 |
| Credit |
Unfortunately, those on the right are no better. The right are passionate in their defense of the unborn and of the sick, weak and elderly who so often have no voice in our world. And that truly is commendable. But then they also fight for the right to capital punishment - killing criminals who need as much time in this life as they can get for a chance at repentance - and the right also fights against anyone strange and unknown coming into their land, no matter how desperate these people may be. We are talking about victims of war and persecution who have seen their homes destroyed and left with nothing but the clothes on their back. There is a faint, faint chance that 1 in a million may be a terrorist (if the odds are even that high), so it's us first and forget about anyone else.
Word in the news now is that Trump says the wall blocking off Mexico will be built in the new few months, and he plans to indefinitely ban ALL immigrants from Syria, and implement a month-long ban against all immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen. When the program does resume, it will be cut in half, allowing far fewer refugees into the United States.
 |
| These Syrian refugees better forget about coming to the US |
Pope Francis on Saturday warned against populism, saying it could lead to the election of "saviours" like Adolf Hitler.
In an hour-long interview with Spanish newspaper El Pais, conducted as Donald Trump was being sworn in as US president, the pontiff also condemned the idea of using walls and barbed wire to keep out foreigners, among them refugees and migrants.
"Of course, crises provoke fears and worries," he said, but added that for him "the example of populism in the European sense of the word is Germany in 1933".
The pope added: "Germany ... was looking for a leader, someone who would give her back her identity and there was a little man named Adolf Hitler who said 'I can do it'."I do not like speculating about prophesy and "signs". But I can't help but notice that we are in 2017, the centennial year of Fatima, and that we have just concluded the Year of Mercy. Our Lord told St Faustina that first He would offer mercy to the world and for those who do not accept His Mercy, then judgment. Through Pope Francis we have just been offered a Year of Mercy, offered to the entire world.
"Hitler did not steal power," the pope said. "He was elected by his people and then he destroyed his people."
Many did not even take notice of this offer of Mercy, and went on with their lives as normal. Certainly the world has only gotten worse since the Year of Mercy stated in 2015.
Is now the time of judgment?
Write down these words, My daughter. Speak to the world about My Mercy; let all mankind recognize My unfathomable Mercy. It is a sign for the end times; after it , will come the day of justice. While there is still time, let them have recourse to the fount of My Mercy; let them profit from the Blood and water which gushed forth for them…….. before I come as the just one, I first open wide the gates of My Mercy. He who does not pass through the gates of My Mercy must pass through the gates of justice. (Diary 848)I am also concerned about President Trump's seemingly close relationship with Russia. Our Lady of Fatima warned about the errors of Russia:
Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.President Trump has more than once praised President Putin of Russia, calling him a strong leader and calling for closer ties between our two countries. Trump seems to ignore the fact the Putin is a despot who murders his enemies. He boldly invaded the Ukraine. He is helping the tyrannical leader of Syria in Syria's civil war, bombing women and children and even hospitals.
President Trump has also said he plans to build up our nuclear weapons, as has Putin. Where does this put the rest of the world?
If America insists on turning her back on those in the most need, we cannot expect Our Lord to be there for us. As He said, whatsoever we do to the least of his brethren, we do unto Him. He did not make a caveat of, you don't have to do this if there is a slight chance that there might be bad people among those you are helping. Certainly Christ never made that distinction when He walked the earth.
Last year when Pope Francis was asked about Donald Trump, he replied:
A person who thinks only about building walls - wherever they may be - and not building bridges, is not Christian ... I'd just say that this man is not Christian, if he said it this way.What hath the United States wrought in the election of Donald J. Trump?
on another note, did you see President Trump put in a plug for this Weekend's March for Life?
ReplyDeletehttp://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com/2017/01/trump-promotes-2017-march-for-life-in.html
Yes, but to me this is as much an example of cognitive dissonance as the left pushing for abortion. How can you shut out war refugees and push for capital punishment and at the same time say that you are pro life because you are against abortion? My mind just goes "TILT" at this whole thing.
DeleteAnd to be honest, I don't trust for a moment that Trump is pro life. He is supporting this movement because this is what his supporters are about. It is convenient for him. He made a very blanket statement back in his "liberal" days that although he did not like abortion, he "absolutely" supported a woman's right to choose.
"It is convenient for him." I'm glad to have whatever measures he puts in place that are pro-life (like the restoration of the Mexico City policy a few days ago), but I think you are right: All the evidence we have of his character and record seems to suggest this is a position of political convenience for him, unfortunately. Pro-lifers would be wise to expect little from this administration, and to assume nothing.
DeleteThat is, unfortunately, a very wise position to take.
DeleteThis is yet another unfortunate elevation of the animus against capital punishment into a dogmatic position such as that which obtains in Church doctrine against abortion and euthanasia, which it simply is not.
ReplyDeleteAs the Catechism says, echoing what John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae: "2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." After which it goes on to affirm a preference for non-lethal means, where these are effective, noting that this is quite often the case in developed countries. Nonetheless, it clearly works to stay in some continuity with longstanding Church teaching, which has always allowed room for the state to resort to the death penalty. Were it to do otherwise, it would not only engage in rupture with that teaching, it would also stand in condemnation of the over 180 popes who ruled as sovereign over a polity (the Papal States) which employed capital punishment in its organic legal code through its entire existence (and which remained on Vatican City's code books until 1969).
It is possible as a Catholic to advocate against the death penalty. But it is also possible to advocate for it, too. In this respect, I would recommend Edward Feser's and Joseph Bissette's forthcoming book, "By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of the Death Penalty" (Ignatius Press).
You are not theologically wrong. But I have every right to disagree with you, as does most of Church authority.
DeleteThe death penalty is designed to keep people safe from those who could do them harm. Those men (and women) living behind bars are of little danger to the rest of us. Our first concern for them should be their souls, for truly they are in eternal peril. Killing them when it is not necessary shows no concern for their souls whatsoever.
We do not live under the Old Covenant where people could be stoned for breaking the Sabbath. Our Lord brought a new way of dealing with sinners, and that is love and mercy and concern for their souls, not vengeance.
Have you cared to quote the revised version of that Catechism?
Delete"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.""
I think that about covers it. Thank you very much.
Delete"But I have every right to disagree with you, as does most of Church authority."
DeleteRight. As I said: "It is possible as a Catholic to advocate against the death penalty." So long as we are clear that the argument is on prudential grounds, and that it is not mandated by Church doctrine (as is the case with, say, opposition to deliberate abortion or euthanasia).
"The death penalty is designed to keep people safe from those who could do them harm."
Well, we should be clear that this is *one* of the justifications for capital punishment (or indeed any criminal punishment): Incapacitation. And in the present U.S. capabilities and circumstances, it can typically be accomplished through life imprisonment.
Of the other four classic justifications for punishment - rehabilitation, punishment, retribution, and deterrence - the last three are served by capital punishment, too. There have been numerous (reputable) Catholic defenses of the death penalty, such as that of Aquinas in SCG 3.146. The most recent papal defense was offered, I believe, by Pope Pius XII in the 1950's.
We live in a very different world from St. Thomas Aquinas and even that of Pope Pius XII. The only real reason for the death penalty is to protect the public from imminent danger. There can be no other good reason to kill anyone, not even a truly malevolent person. We have very good prisons in our world today. Ergo, I don't see how anyone claiming to be a follower of Jesus Christ can truly support the death penalty.
DeleteSt. John Paul II on the death penalty:
"May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world." (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).
"A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary." (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
Pope Benedict XVI on the death penalty, 2011:
"I greet the distinguished delegations from various countries taking part in the meeting promoted by the Community of Sant’Egidio on the theme: No Justice without Life. I express my hope that your deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty and to continue the substantive progress made in conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order."
Pope Francis on the death penalty, June 2016:
"Pope Francis called for a world “free of the death penalty” in a video message supporting the sixth World Congress against capital punishment, currently being held in Oslo, Norway. He said the practice brings no justice to victims, but instead fosters vengeance.
“Indeed, nowadays the death penalty is unacceptable, however grave the crime of the convicted person,” Francis said on the message released on Tuesday.
“It is an offence to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person; it likewise contradicts God’s plan for individuals and society, and his merciful justice,” the pope said."
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/06/21/pope-francis-calls-world-free-death-penalty/
"We live in a very different world from St. Thomas Aquinas and even that of Pope Pius XII."
DeleteCulturally, it's more deranged, to be sure.
But it is hard to argue that either our prison system, or that of Italy's, are significantly more secure than they were in the 1950's. That's a time period still in living memory, and these societies were already part of the developed world.
"The only real reason for the death penalty is to protect the public from imminent danger."
Catholic teaching has always recognized more justifications than this one. You just can't reduce it to that. There is no magisterial basis for doing so - not on principle.
The stances of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (and Francis) are/were no doubt sincerely held, and from charitable motives. These views should get a respectful hearing from Catholics. But in this, they were not, and could not be, speaking in a way that binds the faithful. It may well be that certain circumstances in certain places no longer make the application of the death penalty justifiable as a matter of prudence. But it cannot be completely excluded on theological moral principle. Otherwise, we're left to ask why we should say Francis, BXVI, and JPII were correct on this matter, but John XXIII, Pius XII, Pius XI, Benedict XV, and a couple hundred of their predecessors....were not right. And if it's just a question of changing conditions, we're only talking about a contingent argument. Not a change in teaching.
No the views held by he three most recent popes, a saint among them, do not bind the faithful. But they should definitely inform the faithful. You are free to hold your views in supporting the death penalty, and I am free to disagree with you, as are these three popes and most of church authority.
DeletePersonally, I cannot understand any follower of Jesus Christ being in favor of killing anyone, especially someone whose soul is in eternal peril. In my mind, that is like condemning them to hell.
We also have not even mentioned the many, many people on death row who were found innocent 20 or 30 years after being convicted due to DNA evidence. But I guess that doesn't measure into your decision to kill someone convicted of a violent crime.
In fact I haven't made any argument for the death penalty in the U.S. - just pointed out that this is not a doctrinal requirement that we must oppose it on principle. I'm actually troubled by the pattern of expanding the death penalty to apply to more and more federal crimes.
DeleteYet as for the question of the salvific state of such criminals: it's far from unprecedented for imminent execution to result in conversions to the faith. The cases of Jacques Fesch and Claude Newman are worth examining in this regard. It doesn't necessarily follow that life imprisonment is automatically more likely to lead to such conversions (however much it might increase the time period for them to take place).
So I guess the best way to lead someone to conversion in to hold a gun to their head?
DeleteAnd if you haven't been making an argument for use of the death penalty, then what in the world have we been discussing? I already agreed that the death penalty is not against Church doctrine. I have just made the argument that most Church authorities agree that it is not necessary in our age.
Dear CIB,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding...I thought it was related to your topic because Trump was responding to Muir bringing up the women's march.
regarding the refugees and uncontrolled immigration I would like you people who seem to want a sort of lassaiz faire border to contemplate the following:
Strict controls on immigration saves lives.
How?
every year we in South Texas read about hundreds of poor souls who perish out in the sticks here from dehydration, exposure, etc. If there had been a wall or even better enforcement, I cannot imagine a scenario where those deceased people wouldn't still be alive. (probably living happily with intact families in their ancestral homelands.)
a similarly sad situation has occurred in the Mediterranean. On Lampedusa in 2013 the Holy Father highlighted his invitation to boat people. Since that time the annual death toll due to drownings has sky-rocketed 25 fold (( http://mapreport.com/subtopics/d/migrant.boat.accident.html ))
I don't see how the Holy Father doesn't share some responsibility for luring these people out of their homelands.
The Holy Father "luring" people out? These people are not living in comfort and security like we are. They live in squalor with no hope for the future. That is why they are willing to risk everything - including their lives - for a better future. It is the same thing that drove our ancestors in the 17th and 18th Century to come to America, facing horrendous hardships in an uncivilized land with no one to help them.
DeleteOne of the main reasons we are seeing the terrible tragedies among the refugees is because so many have turned their backs on them, and we will all have to answer for that. If we were there to help them, they would not have to depend on those who are taking advantage and putting their lives at risk.
>>>>The Holy Father "luring" people out? These people are not living in comfort and security like we are. They live in squalor with no hope for the future.<<<
Deleteas they have for centuries and have lived contentedly. When westerners dangle the prospect of a welfare-state before people used to working with their own hands for a living, many happy people suddenly become unhappy. Their families are roiled and their cultures are subjected to whatever Western fad dominates. Currently LGBT is the rage, in 10 years it might be something even more inimical to those cultures. We must help them. Corporally and spiritually, but promoting mass migration does neither. It disrupts lives and gets people killed along the way.
The Holy Father, and you, seem to think you are doing these people a great favor by transplanting them into secular western-welfare states which eschew God and tradition and worship Hollywood values. Please don't tell me you think America and Europe are something other than that!
People love home. Texans have convinced themselves they are living in heaven....most visitors here disagree. Believe it or not, most people, even Arabs and Africans and Asians, think their native land is the closest thing to heaven.
We must help these people since we funded the wars in Syria and Libya and Iraq and Yemen and Afghanistan and ???. So we do owe them. But we must be careful not to encourage any more deadly migration waves. You and the Holy Father seem unaware of all people who will die along the way.
I really do have to disagree with you, Has the drug cartel ruled in Mexico for centuries, spreading violence and murder everywhere? So people have lived in squalor for centuries and therefore we have the right to turn our backs on them and not share the many blessings we have been given? I am afraid you are trying to justify not helping people who are in great need. You need to read Matthew 25. You remind me of those who pass by the homeless man on the street and say it is his own fault, I don't need to help him.
DeletePeople will die along the way? That is your reasoning? I guess you could say the same thing about those who came to America in earlier centuries. Many of them died along the way as well, and those who settled the western US - many of them died of disease and starvation and were killed by Indians - guess they should have stayed where they were. J
I refuse to accept your reasoning. It is all about finding justification for not helping those in need and goes completely a against the teaching of Jesus Christ.
>>>...People will die along the way? That is your reasoning? I guess you could say the same thing about those who came to America in earlier centuries. Many of them died along the way as well, and those who settled the western US - many of them died of disease and starvation and were killed by Indians - ...<<<<
DeleteCIB,
at the risk of getting off topic.... Your perspective ignores the viewpoint of the Indians. They were the Americans. the Europeans were invaders. The latter drove out the former with countless wars and genocide. Surely you aren't ignorant of this. You just ignore it because it doesn't suit yours (and the Pope's) distorted view and your unconscionable painting of population displacements as safe and harmless.
Immigrants lives matter! The Holy Father and you are willing to gamble --in the present-- with the lives of boat people and 'wet-backs' in order to build new multicultural societies--sometime in the future.
What is wrong with helping them where they are, minus the drownings, minus the unmarked graves, minus the drug-filled backpacks, minus the child prostitution and all the other evils that go along with un-regulated borders? Helping them and encouraging them to stay at home would save the lives of many desperate people. lives that Pope Francis seems willing to sacrifice.
Wow, I don't know where to begin. What we did to the Native Americans of this country - the horrendous genocide - is a whole different topic. My point is that those who settled American a couple of centuries ago put their lives at risk. That was my argument to your statement that no one should leave their homeland because they put their lives at risk. You are the one getting way, way off topic.
DeleteThe point I was trying to make is that no one wants to leave their home, everything known and familiar. But there are times when life is so untenable that people feel they have no choice. Those in Syria have lived with the hell of war for over 5 years. Right now the death count is 450,000 people, including over 50,000 children. That is what they are running away from. And you are saying they should not leave because it will put their lives at risk??!!! What can I say to that.
In Mexico, the US estimates at least 80,000 people have been killed in the drug wars since 2006. That doesn't take in all of the other pain and suffering endured by these people. Also, the average worker earns $5.10 a day or less in Mexico. You honestly can't understand why they would want to come to this country to find a better life for themselves and their families? You don't think they deserve any help?
Yes, immigrant lives do matter - that is my whole point. And my point is that people are running away from hell, and we should be there to help them. President Trump has said he wants to block ALL Syrian refugees - I think that is a monstrous position to take.
If you can't see what I am saying, then I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.
DeleteMr.Trump has promised to set up safe-zones in Syria. If he welshes on that, then he has earned your scorn. If he succeeds, then we should be thankful that America---after 5 years of gun-running and hand-wringing and hot air--- has finally done something helpful for the Syrians.
Catholic in Brooklyn, have you read Chuck Norris's book "Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America"? If so, what do you think about what Mr. Norris has had to say about immigration?
ReplyDeleteII don't know anything about this.
DeleteCatholic in Brooklyn, check out the following link:
Deletehttp://www.wnd.com/2016/08/our-founders-advice-to-trump-on-immigration/
I have to follow Jesus Christ before I follow Chuck Norris. Our country was founded by immigrants. There was a time when the Irish were hated as much as some hate Muslims now. If they had been banned as President Trump has banned Muslims, many of us would not be here today.
DeletePresident Trump is a nightmare for the entire world.
Catholic in Brooklyn, check out the following link:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/a-nation-has-a-right-to-control-its-borders
Catholic in Brooklyn, what do you have to say about Russia's invasion of Ukraine? How should the Biden administration handle the situation?
ReplyDeleteI couldn't even begin to go there, Christopher. To me, Putin is a reincarnation of Hitler. Except much worse because Putin has thousands of nuclear weapons and is also very capable of cyber attacks which can cripple whole nations. I would have no idea how to handle this situation. For me, the only answer can be found in turning to God.
DeleteI think we are now in unprecedented times in the history of mankind. Our world could be wiped out by a mad man like Putin. If ever there was a time to get our own spiritual houses in order, now is the time. Mt. 24:22 says "except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved". Are we in those days? Sure would seem so.