Talk:Catholic Church and capital punishment

Serious need of cleanup

Good god, who wrote this crap? This is an encyclopedia, not a pulpit, and this is written like an evangelical theology pamphlet. This article needs a clear summation of the church's views on capital punishment both now and throughout history, not a convoluted description of the church's theological basis for their CURRENT view. I find it especially irksome that the author has failed to mention that while the current stance of the church is anti-capital punishment, for the vast majority of its history, the Catholic Church activily practised capital punishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.40.95 (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is a mess and doesn't seem to be a historical account or a description of the current position, but an attempt by those who support the death penalty to push their views. Think someone needs to dispute the page.96.31.177.52 (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Aquinas

"remove inappropriate honorifics per mos:saints"

There appears to be no relevant entry in MOS supporting the blanket removal of "St." from the title of the duly canonized St. John Paul II (MOS:SAINTS?). A canonical decision that the individual is in heaven is hardly "honorific". He was canonized on 27 April 2014.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

The MOS on abbreviations indicates that the "St." that was removed was the appropriate abbreviation for St. John Paul II's status as a canonized saint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28clergy%29#Saints

does not, per se, support the removal "St." from the title of the duly canonized St. John Paul II, which in the Roman Catholic style of address would be "Pope Saint John Paul II". Since this article is on Roman Catholic topic, there cannot be a controversy as to who considers whom to be a saint or possible non-neutrality.

Eblem (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint"" could not possibly be less ambiguous on this point. There is no dispute about whether Pope John Paul II is a Catholic saint (he is). Nevertheless the MOS directs us not to include the title "saint." --JBL (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course the MOS does not "direct(s) us not to include the title 'saint'".

And where in the world did "honorific" come from?

The individual is Pope Saint John Paul II. --Eblem (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell what your difficulty is: do you understand the sentence I quoted from the MOS? (Also possibly you should look up the meanings of the word "honorific"; I can't figure out even a little bit what your objection is supposed to be. Not that it has anything to do with the content of this discussion.) --JBL (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell what your difficulty is. The MOS gives examples of inclusions of "Saint" and "St" depending on a variety of criterion. There is no blanket exclusion of the word "saint", despite your repeated assertions there is.

The word "honorific" is not consistent with a neutral viewpoint. In Catholicism canonization is an exercise of the Church's infallibility which declares with certainity the individual in question has attained eternal glory in heaven, that Catholics may invoke the individual's intercession, and so on.

If you'll cease the unsupported assertions that the MOS bans "St" and "Saint" altogether, which it clearly does not, perhaps we can focus on whether in this context that usage is correct or is not. -- Eblem (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time. I have made no such assertion.

Go, read the relevant sections of the MOS. If, afterwards, you believe that including the title here is appropriate, then we can have a discussion. (Though how anyone could read the relevant section and believe this is unclear to me.) There is no discussion to be had until you do that. --JBL (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course you have. First you cited MOS:SAINTS which does not appear to exist. Then you termed "St." honorific, which appears to be a value judgment. Since the MOS does not say what you said, and continue to say it says what it does not, that makes a discussion problematic. "Though how anyone could read the relevant section and believe this is unclear to me." makes it clear that from your perspective you're right and there is no need for discussion. Would that life were that simple. --Eblem (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic Church and capital punishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629182039/http://www.vincenter.org/95/surlis.html to http://www.vincenter.org/95/surlis.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629182039/http://www.vincenter.org/95/surlis.html to http://www.vincenter.org/95/surlis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic Church and capital punishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928055736/http://www.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm to http://www.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

POV pushing

@The Mysterious El Willstro: you seem to be trying to push a POV, i.e. calling "archconservative" some people. Please stop. Veverve (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"The early Church is unrelated to Catholicism"

Hey, @Veverve:. Why was this reverted?

The Catholic Church sees itself as the Church that Jesus established. What's wrong with including this in the article? KlayCax (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• What the Catholic Church claims is irrelevant: every Christian denomintion claims this.
• It is outside of the scope of the article (the article is not titled "Christian views on death penalty"). Articles such as Dogma in the Catholic Church or Catholic theology do not contain elaborations on what the Early Church believed. This is content for another independent article.
• How are those opinions of Early Christians and their interpretation by such and such people - especially David Bentley Hart who never claimed to speak for the Catholic Church -, relevant to what is considered to be the Catholic opinion?

Veverve (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)