Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[Super_Grover]

We are facing the greatest challenge the Church has ever faced, and God expects us to do His will.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you did give me an idea to start this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3672072#post3672072

 

[Amolibri]

No, the Church says it:

Church says protection of society…

even if that is necessary for the full remission of his sin and reconciliation with God
When is death by execution necessary for the full remission of his sin??? (outside of your political agenda)

BTW: I take offense at your glib ridicule of Sr. Prejean.
:dts: :nope:

 

[vern_humphrey]

Church says protection of society…

even if that is necessary for the full remission of his sin and reconciliation with God
When is death by execution necessary for the full remission of his sin??? (outside of your political agenda)

Outside of my political agenda? What agenda is that?

The Church says the death penalty is justified only if necessary to protect society. I agree.

And that’s somehow a “political agenda?”

 

[Amolibri]

even if that is necessary for the full remission of his sin and reconciliation with God

Need reading assistance? I’ll ask again.
When is death by execution necessary for the full remission of his sin???

This was not about protection of society.

 

[vern_humphrey]

even if that is necessary for the full remission of his sin and reconciliation with God

Need reading assistance? I’ll ask again.
When is death by execution necessary for the full remission of his sin???

This was not about protection of society.

Did I not quote the Catechism paragraph that says it is about protection of society?

If not, let me redress that omission:

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.

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 are 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 non-existent.”

 

[Amolibri]

Did I not quote the Catechism paragraph that says it is about protection of society?

If not, let me redress that omission:

You’re a slippery old fella…
Don’t want to answer?.. fine. I ONLY ask how is execution necesssary for the “full remission of sin”???..THAT’S ONLY 4 words. Where is protection of society in those 4 words???

 

[vern_humphrey]

You’re a slippery old fella…
Don’t want to answer, fine. I ONLY ask how is execution necesssary for the “full remission of sin”???..THAT’S ONLY 4 words. Where is protection of society in those 4 words???

I didn’t say it was – I said it was permissible if there were no other way to protect society.

The Catechism also 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.

Whether that conflicts with the stricture on public safety, or whether it also applies to the death penalty, I leave for others.

 

[Amolibri]

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. **

Just for kicks, then…since you respond to anyone who’s addressed:
How does taking that person’s life contribute to the correction of THAT GUILTY PARTY, pray tell???
Would that not be in keeping with the “very rare or practically non-existent” use of the DP, according to the Church?

 

[vern_humphrey]

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. **

Just for kicks, then…since you respond to anyone who’s addressed:
How does taking that person’s life contribute to the correction of THAT GUILTY PARTY, pray tell???
Would that not be in keeping with the “very rare or practically non-existent” use of the DP, according to the Church?

Have you ever walked through a Concentration Camp, or seen the Holocaust Museum in New York? Have you walked throug the Murrough Building Memorial (the building blown up by Timothy McVeigh)?

I know you have not done what I have done – supervised the excavation of a mass grave (this was at Hue, in 1968.)

You will come away with a better understanding of this complex issue.

I am perfectly satisfied with the restriction in Paragraph 2267, but who can say that paragraph 2266 does not also apply to the death penalty in such extreme cases?

 

[Brendan]

How does taking that person’s life contribute to the correction of THAT GUILTY PARTY, pray tell???

The Catechism said exactly how. It expiated the sin.

The willful acceptance of just punishment expiates the sin, it removes the temporal effects of the sin, including the Purgation necessary after death.

It is most likely the Timothy McVeigh went directly to Heaven. He sought and recieved Sacramental Absolution and, by all accounts, willfully accepted the punishment due his crime. That provides plenary expiation of his sins.

Thus the correction that would have normally accompained his crime in Purgatory was accomplished temporally.

One of the problems most people have is they tend to look at ‘correction’ in material terms only. We owe God reperation for the temporal effects of our sin, and that might be accomplished in Purgatory, via Indulgences or expiation.

 

[Ender]

I ONLY ask how is execution necesssary for the “full remission of sin”???..THAT’S ONLY 4 words. Where is protection of society in those 4 words?

Here’s what the catechism says in 2267 (we should all know this by heart by now):

• “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority, should limit itself to such means…” *

Now, since no other criterion is specified to justify an execution other than the protection of society, one has to conclude that no other reason could justify executing a criminal if society can be protected.

What I was pointing out was that, even if the forfeit of his life was the only way to expiate his sins, he could not be executed since the salvation of his soul adds nothing to the protection of society. I realize this is strange concept, but then I think 2267 backs us into such corners, which is why I find it … inadequate.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

What I was pointing out was that, even if the forfeit of his life was the only way to expiate his sins, he could not be executed since the salvation of his soul adds nothing to the protection of society. I realize this is strange concept, but then I think 2267 backs us into such corners, which is why I find it … inadequate.

Ender

That is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Saints in Heaven DO intercede for us and for society as a whole.

To say what you just said is a denial of the role of the Communion of Saints.

 

[frankadams]

Actually, we do have a very good idea of when the State is acting as an instrument of God. It does so when it punishes the evildoer.

St. Paul himself said so.

Romans 13:3-4

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
.

I for one yield to the the instruction of my Church leadership on this issue. I will not yield it to the leader of the State because of the words of St. Paul or St. Thomas Aquinas. I will instead defer to my Pope, my Vatican, and my bishops on this issue.
I think your interpretations suggest that if a leader executes evildoers who assault or rob or defraud or even those whose evil comes in the form of political or religious dissension, I am bound to conclude that the “State is acting as an instrument of God.” No State, no matter what Paul of Tarsus tells us, does God’s will when they unnaturally end human life unnecessarily.

Whoa, it’s a little more refined than that and you have shifted the focus from those who are justly executed to those who are unjustly executed. Let’s keep it focused where it belongs.

When the state executes someone it does so as God’s minister. This is set out in Romans 13:4 and has been taught by the Church since Augustine. The individuals who represent the authority of the state will be judged on how they carry out their duties; they don’t get a free pass to be wicked simply because they have been given authority to act. They will be judged on whether they properly use that authority.

Ender

Brendan’s post consisted of St. Paul’s quote and two of St. Thomas Aquinas’ quotes. There was no qualifying it, there was nothing about differentiating the just from the unjust. I was NOT “shifting the focus.” I was responding to the poster based on what the poster wrote. He said that the “State is acting as an instrument of God…when it punishes the evildoer.” I took exception to that logic.

As to your comment, an explanation might help me understand your position. You wrote: “When the state executes someone it does so as God’s minister,”

Again, I can point to plenty of executions in which the State was not “God’s minister.” For example, I don’t see how a State executing someone that the Church has begged them not to execute makes them “God’s minister.” But beyond that, there are thousands of executions yearly that most people here would oppose (for political dissension, religious dissension, etc.). You yourself are not distinguishing between the “justly executed and the unjustly executed.”

You write of these leaders being judged. So if these leaders are judged to have sinned by their executions, were they still executing as “God’s minister” when they acted? Kindly clarify.

You also mentioned that “they have been given authority to act.” What does this mean to you? That the Roman emperors in St. Paul’s day who came to power through plots, intrigues, assassination (often to family members), etc. were “given authority to act” by God? That the brutal, bloody coups by which dozens of our current leaders came to power somehow constituted “being given authority to act?”

 

[SoCalRC]

Actually, we do have a very good idea of when the State is acting as an instrument of God. It does so when it punishes the evildoer.

St. Paul himself said so.

Romans 13:3-4

Aquinas used that very passage when he noted that it was permissable to kill a person to safeguard the community

-ST IIa-IIae, q. 64, a. 2.

Which the Angelic Doctor followed with:

-ST IIa-IIae, q. 64, a. 3.

If I recall correctly, St. Paul taught that all Christians should be celibate, turning only to marriage if they were too weak.

St. Augustine wrote that it was the duty of every bishop to plead for mercy for each person condemned to death.

And St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with St. Jerome, Pope Innocent III, and St. Augustine that abortion was not murder until the fetus had assumed a human form.

This is why we are not Protestants. These are saints, tremendous examples of the faith. But they were still men. We believe that Jesus was/is God, so what did he say?

Unfortunately, on the death penalty, not much. He did not object to civil authority, but he also advised that he without sin should cast the first stone. He also openly questioned applying an eye for an eye.

So, how do we decide what to follow and what to disregard? As a Catholic, I have it easy. I follow the Holy Catholic and apostolic Church:

“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” - LUMEN GENTIUM (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church)

When the Vicar of Christ comes to the US and calls for an end to the death penalty, and the princes of the Church include this call in the local Catechism, I listen.

If others are impeded from obeying by the absolute certainty of their moral conscience, it is not my place to judge them. But, as the Catechism warns, they should be mindful that their own certainty may be incorrect. In Catholicism, the benefit of the doubt on proper application of the faith always belongs with the Church.

 

[Ender]

That is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Saints in Heaven DO intercede for us and for society as a whole.

To say what you just said is a denial of the role of the Communion of Saints.

Wow, that’s a thought that never occurred to me. I suspect that’s not what anyone has in mind when the concept of the “protection of society” is discussed but … well I’m not quite sure what to say except to comment that I suspect that a criminal is more likely to repent of his sins when faced by his imminent execution than he is by spending 20-30 years incarcerated in the society of the depraved.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Brendan’s post … said that the “State is acting as an instrument of God…when it punishes the evildoer.” I took exception to that logic.

This has always been the Church’s interpretation of Romans 13:4.

"In a* State ruled by law the power to inflict punishment is correctly entrusted to the Courts"* Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church #402

You write of these leaders being judged. So if these leaders are judged to have sinned by their executions, were they still executing as “God’s minister” when they acted? Kindly clarify.

I assume so. Is a priest any less a priest if he is a bad one? Why this tangent? This is not really relevant to executions in the US, which is presumably the topic. It’s not really much of a stretch to conclude that, if Pilate ruled by the authority God had given him, so do US courts.

Ender

 

[Ender]

St. Paul {mistakenly} taught …
St. Augustine {mistakenly} wrote …
And St. Thomas Aquinas {mistakenly} agreed …

I really dislike this form of argument. Surely you realize that it is a call to dismiss everything written by Sts. Paul, Augustine, and Aquinas as this argument applies to everything they ever wrote and said. Basically you are claiming that since they were not right about everything they cannot be trusted about anything. You are trying to defend your position on the death penalty by sacrificing the greatest theologians in Church history and half of the New Testament. You sure that’s what you want to do?

Ender

 

[frankadams]

Originally Posted by frankadams forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Brendan’s post … said that the “State is acting as an instrument of God…when it punishes the evildoer.” I took exception to that logic.

This has always been the Church’s interpretation of Romans 13:4.

"In a* State ruled by law the power to inflict punishment is correctly entrusted to the Courts"* Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church #402

Ender

How do you get from “an instrument of God” to “correctly entrusted to the Courts?” If the court sentences you to death for being a Christian, I would argue (correctly I think) that that Court is most certainly not being “an instrument of God.” I don’t see how your citation proves otherwise.

 

[vz71]

“I’m allowed to disregard Church teaching on capital punishment and war. And so I do.”

Please…cite the source of this quote.

I have noted a great many on the CAF that disagree with the church on the issue, for many reasons, but have never found an individual disagree simply because they could.

 

[vz71]

You and many others have gone to tremendous lengths to tell me why you are allowed to disregard the Church in this matter.

Actually, no.

A great many have gone to lengths explaining why they are free to disregard what you believe of the church in the matter.

Remember, yours is not the difinitive authority on church teaching. Just another opinion.

In actuality, the decisions I have arrived at in the matter were brought about specifically because of church teaching.