The Catholic Church: The Death Penalty

The Catholic Church: The Death Penalty Capital punishment remains a controversial public issue whose moral complexity has been recently affirmed further by a variety of television shows, movies, talk shows and writings. In the midst of this debate are the victims of assault who, understandably enough, would usually rather see their aggressors dead than alive. One of the most prominent victims in this context is the late Pope John Paul II who, after an assassination attempt, never fully recovered from the gun wounds that nearly killed him. Nevertheless, Pope John Paul II made of the attack an example of forgiveness. Pope John Paul II did not stop here but called also for the abolition of the death penalty on this particular occasion. In other words, Pope John Paul II sought to affirm that the answer to violence is not more violence. On the contrary, the proper response would be in the affirmation of Jesus Christs message of hope, forgiveness and reconciliation. It might seem reasonable to conclude in this perspective that since the late Pope was so vehemently against the death penalty, the whole Catholic Church is and has always been opposed to this form of punishment. A closer analysis reveals however that the contrary is true. In the Catholic Church, teachings on the death penalty have changed and developed over time. For example, for many centuries, the Catholic Church accepted the notion that the state reserved the right to take a life in order to protect society. However, over time, and in the light of new facts and realities, the Catholic Church began to recognize that there are other non-violent means through which the state can effectively protect society. (Congressional Records 16751) Today, the Churchs teachings clearly argue against the practice of capital punishment. In short, a historical observation of the status of the death penalty among Catholics and an analysis of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reveal a continuous change and evolvement of perception regarding the practice over the centuries. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly defines the conditions under which a life can be taken and highlights thereby the reasons that support the Churchs convictions. For example, the Catechism specifically states that: If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person (Congressional Records 16751). This passionate defense of the sanctity of life, even a criminals, is mainly related to the Catholic belief that all humans are created in the image of God and therefore possess a certain amount of value, dignity and worth which ought to be protected and uphold at any time. In other words, the Catholic Church today regards every individual as a sacred being and strongly affirms that every human life is precious, including the life of those individuals who violated the rights of others. The Church currently defends this position by pointing out that human dignity is not qualified by the individuals actions as it is inherent and can therefore neither be earned nor forfeited. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the conditions under which a life can be taken, even for the purpose of protecting others, have been significantly narrowed over time. Today the Church passionately argues against the death penalty and justifies the stance through a reference to a variety of Biblical scriptures and religious and moral/ethical concepts. However it is interesting to note that Church approached the dilemma from a different perspective for many centuries. According to the excerpts 2266 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the efforts of the state to curb the spread of harmful social behavior ought to be recognized and supported for the common good. In this context, the Church supported the right of the state to inflict any suitably deemed punishment including the death penalty, as long as it was proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Excerpt 2267, issued by the Vatican on September 9, 1997, suggests at first glance a continuity in the Churchs point of view. The excerpt namely asserts that non-lethal means are preferable to lethal ones but that recourse to the death penalty was nevertheless not opposed by the Church if it was in the defense and protection of a human life. It is thus interesting to note how the Church moved to gradually curb the practice of the death penalty in a subtle but nevertheless very effective manner. For example, excerpt 2267 is in fact, despite its affirmation of the Churchs acceptance of capital punishment, very strict about the act as the death penalty is only deemed acceptable if it manages to protect a human life from an aggressor. Since contemporary states and criminal justice systems already possess a variety of means through which a criminal can be prevented from harming others, cases where it is absolutely necessary to suppress the guilty are today very rare, if not practically non-existent (Death Penalty Information Center). It is thus relevant to conclude in the light of the aforementioned that the Catholic Church has gradually evolved to limit the conditions under which a life can be taken, even a criminals. The Catholic Church takes today a pro-life, abolitionist view of the death penalty for a variety of reasons that have especially grown in significance over the last few decades. First of all, the Church affirms that there is no conclusive evidence which supports the belief that the death penalty reduces the homicide rate. Thereby, one of the most inhuman, petty and immoral reasons for retaining the death penalty is related to the idea of retribution, or vengeance, which quite obviously conflicts with Jesus message of forgiveness and peace. In the last decade, the Holy Father has affirmed frequently that this purpose undermines the states attempts at reform and the protection of its citizens and the common good. Punishment should not be about vengeance but about the defending of public order and the ensuring of public safety while simultaneously reaching out to the offender to correct his or her behavior. Since there are other methods through which the public good can be defended and as the execution of the offender prevents from any chance of rehabilitation, the death penalty consequentially fails in meeting the standards of the Catholic Churchs definition of the acceptable and effective punishment (Congressional Records 16751). This carefully constructed and well-reasoned opposition of the death penalty has become, as stated, especially outspoken over the last few decades. In the United States, and especially beginning with the 1980s, Catholic bishops began recognizing that Christian tradition has for a long time acknowledged the governments right to protect its citizens by applying the death penalty in certain cases. However, and as society and the penal system evolved, capital punishment became less justifiable according to the Bishops in a 1980 statement entitled Capital Punishment. The main reasons for opposing the death penalty, according to the statement, are related to the ideas of retribution and deterrence. With regard to deterrence, it was stated that while capital punishment does prevent certain individuals from repeating their crime, others are not necessarily prevented from engaging in similar atrocities. As for retribution, the bishops underlined the previously discussed about the irrelevance of capital punishment as a form of effective punishment if it is a means through which to seek vengeance rather than social security, stability, justice, dignity and rehabilitation (Overberg). All of these reasons are what currently define the Catholic Churchs stance regarding capital punishment; reasons that have only grown in relevance over the last few decades. Indeed, the acceptance of capital punishment has varied over the centuries in the Roman Catholic Church. Until at least the middle of the twentieth century, it was generally agreed that the state had the right, and sometimes the duty, to impose the death penalty for certain inacceptable offenses. These ideas were justified through a reference to Scripture. It is interesting to note how this teaching was the common doctrine of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, including for instance the two great Doctors of the West, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Pope Innocent III accepted in the thirteenth century the concept of the death penalty as a proper form of punishment for heretics. Even after the Second World War, Pope Pius XII showed clear support of capital punishment; a position that was affirmed by the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It is also interesting to note that while currently, and as has been illustrated, the death penalty is judged to be weak in meeting the basic princi ples of proper punishment; it was for a long time judged to be suitable for the following four reasons: retribution, defense of society against the criminal, deterrence and rehabilitation. Ironically enough, all of these reasons are presently also cited to underline the immorality of the death penalty. The reliance on these four reasons by Catholics in the past versus now illustrates the evolvement and change in the content of the ideas which contributed to the overall alteration of the Churchs point of view regarding the death penalty. For instance, while retribution is today regarded as a petty reason that should be excluded out of any effective punishment, the Church used to affirm that when justice has been grossly violated, it was acceptable to believe that the restoration of order would require depriving an individual of life itself. This position was defended by Scriptures such as Romans 13:1-4 and Genesis 9:5-6. Thereby, while the Church regards capital punishment today as a failure in providing the offender with a chance of rehabilitation, it used to affirm just a few decades ago that while execution does not reintegrate offenders into society, it prevents hardened criminals from spiritually harming themselves further by sin.(Owens, Elshtain 23-25) It becomes thus clear through these brief comparisons between past and current understandings of concepts and reasons related to capital punishment, that the issue has been indeed gradually, but nevertheless definitely, changing over time in the Roman Catholic Church. It has become clear that the Catholic Church has been gradually adapting its perceptions of the issue of capital punishment over the centuries. The changes usually came in response to certain social conditions. For instance and as has been noted, Pope Innocent III deemed this form of punishment suitable for heretics which is understandable considering the context of the thirteenth century. Since World War II, opposition to capital punishment among Catholics grew steadily due to the fear that the criminal justice system was abused in the death camps of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. (Owens, Elshtain 24) It is nevertheless observable that the Church has only cautiously moved towards confining the practice of capital punishment. In 1992, in the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and specifically in article 2266, the classical position of the Church was reaffirmed. It is however interesting to note that the following excerpt, 2267, laid the first subtle but nevert heless effectively restrictive measures that define the Churchs position today. The rise of Pope John Paul II and his continuous and passionate criticism of the death penalty have undoubtedly strengthened the Churchs position even further. Today, the Catholic Church seeks to send the message that the cycle of violence can only be broken through the application of Jesus Christs message of hope, forgiveness and love. Taking a life in response to a criminal act is criticized as ineffective in solving the current social and crime problems rooted in a complex reality that includes social conditions as poverty and injustice. Thereby, the Catholic Church seeks to abolish the death penalty today to uphold the dignity and worth of a human being as man is created in the image of God and it is only HE who is the Lord of life. Humans are therefore by no means entitled to destroy life, which should be taken care of and treated as sacred and worthy no matter what. In the context of these beliefs is indeed no place for the acceptance of capital punishment.

Public Speaking – Friends and Friendship.

HPD 111 – PUBLIC SPEAKING ENGLISH MOHD HAFIZAN BIN MOHAMAD SAH 2010319793 OUTLINE TOPIC: Friends and friendship. OUTLINE Specific Purpose: To inform my audience about who are friend, and what is friendship. Central Idea: friends are people whom will always be at your side whenever you need to express or share your feeling and do some activities with them. Introduction I. It was a few years ago when I saw a group of teenagers do some bully to a teenager. However, that teenager didn’t report their activities to police but he got back up by some other teenagers whose are his friend came to elp him out. II. When I saw this incident, I have learnt that friends are essential whenever we are in pinch. III. They could help us out whenever we in serious trouble. IV. Today, I would like to inform you about friend and friendship. (Transition: Let’s start with the first point about friendship. ) Body I. Friendship is a blessing for us. A. Friends will help us whenever we are in a pinch. 1. True friends will help us from any trouble. 2. Friends will challenge us to attain our original limits with encouragement when we allow ourselves not to go beyond our easonable boundaries. B. They will cheer us when we’re sorrowful or depressed. 1. Friends will motivate us when we’re ready to give in, and they can provide for us when life falls apart. 2. Friendship is a blessing, and a friend is the channel through whom great emotional, spiritual, and sometimes even physical blessings flow. (Transition: Now you knew that friendship is like blesses to us, let’s look about the other meaning of friendship. ) II. Friendship is everlasting relationship. A. Friendship is the only everlasting feature in the world. 1. Friends will try to find new ways to make you not to fall into depression. 2. Friends can also make us realised that depression won’t help us from solving any trouble. B. Friendship will grow slowly as we experienced new things with friends and it will not be removed easily. 1. They will find innovative ways to stop us from falling, failing and try to get help to lift us up. 2. They will give us some good advice to rebuild strength on facing any troubles. (Transition: Given there about everlasting friendship, I’m sure you want to know what’s next. ) III. Friendship will give us courage to go through life. A. Friends, they are the only source of our brave hearts. 1. Friends will make us show more efforts and spirits when doing something that we can’t do before. 2. Friends will come to us to help us solve our problems. B. Friendship is one of our sources to become brave while making some activities that need more courage. 1. Friendship gives courage to our mind and body. 2. Friends will help us to escape from big troubles. Conclusion I. As we have look through there are lots things to consider about friends and friendship. II. Friends are the most precious treasure to us and we need to keep it in good condition. III. In case of getting some friends, you need to find the loyal friends in your life so that your relationship will become worthy at the end. Bibliography Albert, Prakash (2010). Friends and Friendship – Who are friends, and what are friendship. Lepp, Ignace (1966). The Ways of Friendship. New York: The Macmillan Company. L'Abate, Luciano (2007). Friendship, social support, and health. Low-cost approaches to promote physical and mental health: Theory, research, and practice. (pp. 455–472). xxii, 526 pp. New York.

The Advantages of Essay Topics for Psychology

The Advantages of Essay Topics for Psychology The Honest to Goodness Truth on Essay Topics for Psychology You'll also become peaceful since you've delegated the job of making up a topic and essay t competent professionals. However tight your deadline is, you will receive the very best essay! If you wish to create the paper funny, a lot is dependent upon the subject you've selected. After you've chosen an overall region, you can then narrow your paper topic down to something a whole lot more specific and manageable. You must read a whole lot whilst doing research for your academic essay, and it is going to take a lot of time and energy. Generally speaking, students should pick a subject and topic they already know in some depth. Speaking about general psychology, you can select this issue from the full course. Psychology is such a wide subject, so you wish to locate a topic that permits you to adequately cover the subject without becoming overwhelmed with information. For instance, you might begin by deciding that you would like to compose your paper on a topic within a particular branch of psychology. The second undertaking of your introduction is to give a well-rounded summary of earlier research that's pertinent to your topic. After you've finalized the topic for your clinical psychology undertaking, the next thing to do is to begin researching. You should be quite careful in the variety of the topic. To pick a topic from general psychology, you should pick any topic you enjoy and then begin narrowing it down. The topic ought to be good enough to aid you reach to a specific conclusion. It's always much much better to locate a specific, narrow topic. Now you have an overall concept, you drill down further and decide to investigate and write your paper on how prejudice forms and strategies to minimize it. There's a good deal of information that can be found on the web. Keep on reading to learn several topics that it is possible to consider. Just ensure you've got access to lots of resources about the topic that you're thinking of. Inspiration to make your own advertising or media argumentative essay topics isn't tough to discover. When you are finished with the majority of your research you should make an outline. Furthermore, you can observe distinctive topics for your research paper on the site! Maybe you thought you learned more due to the internet format. Unconscious life results in coaching of self-awareness. Most theories in personal counseling require the proposition which each human being aims to increase his behavior. Cognitive psychology tackles the unique mental processes happening in someone's mind. The intent of a psychology research paper, just enjoy any sort of scientific writing, is to find the audience current about developments in the psychology field. If you're a student of psychology, you'd be asked to decide on a specific topic for the last research paper. For instance, you might start by studying on any type of social psychology topic. There are many research paper topics as so on as it comes to psychological disorders you may choose from. Psychology research paper is a typical assignment and source of several sleepless nights at college. Prior to beginning, learn more about the way to perform a psychology experiment. Piecemeal study isn't encouraged. Generally, students have a tendency toward studying only secondary sources when they prepare to compose an essay. Most Noticeable Essay Topics for Psychology Hundreds of on-line psychology experiments are happening at any particular time, many cool and amusing to participate in. If you volunteer to be a component of a study clearly you experience an interest and feel a feeling of responsibility to the experiment. Begin by looking over the notes you made during the research procedure and consider how you wish to present all your ideas and research. Have students hypothesize and decide if they think that color can have an impact on memory.

Christianity and Buddhism - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 535 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2019/06/16 Category Religion Essay Level High school Tags: Buddhism Essay Christianity Essay Did you like this example? Religion is the moral compass of many; their reason for being and the motive to their everyday actions. Religious practices often become as much of a cultural experience as they do a spiritual one. Christianity and Buddhism are vastly different from each other yet they have one common goal, to live a peaceful existence. Christianity was formed in 33 AD in Jerusalem by Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed to be god in human form, while Buddhism was formed sometime in the late sixth-century B.C.E. by a man in India named Siddhartha Gautama, also known as Buddha, after his spiritual realization(Diffen,;Vail; Adamson). Both Buddhism and Christianity convey the messages of morality, justice, and love(. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, as its believers only believe in one God; Buddhists believe in several gods. The intent of Buddhism is to be liberated from the cycle of life and death by reaching an enlightened state called nirvana. The main idea of Christianity is to love and obey God and form a bond with Him through his son Jesus by spreading the idea of Christianity so others can be delivered as well(Diffen). Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Christianity and Buddhism" essay for you Create order The basic principles of Christianity are based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the son of God, in opposition to Buddhism that is based on the life and teachings of Gautama, a normal man from India who never declared himself divine. Many believe that Buddhists worship Buddha but in Buddhism, there is no God; there is no judgment day which is a huge contrast to the belief of Christians which is that there is a God, an all-powerful God, who will come to earth to judge them for all of their sins. Buddhists do not believe in the concept of sin while confessing to your sins is a staple of the Christian faith(ETB; Adamson). Buddhists believe that the never-ending cycle of death, birth, and rebirth are caused by a persons desires, oppositions, and misunderstandings. Christians believe that sin is caused by lust and bad deeds with the notion that their sins are forgiven through the sacrifice of Jesus(Adamson). Buddhists believe that when one dies they are then reborn to begin the cycle of death, birth, and rebirth that can only be discontinued by reaching Nirvana. By reaching Nirvana one has escaped suffering indefinitely(Diffen). The Christian faith believes that after one dies their soul leaves earth and goes to either Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory and spends the rest of eternity there. Christians believe that they will be delivered through the life, death, and sacrifice of Christ while Buddhists believe that they will reach Nirvana on their own accord by living an honorable life. (Diffen). Both Christianity and Buddhism are two of the most practiced religions in the world. As of 2017, 2.3 billion of the worlds population practices Christianity, 0.5 billion being Buddhists(Hackett, McLendon). The Buddhist population is 500-600 million while the Christian has over 200 billion followers worldwide(Diffen). The majority of the worlds Buddhist population is located in Asian countries like Thailand, India, Japan, China, and Korea while the majority of the Christian population is located in the United States, South America, Europe, Austrailia, and New Zealand(Diffen).