the Moslems worship the same God, which is not clear but was condemned by past popes except JPII and B16)
Again I go back to the entire notion of a Pope praying with these false faiths, kissing their Korans and alike as no other pope, apostle, martyr etc would dare to do such unless even under the penalty of death. This can only one to actually surmise that this present course of action as well as the acceptance of many so called Catholics on this board that the church has indeed been infiltrated by those sympathetic to the Masonic cause and has taught and promulated this error now as church teaching hence the need for a new code of canon law, newe catechism, new tranlations of the bible, new mass with inept reanslations, new sacraments, new customs and an entire disdain for what was once catholic, hence the present praying with Imams under the false pretense that the Pope was “evangleizing” them.
I think evangelization is sort of how the evanglecals do it, like a Joel Osteen who is quite popular, as he speaks of Christ and salvation and also of the fires of hell
“I think it is a rhyme and a song”
Obviously it’s a song, and just as obviously the line ending in the word “hung” is not intended as a rhyme.
“also it is GW Bush and Dan Quayle English grammar”
Doesn’t sound like President Bush to me. I don’t see the words “nucular” and “strategery” anywhere in it.
My question is valid. If you pray for God to have mercy upon Saddam, yet your actions toward Saddam are unmerciful – then you have prayed for something that you are unwilling to work for.
It’s just like the story of the man who was in an ocean drowning. He prayed to God – “save me!” And then a boat came by, and tried to save the man, but the man waved them away. “God will save me!” the man yells as the boat cruises away. Then the man drowns.
If you want God to show Saddam mercy, God offers you a way to do that. He offers us a model of mercy – Jesus on the cross. You can’t act one way and pray another way.
Deacon John is at least being consistent – his prayer is for Saddam to suffer his just reward – eternal hell. And Deacon John was happy to see justice served up with a noose.
But if we pray for God to show mercy upon someone, we’d better be willing to do that ourselves.
Is execution *necessarily* unmerciful?
Nate,
I don’t disagree with the principle you are stating. If we pray for mercy we must be willing to do mercy in all things. Not just some of the time, all of the time.
I do disagree with your apparent application of that principle to the death penalty in such a way that application of the death penalty would always be unmerciful. That is simply not the case. With your rationale, it would seem to me, there could be no such thing as a just war because we have a similar duty to always work for peace.
War is evil, and therefore any attempt to justify it would be evil. But we know that there are circumstances where, nonetheless, peace requires a just war (without getting into all the niceties of what that requires).
Deacon John is not being consistent. The name implies that he is a Christian, and it is most unChrist-like to hope that anyone does not repent and go to hell. That is about as inconsistent as you can get.
I understand the emotion that says “I hope Saddam is in hell”. I feel similar emotions at times. But no emotion, in and of itself, is a sin. Sin is in the will. The emotion is a temptation. But to hope that some person is in hell, as an act of the will….(shudder)
I think evangelization is sort of how the evanglecals do it, like a Joel Osteen who is quite popular, as he speaks of Christ and salvation and also of the fires of hell
John:
Do you even know what Joel Osteen is about???
How many programs of his have you actually watched?
As for me, I used to watch his programs many times in the past until the episode where he actually preached about how he refused to give money to a homeless person because that homeless person did not want to attend his church.
Throughout the entire program, Joel Osteen kept preaching that we, as Christians, should not ever give to these folks unless they reform their lives accordingly (i.e., attend his church).
Now, as far as Scripture goes, in Matthew 25:31-46, in the one where Jesus separates the sheeps from the goats, and he says to those who are of the sheep:
34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed thee: thirsty and gave thee drink?
38 Or when did we see thee a stranger and took thee in? Or naked and covered thee?
39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
40 And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
Jesus preaches the significance of loving others regardless, the genuine Christian message of helping every person in need.
The message Joel Osteen was preaching in that episode was not Christian at all.
It was very Un-Christian, to say the least.
I love the church, I obey the her teachings, as a layman it is not clear to me what EXACTLY is the churches stance on capital punishment.
Don’t assume that I’m ignorant becuase I’ve read Michael’ rants and attacks and also the catechism and some of the Trent documents.
Anyway I’m glad that a murderer is gone, May God have more mercy than Saddam ever did.
Esau
To be honest I only know of what I have seen of him on TV as I would never spend money on a book that is not going to help the Catholic church or at least the Traditional Church
You are probably correct in what you are saying, what I was trying to portray is that the Evangelicals are taking a much harder stance on what the Pope has done as well as Ecumenism which many of them are not in agreement with, some for Papal hatred others for Islamic etc non acceptance and to some degree they are correct as without Jesus one can not be saved and the church seems to be wavering in her coddling with these false non catholic faiths
John:
Esau
To be honest I only know of what I have seen of him on TV as I would never spend money on a book that is not going to help the Catholic church or at least the Traditional Church
You are probably correct in what you are saying, what I was trying to portray is that the Evangelicals are taking a much harder stance on what the Pope has done as well as Ecumenism which many of them are not in agreement with, some for Papal hatred others for Islamic etc non acceptance and to some degree they are correct as without Jesus one can not be saved and the church seems to be wavering in her coddling with these false non catholic faiths
My point is that before you actually advocate any specific Evangelist, you had better know what they’re about first and foremost.
There are those whose message revolve more so on the almighty dollar bill than on the actual Christian message that has been given us by Christ.
Justice is done.
When did the Catholic Church turn so effeminate? Was it during the 1960s?
“Effeminate”, I take here to mean soft-headed and/or prone to sappy sentimentality–in any case the context makes it clear that it’s pejorative and that such attributes are peculiarly feminine, which is bull; otherwise it makes no sense to accuse men or male-dominated hierarchies of being “effeminate” in the first place.
Please refrain from using a gender as a pejorative. My respect level for the men who do, plummets dramatically when this happens. It makes you sound like a misogynist jerk.
Actually, I think the Church became “effeminate” when She became the Bride of Christ. The petrine dimension of the Church protects the marian dimension of the Church. The petrine dimension should retain what is authentically masculine to protect what is authentically feminine (or marian) within the Church.
The faulty assumption that BillyHW was making, imho, was that support for the death penalty is “masculine,” and the belief that it is not necessary, and therefore not appropriate, is “effeminate.” That, as Female-but-not-“effeminate” points out, is hogwash.
The death penalty is acceptable, as Aquinas points out, when it serves the common good. When it does not serve the common good, it is not morally acceptable.
Pope John Paul II observed that a death penalty that is not necessary to protect the common good is not morally acceptable. It is essentially the same observation that Aquinas was making, and there is nothing effeminate about it.
I would note that a member of the execution team has been arrested for filming the execution.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13259309/
A just sentence must be carried out justly.
Even if Saddam’s death sentence were just, the manner of his execution could fail to be just.
So if Jimmy’s point is that the execution of Saddam was just, as it was carried out, the Iraqi authorities appear to disagree.
JPII did not follow Aquinas teaching, and actually as he always did disregarded word for word what the Council of Trent taught about capital punishment, and that it was clearly just
JPII was the forerunner of the Cafeteria Catholic as he reinvented everything from Canon law (1983) to catechism, to the NAB, to the Mass (Paul VI but implemented horribly with retranslation after retranslation over much of his 26 years)
I saw a blog where they posted over 100 words and actions of JPII that by church teaching-even today-would be deemed apostate or heretical and hence the sedevacantist movement took off
John,
the sedevacantist movement took off
You have never spoken truer words, although perhaps you could have phrased it better: the sedevacantist movement took leave of their senses.
But I’ll give you a B+ for trying.
(The rest of your post is nonsense, per usual.)
Well, John, there is certainly no shortage of Popes in cyberspace.
Brother Cadafel correctly pointed out the following contradition between a revered Doctor of the Church is St Thomas (and of course the Council of Trent as well)and the clear contradiction of Pope (Make it up as I go along) JPII who once again refuted one of the greatest (and infallible council) and a Doctor of the church when he posted:
“The death penalty is acceptable, as Aquinas points out, when it serves the common good. When it does not serve the common good, it is not morally acceptable. Pope John Paul II observed that a death penalty that is not necessary to protect the common good is not morally acceptable
The teaching of the Church from the earliest centuries, as represented, e.g., in the writings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas
(Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 64, A. 2), and St. Alphonsus Liguori (all Doctors of the Church), as well as in the Encyclical Casti Conubii of Pope Pius XI, is that society has the authority to inflict punishments upon its
members, and even to deprive a criminal of his life, for the necessity of the
common good.
So I guess I am right that the Popes of today including JPII could care less about the past teachings just like the Good Brother and Tim.
No I am not a Pope, just a humble student who needs to correct his master when they try to pull the wool over my eyes
Brother Cadfael, usually your comments are among the most reasonable and solid. But not the I think the Church became “effeminate” when She became the Bride of Christ one. Ewww, that one creeps me out just writing it.
The word “effeminate” has such derogatory, pejorative, substandard associations. More importantly, it does not equate with feminine.
Because “effiminate” does not equate with feminine, it’s not an accurate word to describe either the Church or any woman.
Unlike Mary , I think Brother Cadafels comments are so un Catholic, like the following which takes the cake, I can only guess in his desire to compare some of the less masculine are due to the fact that scripture calls the church the Bride of Christ and compares this to the Marian side of the church (opposition to death penalty-homosexuality as well Brother?). Dear Brother-We are the brides of Christ-The members of his church!!! You fail once again to know your basic Cathechism (do they still teach that to you any more after the reform??)
I have never ever heard of such garbage, when scripture and the Catechism of the Church is clear as to what was meant by the “Bride of Christ”
The Church is the Bride of Christ
796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.234 The Lord referred to himself as the “bridegroom.”235 The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride “betrothed” to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.236 The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.237 “Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her.”238 He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:239
This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? “The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church.”240 And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”241 They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself “bride.”242
Jimmy,
Put this hobby horse down, PLEASE!!
John,
It’s not that I don’t care about past Church teachings. Instead, I recognize that Christ built his Church upon the Petrine office and the gates of hell shall not prevail against that Church. Therefore, I submit to the doctrine promulgated by the Pope and Magisterium, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Code of Canon Law, etc. The current Pope and Magisterium of the Church are best suited to interpret Holy Scripture and the past teachings of the Church, and my personal opinions (and those of sedevacantists) don’t mean a thing. Refusal to acknowledge that the Church’s current teachings are in harmony with past teachings is refusal to acknowledge that the Church is inerrant in matters of doctrine.
The Church, by its very definition, cannot err in matters of doctrine. Therefore, by seekign to follow the current teachings of the Church, I have no fear of the fires of hell for myself and my family. In the end, that is enough.
Tim
Our Lord did say that the gates of hell would not prevail-but he never said what shape,form or hierarchy the church would or should have upon his return and also did say that the saved would be few (hence devout)
Our Lord did say that the gates of hell would not prevail-but he never said what shape,form or hierarchy the church would or should have upon his return and also did say that the saved would be few (hence devout)
John:
Ever read Ratzinger’s Salt of the Earth???
You might find that it is good reading.
Never mind arguing with him, folks. Pope John has spoken. He is too busy correcting his master to bother correcting himself.
JOHN:
Here’s what Christian Century has to say about it:
In the second volume, Salt of the Earth, Ratzinger articulates his vision of a smaller, more faithful Catholic Church standing against a world staunchly opposed to faith. He imagines a church that is more akin to the faithful remnant described in prophetic biblical literature than to the church militant of most of the last two millennia.
Mary Kay,
Because “effiminate” does not equate with feminine, it’s not an accurate word to describe either the Church or any woman.
My apologies. I did not intend it in the perjorative sense, and perhaps should have used “feminine” to get my point across more clearly.
John,
I think Brother Cadafels comments are so un Catholic, like the following which takes the cake, I can only guess in his desire to compare some of the less masculine are due to the fact that scripture calls the church the Bride of Christ and compares this to the Marian side of the church (opposition to death penalty-homosexuality as well Brother?).
I enjoy a good Faulkner novel every now and then, but the lack of punctuation in this run-on sentence has completely obscured your point for me. I understand that you think I am “un Catholic” — I’ll try to get over my bitter disappoint at that.
I am particularly puzzled by the parenthetical. Just so it is clear, I agree with the Church that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, and that when it is necessary to protect the common good it is justified. I also agree with the Church that homosexuality is gravely disordered, and the failure of many in the heirarchy in the 20th century to recognize the gravity of the disorder has caused many to fail in their Petrine duties. I don’t know what other link between homosexuality and the death penalty you are trying to make.
Dear Brother-We are the brides of Christ-The members of his church!!! You fail once again to know your basic Cathechism (do they still teach that to you any more after the reform??)
Again John, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. Article 796 of the Catechism notes that “[the Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride ‘betrothed’ to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.”
Aricle 773 of the Catechism specifically links the Marian dimension of the Church to the mystery of the Church as the Bride of Christ: “‘[The Church’s] structure is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members. And holiness is measured according to the ‘great mystery’ in which the Bride responds with the gift of love to the gift of the Bridegroom.’ Mary goes before us all in the holiness that is the Church’s mystery as ‘the bride without spot or wrinkle.’ This is why the ‘Marian’ dimension of the Church precedes the ‘Petrine.'”
I’m not sure what part of the Catechism you claim I’m misunderstanding, but I’m always willing to learn.
This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks.
JOHN:
Please keep in mind what St. Paul says in 1st Cor 12 — That:
21 …the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help. Nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you.
22 Yea, much, more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body are more necessary
The Pope, being the visible head of the Body of Christ here on earth, cannot say to the least member, “I have no need of you.”
On the other hand, the least lay member cannot say to the Pope, who is the visible head of the Mystical Body of Christ here on earth, “I have no need of you.”
No member of the Body of Christ can say to the other, “I have no need of you.”
1 Cor 12:25 That there might be no schism in the body: but the members might be mutually careful one for another.
1 Cor 12:26 And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it: or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.
I don’t think it is possible to completely procure justice on anyone this side of heaven. Only God can render complete justice at judgement.
I don’t think it is our job to “render justice” as it is to protect the society as a whole. If his death was absolutely necessary to protect the welfare of the people in Iraq, then so be it (still death by hanging is barberic, leathal injection would have been a more humane choice). I think a bit of arrogance lies at the heart of the death penaly arguement. Somehow we think we ar better than those being who have commited crimes. I do not think I am better than Saddam, more enlightened, yes. I have had more grace shed upon me, having been born Catholic, raised in a good family, etc. But perhaps if I had lived his life, I would have been worse. We cannot read his heart. We are all miserable sinners.
And what about our own “crimes against humanity?” uh…abortion? Is Saddam worse than Dr. Tiller? Somehow in America if the killing is behind antiseptic walls in a posh office we think it’s okay.
David B
Hobby Horse?
I see this is as good open discussion, those like myself who are knowledgeble about the church prior to 1962 and though still adhere to church teachings of today, know there is something rotten in Denmark as deviations and defections from past teachings have occurred-and those like you and many at the highest levels of the church who want to silence those that speak out against this error
I would rather be in the minority as Saints and Martyrs were for centuries than follow like blind sheep and lemmings over the cliff to damnation
Kristin:
I don’t think it is possible to completely procure justice on anyone this side of heaven. Only God can render complete justice at judgement.
True — Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.
I don’t think it is our job to “render justice” as it is to protect the society as a whole.
You neglect:
Romans 13:4 For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
I think a bit of arrogance lies at the heart of the death penaly arguement. Somehow we think we ar better than those being who have commited crimes.
Remember, God gave kings and magistrates the power to rule and judge the people, which have carried over to those who are over us, and, thus, carry a great weight of responsibility:
Wisdom 6:1-3
1 Hear, therefore, kings, and understand; learn, you magistrates of the earth’s expanse!
2 Hearken, you who are in power over the multitude and lord it over throngs of peoples!
3 Because authority was given you by the LORD and sovereignty by the Most High, who shall probe your works and scrutinize your counsels!
But perhaps if I had lived his life, I would have been worse. We cannot read his heart. We are all miserable sinners.
As St. Paul said, “There But for the Grace of God go I”.
John,
You said that you “would rather be in the minority as Saints and Martyrs were for centuries than follow like blind sheep and lemmings over the cliff to damnation.”
My point is that by following the teachings of the Pope and Magisterium, we CANNOT fall over the cliff into damnation. Since the Pope and Magisterium CANNOT err in matters of doctrine, all Catholics are safe and secure by following the Church’s teachings. Saying that the Pope and Magisterium can err in matters of doctrine (i.e. related to damnation) is like saying God can make a rock so big He can’t move it… it’s just nonsensical.
Tim
JOHN:
David B
Hobby Horse?
David B is wrong here as it seems you have a steed!
I see this is as good open discussion, those like myself who are knowledgeble about the church prior to 1962…
If this knowledge prior to 1962 means the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, the decrees at Trent, and the writings of the Doctors of the Church, then, how can you even claim this when time and again, you fail to illustrate any knowledge whatever of even the most rudimentary notions stemming from these teachings as clearly illustrated in past discussions with various combox commenters???
…and though still adhere to church teachings of today, know there is something rotten in Denmark as deviations and defections from past teachings have occurred-and those like you and many at the highest levels of the church who want to silence those that speak out against this error
I would rather be in the minority as Saints and Martyrs were for centuries than follow like blind sheep and lemmings over the cliff to damnation
It is by your own teachings and error that you will bring yourself to the very damnation that awaits any who assumes authority over God and His Church!
I think it is possible for a devout Catholic to have many interpretations on this event, and I don’t think there is a moral absolute in this case. The Church has current position is that the death penalty should not be used unless it is absolutely necessary to protect the welfare of society. In this case, his death may have been necessary to procure peace in the region, if so, then it could be considered an act of war. Yet, I still, I am uncomfortable with it. Although, it is not my country…although my country definately played a role in the whole affair. I don’t think the quotes from the Old Testament completely apply, since Jesus established the new law and was mercy himself. He absolved the woman caught in adultery from the death penalty and forgave the good theif on the cross. Considering that hell is for eterntity and that you wouldn’t want your worst enemy to go there, it makes sense that we should contain criminals so they can be given the opportunity to repent, as long as we can be certain that they will not escape and hurt more people.
By the way, as someone wittily said in another thread, say “Hi” to Luther for me, will ya, once you’ve reached the same destination as he!
Yikes!
I meant the above comment to John…
I think it is possible for a devout Catholic to have many interpretations on this event, and I don’t think there is a moral absolute in this case.
Understood. This topic had been discussed in the past and I sympathize with your feelings.
The previous Holy Father, John Paul II, in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, looked at the situation in terms of modern social conditions and he judged, in his opinion, the conditions under which Capital Punishment should be used would be quite rare. He thought that it should only be used when society has no other way of defending itself.
He didn’t eliminate it all together. He didn’t say there are none, but he said he thought that they would be quite rare.
The Church has current position is that the death penalty should not be used unless it is absolutely necessary to protect the welfare of society. In this case, his death may have been necessary to procure peace in the region, if so, then it could be considered an act of war. Yet, I still, I am uncomfortable with it. Although, it is not my country…although my country definately played a role in the whole affair. I don’t think the quotes from the Old Testament completely apply, since Jesus established the new law and was mercy himself. He absolved the woman caught in adultery from the death penalty and forgave the good theif on the cross. Considering that hell is for eterntity and that you wouldn’t want your worst enemy to go there, it makes sense that we should contain criminals so they can be given the opportunity to repent, as long as we can be certain that they will not escape and hurt more people.
There are questions that could be raised about whether or not putting someone in prison for life, given the way modern prisons are; whether that really gives them a better chance of moral reformation than a quick and clear confrontation with their own mortality.
John,
I just called BEnedict up amd asked him to send a big, bad group of the Vatican secret service thugs over to your place to T.P. your house. :-3)
Yep, never fails. Every day, at least once a day, I am condemned by a total stranger to eternal damnation for NOT giving my opinion about that which I am being damned for. thanks, John. If I am going to hell for not liking your rudeness, then your idea of Heaven is truly Hell, and your idea of Hell, is really Heaven.
John,
I would rather be in the minority as Saints and Martyrs were for centuries than follow like blind sheep and lemmings over the cliff to damnation
You lose on the qualifier (“as Saints and Martyrs were”). They were in the minority for staying true to the Church, not rebelling against it.
Still, many people are converted in prison and some need more time. Think of Allasandro and St. Maria Goretti.
On the other hand, the life sentence may prevent such a conversion by their never being brought face to face with the fact that they will die. They go on their merry way and die suddenly in twenty years.
On the other hand, the life sentence may prevent such a conversion by their never being brought face to face with the fact that they will die. They go on their merry way and die suddenly in twenty years.
Tell me about it. There are those who become even worse criminals because of their experiences in prison, especially if it’s a long prison sentence.
Given that these folks are placed with people just as bad or even worse than they are, there is greater likelihood that they will turn out just as bad as they ever were or even worse because of the things that they’d experience and endure in prison and the fellow criminals they are put with to begin with.
In order to survive in prison (especially for the long duration), they quickly learn that they would need to become just as menacing or even worse than the next guy.
In order to survive in prison (especially for the long duration), they quickly learn that they would need to become just as menacing or even worse than the next guy.
Reminds me of Los Angeles.
Or high school.
Tim and Esau have said:
“My point is that by following the teachings of the Pope and Magisterium, we CANNOT fall over the cliff into damnation. Since the Pope and Magisterium CANNOT err in matters of doctrine, all Catholics are safe and secure by following the Church’s teachings. Saying that the Pope and Magisterium can err in matters of doctrine (i.e. related to damnation) is like saying God can make a rock so big He can’t move it… it’s just nonsensical.”
Ok-Then what does one do when the Popes such as Leo XIII, Pius X and XII condemned modernism in encyclical after encyclical and ecumenism as well and now the church in JPII and B16 has embraced it its totality
Who has erred and do you think the church is better off
Although I (or you) may not be able to see it, the current teachings of the Church are in harmony with the past teachings of the Church. Therefore, the Pope and Magisterium are not in error.
John, sometimes we have to do that which is almost impossible… we have to submit based upon faith in the promises of Christ. We can’t see it all right now, but it will all work out in accordance with God’s plan.
Coming from a Anglo-Catholic, High Church Anglican background, I was appalled when I first began the process of becoming Catholic. I hated the liturgy! I still look back with longing on the solemn High Mass and the reverence of that worship (I still get my liturgy “fix” from time to time by traveling to an Anglican Use Catholic parish). However, I have looked at the current Pauline Rite and can see WHY the liturgy changes were made and accept it, and the Church’s current teachings, on faith.
John, hang in there, and don’t abandon the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to go to the sedevacantists, SSPX, or their ilk. The current abuses will be corrected in time, just as Trent corrected the abuses of its time.
The current abuses will be corrected in time…
This is the very reason I greatly encourage John (JTNOVA) to read Ratzinger’s Salt of the Earth.
Yet, it seems more likely that John has made himself the High & Mighty moral equivalent of the ‘Great’ Dr. Martinus Luther, who in his awful arrogance said:
“If your papists make unnecessary fuss about the word Sola, say straight out to him Dr. Martinus Luther would have it so and says papists and donkeys are one and the same thing. Thus, I will have it, thus I will order it!
For we will not be scholars and disciples of the papists but their masters and judges! We must once, in a way, act a little haughtily and noisily with these jack asses! This is my answer to your first question and as to their unnecessary noise about the word Sola, I beg of you not to give these donkeys any other or further answer but simply say this: Dr. Luther will have it so and says he’s a doctor above all the doctors in the whole of papary.”
Although, in John’s version:
“If your papists make unnecessary fuss about the Traditional Mass, say straight out to him Johannes de Nova would have it so and says papists and donkeys are one and the same thing. Thus, I will have it, thus I will order it!
For we will not be scholars and disciples of the papists but their masters and judges! We must once, in a way, act a little haughtily and noisily with these jack asses! This is my answer to your first question and as to their unnecessary noise about the Traditional Latin Mass, I beg of you not to give these donkeys any other or further answer but simply say this: Johannes de Nova will have it so and says he’s a doctor above all the doctors in the whole of papary.”
“My point is that by following the teachings of the Pope and Magisterium, we CANNOT fall over the cliff into damnation. Since the Pope and Magisterium CANNOT err in matters of doctrine, all Catholics are safe and secure by following the Church’s teachings. Saying that the Pope and Magisterium can err in matters of doctrine (i.e. related to damnation) is like saying God can make a rock so big He can’t move it… it’s just nonsensical.”
This is one reason why the controversy over capital punishment is so important. The Church’s current position of de facto abolitionism (which is what opposing the execution of Saddam Hussein and Timothy McVeigh amounts to) directly contradicts doctrine established by Scripture and Tradition. Nobody needs to be a “sedevacantist” or a “radtrad” to see that.
Those of you who believe that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to embrace doctrinal error should remember that the Holy Spirit allowed the Divided Kingdoms of Israel and Judah to become smitten with idolatry — so much so that God used the Assyrians and Babylonians, respectively, to punish them through conquest and captivity, thus depriving them of the independence that God granted both nations so they could be His oracle on earth.
Who says that such punishment cannot happen again to a Church that substitutes moral fashion that makes God’s Word void?
From the Pope himself (John XXIII):
[The Council must present] “the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers [and] transmit that doctrine pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, not withstanding difficulties and constraints, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by
all, but always a rich treasure available to men of Good Will. The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this, that the Sacred
Deposit of Christian Doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously [with a] renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in their entirety and preciseness, as they still shine forth in the acts of the council of Trent and the First
Vatican Council…. The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental
doctrine of the Church. –Pope John XXIII, Opening Speech to the Council, October 11, 1962
There will be no infallible definitions. All that was done by former Councils. That is enough. –Pope John XXIII (“Gaudet Mater Ecclesia,” October 11, 1962)
So then who is following the “church” and who is following pastoral teachings and Bishops in revolt? I think it is though who adhere to the teachings pre 1962 who are actually following the Pope and the Pope who called the council, not the reformers all of whom have and still have no infallibility attached to them
Justice will only be done when the Zionist pigs are also dangling on the end of ropes. The Israelis are Murderous, elitist, arrogant, parasitic psychopaths.
JOHN:
“The years between 1519 and 1521 were the «golden years» of the charismatic Luther (Oberman), rich with publications and speeches; the Augustinian monk from Erfurt seemed he had reached a «hypnotic sureness», aware and proud of his mission consisting in proclaiming out loud the truth of Christ’s Gospel against the Antichrist (the papacy of Rome), for a genuine and urgent reform of the Church.”
Now, who does that sound like???
Thus, I will have it, thus I will order it!
And cursed.
Many malidictions do they have upon them.
Yes Esau; consider this possibility: Martin Luther was a set-up to divide Christianity. Now protestants and Catholics are fighting each other instead of the forces of anti-Christ.
Yes Esau; consider this possibility: Martin Luther was a set-up to divide Christianity. Now protestants and Catholics are fighting each other instead of the forces of anti-Christ.
That’s just it — I believe we must dispense with the filth of the past and try to work together against the hidden enemy. That can also include our elder brethren, the Jews.
Ephesians 6:12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.
That is, I still believe the Jews, regardless of whatever else anyone might say, are still included as among the Chosen people of God!
Wow. Joseph D’Hippolito, John, and (if she was serious)MaryC. That’s three angry hobby horses too many on this thread!!!
Esau,
You and I (and Tim Brandenburg )are the only non-hobby horses still posting. Whadda say we ride on outta here and let these folks play in the mud?
I’m glad he’s gone. I’m Catholic but I never prayed for Saddam’s soul and I will continue to NOT do so. I do feel sorry that a life went so miserably wrong and led to such depravity.
David B.:
Superb suggestion! Happy Trails, my Catholic brother!
“Justice will only be done when the Zionist pigs are also dangling on the end of ropes. The Israelis are Murderous, elitist, arrogant, parasitic psychopaths”.
MaryC- How about moving to Iran?- I hear their “president” would love to share in your ignorance!.
erick and Esau
I refuse to get into the discussion on the Jews as I feel they deserve respect, but I totally agree that ecumenism has been thwarted by those that took a pastoral council in which the Pope John XXIII clearly stated was such and used it as a blanket to corrupt and subvert the church
Notwithstanding those like yourself ride your own hobby horse as it was always the church teachings for 1900 years as there is encyclicals and writings from popes and alike which clearly state that it is totally correct to be against the Jewish person as a religion but NOT as a race (if they should even be considered such) and not antisemitic. Those as yourself have much like the liberal Bishops and Cardinals taken this to use against anyone who dare speak out against the state of Israel and you so quickly use the JPII line of “elder brother”. Well lets not fool ourselves as scripture is plain and clear that those who deny the divinity of our Lord will not be saved and as far as I recall the Jews have yet to sign on
Again I leave it at that as those as yourself will try to misconstrue and throw all kinds of labels around like Anti semite-but the facts are clear and so is scripture
John_
?.
John-
Never mind that Jesus was a Jew!.
Never mind that MaryC is advocating murder!.
Never mind that this is supposed to be a Christian site for discussion!.
David B. and Esau… I concur. I’m out of here.
Gentlemen
Jesus was a Jew who founded a new religion called Catholicism-forget that?
As far as what Mary said I actually did not see her first post and I agree that is horrible and is totally against church teachings and I abhor that and I am sorry as hatred of any race is unacceptable
I though think your response was not correct and played the hobby horse in which you continue to brand people and label them and ignore what they have posted (have you read what I have stated right from John XXIII as far as the Vatican II council not being dogmatic?)
John,
have you read what I have stated right from John XXIII as far as the Vatican II council not being dogmatic?
In the quote you provided he said that there were going to be no infallible definitions. That is true, and as he stated, there were none.
He did not say there were going to be no infallible teachings. You do recognize the difference, I hope, between infallible teachings and infallible definitions.
John XIII: The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this, that the Sacred
Deposit of Christian Doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously [with a] renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in their entirety and preciseness, as they still shine forth in the acts of the council of Trent and the First
Vatican Council.
He is talking about an authoritative “teaching.” An authoritative teaching need not necessarily be infallible in all its points, but it most likely will be in some, particularly where the focus is on teaching doctrine “in its entirety” and with “preciseness.”
Bottom line, I’m not sure what you are referring to in Pope John XIII’s speech that indicated the Council would not be “dogmatic,” or what you mean by the term “dogmatic” in that sense. As such, I may be missing your main point.
I though think your response was not correct and played the hobby horse in which you continue to brand people and label them and ignore what they have posted (have you read what I have stated right from John XXIII as far as the Vatican II council not being dogmatic?)
JOHN:
I’m sorry to jump in here all of a sudden after having said “Happy Trails”, but I couldn’t resist:
John, in your comment above to erick, what posts from erick in the threads “Bible Scholar of the Year” and “The Anti-Luther” makes you actually think that erick is Catholic??? If you had actually read his various comments in those threads you would know that erick is, in fact, Anti-Catholic! That said, he could care less about your quotes from John XXIII!
Esau
Have a nice weekend
John
JOHN:
You, too.
esau-
At the risk of rolling my eyes after you answer- Why am I anti-Catholic?.
Are you anti-Protestant?.
Is your logic once more turnig against you?.
You need to limit yourself with commentaries about “Star Wars” and Science fiction, you seem to do well with those,(and bold letters).
Erick,
as a response to your post way above; it doesn’t matter what the majority of Catholics think about the execution or the death penalty. What matters is what Christ teaches us and how we are directed to impliment that teaching by the Magesterium of the Holy Catholic Church…which Jesus christ Himself gave authority to.
erick –
I don’t remember if in our lengthy exchange in another combox you asserted that the Pope is the anti-Christ, but I know one person did.
That would certainly qualify a person as an anti-Catholic in my book (among other things).
Esau may have you confused with another.
Tim J-
I have NEVER said such a thing!!!.
Both esau and you need to do better homework before you acuse!.
The fact that I don’t align my theology with Rome does not make me anti-Catholic- anymore than it makes you anti-Protestant.
Having said that, I challenge you to find any remarks on my part that calls the Pope an anti-christ!.
Unlike most I need not resort to such stupidities to make my case known.
From what I have seen, I would not describe Erick as anti-Catholic. In fact, I would say that he displays far more respect for the Holy Father than others on this blog who call themselves Catholic.
Disagreement with Catholic theology does not, in my opinion, make one an anti-Catholic. Jack Chick is an anti-Catholic. Erick just tries to demonstrate, sometimes passionately, why his particular version of protestantism is right and certain tenets of Catholicism are wrong.
(He can’t help it if he’s just wrong!)
Okay, okay, erick… calm down. That was the point of my post. I NEVER called you an anti-Catholic.
I think Esau had you confused with another.
I do not need to look for your previous comments… if you say you are not anti-Catholic, I will take you at your word, unless you subsequently demonstrate otherwise.
I have appreciated your combox etiquette.
Is your logic once more turnig against you?.
As in my last post to you concerning your previous comment:
That is an interesting diatribe indeed.
However I have answered your questions plenty of times— you just cannot accept it!.
I loved that about you!
You accuse people here of putting forth a circular argument.
Yet, the fool that you are continues to proclaim that you believe the bible is inspired, God-breathed, etc. because “the bible tells you so”!
But, if the Church hadn’t determined the Canon of the New Testament in the first place, and you alone were the one to actually sort out the many books that existed then to figure out which of these was Scripture and which of them was not–
Oh how convenient that it was because of the authority of the Church, the Church established by Christ himself, that actually determined the Canon and preserved the Word throughout the centuries, that you are able by hindsight to determine just which books are actually inspired, God-breathed, etc.!
Where are you to find in the Books of the Gospels, in the Pauline letters, where are you to find in any Epistle in the Bible, the names of the books, any mention in any of these that would authenticate certain books as being Scripture from those which were not???
What is your means of determining just what is Scripture from those that are not?
Is it because they were written by an Apostle??? How, then, would you know this as a matter of fact??? Not all these books were, in fact, written by an Apostle. Even those that are purported to having been written by such a one, various scholars to this day maintain they were not.
Also, what are we to make of the Letter to the Hebrews???
How do you know that it is part of Scripture??? Do you know who, in fact, wrote it???
If you deny the authority of the Church, then you shouldn’t place your trust in its determination of the Canon of the New Testament and should proceed to resurrect all the books the Church rejected as being Scripture time and again in the Councils of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) and decide for yourself if these were, in fact, Scripture or not!
If you were to continue to place your trust in the very books contained in the New Testament, then you deceive yourself since you are placing your own trust in the very Church that decided these books being Scripture!
After all, how can you trust the Church as it is but a man-made institution established by the evil powers of Rome, who could have but intentionally made mistakes, or, better yet, served an ulterior motive, in putting together the Canon of the New Testament — the Canon which Protestants even to this day still trust! The Church, with all its wiles and wicked intentions, could have declared a book back then during the time of the Councils to not be Scripture when, in fact, it actually was!
So much for the fallible, man-made Roman invention: the Catholic Church — eh??? So, as I have asked, why trust it and the Canon of books it had declared to be New Testament Scripture???
Thus, continue to ride the waves of Sola Scriptura until all of these waves of 37,000 denominations finally crash in upon you and all your cohorts when the time of judgment arrives and you continue to deny the One True Church — the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church!
test
Whatever happened to speaking the truth with LOVE? 🙂
And regarding Saddam Hussein, here’s a beautiful prayer:
“O my Love, please let Your mercy shine forth! I ask it of You in spite of my wretchedness, for those who will not ask.”
-Saint Teresa of Avila
“Love of Good that does not in return hate Evil is the love of a timid one who ends up being a traitor!”
-Can’t Say!