|Threads older than 14 days may be archived by MiszaBot III.
Catholic Church and capital punishment
Before I take a whack at inserting materials into this article, I thought I would contact you as the originator of the entry.
The article seems to move back and forth as to what the Catholic Church position is on capital punishment. Early on it refers to authorities "invoked by the Catholic Church to oppose the death penalty" and then later on states that "It is still allowed for extreme cases."
It seems to conclude that capital punishment is allowed when "the death penalty is the only way to defend others against the guilty party". This is really not a fair summary of Catholic teaching. The late Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote an article for the April 2001 issue of First Things which summarizes both the current and traditional Catholic position:
To summarize the Church's teaching, there are four reasons why any punishment may be inflicted upon a criminal: Rehabilitation, Defense against the criminal, Deterrence, and Retributive justice.
John Paul II dealt with one, and only one, of these reasons - defense against the criminal.
There remains the other three of which retributive justice is probably most relevant. For an example consider the case of Timothy McVeigh. He freely admitted the crime, the crime was of exceptional viciousness and heinousness, and he indicated he would do it again if he had to do it over.
Clearly we could consider defense against the criminal met if we incarcerated Timothy McVeigh for life. However, the other three reasons for capital punishment were relevant. Prominent in these is retributive justice. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
The phrase "proportionate to the gravity of the offense" translates into the common phrase "punishment fits the crime".
Most people's sense of justice would consider capital punishment as "proportionate to the gravity of the offense" for an unrepentant man who killed 168 innocent human beings - nineteen of whom were children as young as 3 months and three were pregnant women, injured more than 680 people, destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and caused an estimated $652 million worth of damage.
As the Catechism states retributive justice is the *primary* reason for exacting a punishment.
This is the reason why then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote to Cardinal McCarrick in Washington, DC, that Catholics may disagree with the Holy Father (at that time John Paul II) on the use of the death penalty and remain Catholics in good conscience.
I don't believe, therefore, that the article is currently a fair statement of the Catholic Church's teaching on capital punishment and leaves the false impression that the ONLY reason capital punishment may be inflicted is for defense against the criminal, and that Catholics cannot in good conscience conclude differently than John Paul II in their prudential judgment as citizens or officers of the State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblem (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Blast from the past - query about Occupation_of_Poland_(1939–45)
I was just browsing around Wikipedia and came across a page Occupation_of_Poland_(1939–45) which has been heavily "monstered" by the copyright detector. After peering through the "copyright detector report" (as there is nothing but report on the page now) it highlighted a large chunk of text you added eons ago in - 00:23, 17 March 2007.
It implies that it may have been copied from this site:
Knowing how these things go, chances are this site may have lifted it from Wikipedia and not cited it but I wondered if you might have any thoughts on the subject? The search term I used to get this far was "Litzmannstadt" which wasn't there before this edit (this saves a bit of effort comparing things).
Currently the page is worthless without fixing his issue up.
Thanks Escottf (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Pseudo-Richard, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to July 2006 Java earthquake has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Compare your add with the source – It's word for word (Cars, motorbikes and boats were left mangled amid fishing nets, furniture and other debris.) Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 03:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oops, never mind, my mistake! -- Kendrick7talk 06:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)