Abortion and death penalty come before climate change for church, Vatican official says

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The correlation is not one of numbers but of attitude. The death penalty reinforces the false sense that human beings have the capacity to take anothers life on principle when it was only ever permitted by natural law and God to protect people from the problem of an unjust aggressor. It is that false sense that allows for the scourge of abortion.
Perhaps, but why is it then that so many countries seem aghast at the notion of the death penalty, but have such permissive attitudes towards killing children in the womb?

I suspect it is because the latter is far more inconvenient, and if I close my eyes, I can pretend there isn’t anyone in there.
 
What about the women that were told it was just a clump of cells? Or who had an abortion under threatening circumstances? Now we have ultrasounds and videos showing that it is obviously not just a clump of cells but many women have had abortions without full knowledge of what they were doing.

We cannot assume that every woman who has had an abortion willfully killed another person. Most women have been lied to regarding abortion! Many of these women are victims as well and need our support to help bring them to the Truth.
I think many of these women also need a lot more material support, as well, such as free professional child care, as they have in France … which made it possible for my niece to go back to work after having her baby, so she could support the baby and herself. I know of families here who are sorely hurting from being moral and upright, not having abortions – they are going thru extreme difficulties in managing without child care – one parent has to stay home, and the other working parent doesn’t make enough to support them. I’m thinking it would be very tempting for families in those circumstances to consider abortion.

At the very least this society with its tremendous wealth should provide no material reasons why a woman would seek an abortion.

Then we are left with those women who have abortions because they are having a bad hair day or their fingernail broke. That might be a tougher nut to crack, but we’d have much less work cut out for us…
 
I think the main issue here is I have never had an abortion and I have always been against the death penalty. But when I found out I was killing and harming people thru climate change and it many negative knock on effect back in the late 80s, I made it a point to reduce our GHG emissions – which has the felicitous side-effects of saving us money without lowering our living standard AND reducing our harming and killing through other environmental harms.
Which people did you kill or harm?

That’s the problem with trying to draw any comparisons between abortion and AGW. There’s no obvious victim. There’s nobody that was directly and immediately killed. And there’s no way to ascertain whether your specific GHG emission killed or harmed anyone, especially given the minute amount your individual contribution may have affected them. However, with abortion the perpetrator is easily identified and their individual contribution to the harm is significant and 100% preventable.
 
Which people did you kill or harm?

That’s the problem with trying to draw any comparisons between abortion and AGW. There’s no obvious victim. There’s nobody that was directly and immediately killed. And there’s no way to ascertain whether your specific GHG emission killed or harmed anyone, especially given the minute amount your individual contribution may have affected them. However, with abortion the perpetrator is easily identified and their individual contribution to the harm is significant and 100% preventable.
The victims might not seem obvious to you but to the people working on the front lines of aid and charity in Third World countries, the victims of agriculture affected by climate change and victims of the greed driven consumption of the First World… are very obvious. It is so easy to see Jesus as an innocent baby but not so easy to see Him as a raggedy starving African man. It’s like Jesus story as told in Matthew…

Matthew 25:31-46

The Final Judgment

31 “But when the Son of Man[a] comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. 32 All the nations** will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. 36 I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

**37 “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? 39 When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

40 “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,[c] you were doing it to me!’****

41 “Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.[d] 42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’

45 “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’

46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”
 
The victims might not seem obvious to you but to the people working on the front lines of aid and charity in Third World countries, the victims of agriculture affected by climate change and victims of the greed driven consumption of the First World… are very obvious. It is so easy to see Jesus as an innocent baby but not so easy to see Him as a raggedy starving African man. It’s like Jesus story as told in Matthew…
I asked you you killed or harmed. Not who all who emit GHG’s killed or harmed. What harm did your minute contribution do to that individual?
 
Which people did you kill or harm?..
I’ve been contributing to deaths caused by crop & seafood damage and food shortages linked to AGW, from the droughts & famines in Africa over the past 30 or so years, from the super-floods (the one in Pakistan actually led to a women having an abortion during her narrow escape with her 6 other children), from increasing wildfires around the world, from the super-hurricanes in the Philippines & elsewhere, from the Nepal earthquake (now they are linking glacier loss to earthquakes), and to the billions of deaths that will be happening from the knock-on effects of AGW over the next 1000s of years, perhaps even 100,000 years from my emissions to date, since a portion of CO2 can last that long in the atmosphere.

It is likely that my seemingly relatively small GHG emissions over my lifetime (which may seem like a drop in the overall bucket) might amount on average to me killing at least one person, maybe more, maybe many more. But even if I along with 100 others emitting GHGs are responsible for the death of just one person – that is one person too many.

And, of course, along with those GHG emissions – entailed not only in my energy consumption, but also in each and every product I buy – there have been many other pollutants and environmental harms that have harmed and killed people.

This all has been a very strong incentive for me and my household to reduce our GHG emissions by more than 60% over the past 25 years.

Earlier, some 45 or so years ago since our marriage, my main motive to reduce our energy consumption was to save finite resources for future generations – so we always made it a point to live within 1 or 2 miles of work. However, by the late 80s I came to realize and own up to the fact that I was part a much more grisly problem of harming and killing people and others of God’s creatures thru my environmental harms.

As mentioned, I’ve never had an abortion and in fact have always been against abortion, even as a child, well before I ever became a Catholic. And as for the death penalty, well, every time they pull that lever to execute someone, my hand it also on it because it is being done in my name as a resident of my state – and this includes executing some (who knows how many) innocent people. Our justice system here is pretty corrupt.

It seems we live in a society that loves to kill, some in Cain-like fashion denying our role in it. I think that’s why so many deny climate change as real because the implications are pretty terrible to face.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 
Except, what was said is not accurate.

*“The death penalty reinforces the false sense that human beings have the capacity to take anothers life on principle…”

The church has always taught, and accepts today, that the state does have the right to take the life of a person justly convicted of a heinous crime. There is no false sense in that position."Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime…* (USCCB, 1980)

*The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
“…when it was only ever permitted by natural law and God to protect people from the problem of an unjust aggressor.”

There is nothing in God’s comment on the matter that suggests capital punishment should be limited to protection, nor has the church (prior to 1995) ever suggested otherwise. The only thing that justifies its use is retributive justice: whether the severity of the penalty is commensurate with the severity of the crime. The punishment can only be used if the person deserves it. If he does not deserve to die for the crime he has already committed how can we believe he deserves to die for a crime he only threatens to commit?

*“It is that false sense that allows for the scourge of abortion.”

*Abortion involves the destruction of the innocent. Capital punishment involves the execution of the guilty. These are entirely different matters. Pius XI spoke to this specific point in Casti Connubi.
It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty.
Ender
All fine, if one naiveley assumes all states and governments are benevolent and just. Or,that mistakes aren’t made, and innocent people are not executed. Or that individuals in any system of justice have justice as their motivation for seeking the death of another person. Or even, that justice is defined by every state in a form and method that protects individual freedoms and acknowledges a right to a fair trial.

To blanket view, that “the state” has the right to execute people, is not what the Church teaches. If that were th case, then there is no justification for protesting the execution of anyone, by any state.
 
Posted by sarah j.
Just want to point out that while the actual word “abortion” may not
be found in the Bible, there is scriptural reference against abortion.
from the Catholic Catechism -
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.”
Heya,

Where is the reference of abortion in Judeo-Christian scriptures?

Thanks!
Well, this verse is one, right ? >
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.”

This thread has others - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=382108

And here are a bunch more:

" Though we don’t find the word abortion mentioned in any biblical text, we can deduce from Scripture, not to mention natural law, reason, Church teaching, and patristic witness that abortion is intrinsically evil. On abortion, consider these Scripture passages: Job 10:8, Psalms 22:9-10, Psalms 139:13-15, Isaiah 44:2, and Luke 1:41.

In addition:

Genesis 16:11: Behold, said he, thou art with child, and thou shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Ismael, because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

Genesis 25:21-22: And Isaac besought the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and he heard him, and made Rebecca to conceive. But the children struggled in her womb…

Hosea 12:3: In the womb he supplanted his brother, and as a man he contended with God.

Romans 9:10-11: But when Rebecca also had conceived at once of Isaac our father. For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand) . . .

The truth that these verses tell is that life begins at conception. Rebekah conceived a child—not what would be or could be a child. Note James 2:26: “. . . a body apart from the spirit is dead. . .” Since the soul is the principle which gives life to the body, then a child carried in the womb of its mother has a soul because it is alive. To kill it is murder."

catholic.com/quickquestions/where-in-the-bible-does-it-say-that-abortion-is-wrong
 
Would you then suppose the execution of a human being is loving the sinner?
As we discussed in another thread, the just use of capital punishment is in obedience to the 5th Commandment. So if one presumes that the 5th Commandment is an example of love, then all that is done in obedience to such a commandment is an example of love
 
As we discussed in another thread, the just use of capital punishment is in obedience to the 5th Commandment. So if one presumes that the 5th Commandment is an example of love, then all that is done in obedience to such a commandment is an example of love
Not that I agreed the just use of capital punishment is in obedience to the Fifth Commandment, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill".
 
The correlation is not one of numbers but of attitude. The death penalty reinforces the false sense that human beings have the capacity to take anothers life on principle when it was only ever permitted by natural law and God to protect people from the problem of an unjust aggressor. It is that false sense that allows for the scourge of abortion.
Is it really a false sense that allows for abortion? That isn’t how Catholics in past ages thought. They didn’t justify abortion on account of the death penalty. Abortion was punishable by the death penalty.

St. Basil (c. 329-379)

To Anfilochius, Bishop of Iconia:

“…She who has intentionally destroyed [the fetus] is subject to the penalty corresponding to a homicide. For us, there is no scrutinizing between the formed and unformed [fetus]; here truly justice is made not only for the unborn but also with reference to the person who is attentive only to himself since so many women generally die for this very reason.”

The death penalty was commanded by God and is compatible with natural law morality and was practiced by Catholic governments throughout the history of Christendom and condoned by the Church and saints. And it was never merely about dealing with the problem of unjust aggressors. It was about punishment and the need to “purge the evil from your midst.” That included those who committed sodomy.

St. Clement of Alexandria :

“All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians.” (Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190])

“The whole earth has now become full of for*nication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans. These men detested effeminacy of conduct. The giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the most extreme penalty.”

St. Augustine:

“Those foul offences that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the Author, is polluted by the perversity of lust.” (Confessions; III.8)

Pope Saint Pius V :

“That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were burned by virtue of divine condemnation, causes Us most bitter sorrow and shocks Our mind, impelling it to repress such a crime with the highest possible zeal."

“Having set our minds to remove everything that may in some way offend the Divine Majesty, We resolve to punish, above all and without indulgence, those things which, by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures or by most grievous examples, are most repugnant to God and elicit His wrath; that is, negligence in divine worship, ruinous simony, the crime of blasphemy, and the execrable libidinous vice against nature. For which faults peoples and nations are scourged by God, according to His just condemnation, with catastrophes, wars, famine and plagues. . . . Let the judges know that, if even after this, Our Constitution, they are negligent in punishing these crimes, they will be guilty of them at Divine Judgment and will also incur Our indignation. . . . If someone commits that nefarious crime against nature that caused divine wrath to be unleashed against the children of iniquity, he will be given over to the secular arm for punishment; and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to analogous punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees." [of ecclesiastical dignity]

St. Alphonso Liguori (1759) :

“As for the punishments for sodomites, they are to be condemned to death by burning.”

Compendium Salmanticense, Antonio de San José (1779)

On the punishments of sodomites

Q1. What are the punishments imposed on sodomites?

A. This execrable crime is punished in the first instance by divine law with the death penalty: If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination and they shall be put to death (Lev. 20.13). St Paul assigns the same penalty of death in Rom. 1 not only to those who commit this detestable offence but also to those who consent to it. According to St Thomas, every sodomite died before the night of the Lord’s birth, so that the nature which he assumed should not be defiled with such impurity. The lifeless sea washed over the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah, so that the land infected by that crime should not be seen any longer.

By human law, even among the gentiles, sodomites were punished with the penalty of death by burning. According to the civil law in the Liber Authenticarum, they are similarly subject to the death penalty. Under Spanish law, they are deservedly punished with death by burning and the confiscation of their property. Canon law punishes sodomitical laymen with the penalty of excommunication. In a constitution published in 1568, Pius V decreed that clerics, whether regular or secular, apart from the other punishments inflicted by the common law, should lose their office and be handed over to the secular power.
 
Is it really a false sense that allows for abortion? That isn’t how Catholics in past ages thought. They didn’t justify abortion on account of the death penalty. Abortion was punishable by the death penalty.
Cardinal Dulles in his First Things essay noted this…

"Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance."

He goes onto explain…

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.

As Catholics today, the Church is prompted by the Holy Spirit to be something more to people than a severe matron. She “desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her.”

That was the vision of Pope StJohnXIII on the opening of Vatican II…

HOW TO REPRESS ERRORS

At the outset of the Second Vatican Council, it is evident, as always, that the truth of the Lord will remain forever. We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun. The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against an dissipated.** But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them**, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life. They are ever more deeply convinced of the paramount dignity of the human person and of his perfection as well as of the duties which that implies. Even more important, experience has taught men that violence inflicted on others, the might of arms, and political domination, are of no help at all in finding a happy solution to the grave problems which afflict them.

That being so, the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her. To mankind, oppressed by so many difficulties, the Church says, as Peter said to the poor who begged alms from him: “I have neither gold nor silver, but what I have I give you; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise and walk” (Acts 3:6). In other words, the Church does not offer to the men of today riches that pass, nor does she promise them merely earthly happiness. But she distributes to them the goods of divine grace which, raising men to the dignity of sons of God, are the most efficacious safeguards and aids toward a more human life. She opens the fountain of her life-giving doctrine which allows men, enlightened by the light of Christ, to understand well what they really are, what their lofty dignity and their purpose are, and, finally, through her children, she spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.

OPENING SPEECH FOR COUNCIL OF VATICAN II POPE JOHN XXIII OCTOBER 11, 1962

We have to understand the ways and teachings from the distant past as part of the continuum on which the Magisterium builds and ever fuller understanding of what God wants of us in our day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top