Abortion vs Captial Punishment

[estesbob]

JoeyWarren:

I ask you to envision all of the children coming to Christ and sitting on his lap and at his feet. Now envision a man sitting in an electric chair. Now envision that same Christ with children walking up and throwing the switch. It’s the basic WWJD question. I just don’t see Christ throwing the switch. I see him asking the Executione " Are you without sin" And I see him asking the Jurors " Are you without sin" and then asking the Judge and Prosecutor “Are you without sin”

Now envison the Lord sending an angel though Egypt to kill the first born of all the Egyptians.

I am passionately opposed to the death penatly and active in the anti-death penalty movement but it frustrates me to see the kind of ill thought out arguments you post. It hurts the cause. Both the Church and Scripture supports the Death Penalty. We death penatly opponents have to live with that. When people, like you, start telling death penalty supporters things that are flat out not true it hurts our credibility when we discuss the issue with them.

 

[JoeyWarren]

fix:

You see this in a skewed manner. That is what happens when we parse out a few bible verses without seeing context and reconciling all of Scritpture and Sacred Tradition. IMO, WWJD is Protestant and a bit new age like.

Well if I am seeing in a skewed manner, then most of the priests in Montgomery area are seeing in a skewed manner as well. My comment is what I have heard before from other priests. Matter of fact this was expressed during the last Diocese pastoral council. And it was the general consensus. I don’t stand alone on this. I have the backing of priests and of the Arch-Bishop.

 

[JoeyWarren]

estesbob:

Now envison the Lord sending an angel though Egypt to kill the first born of all the Egyptians.

That was God’s perogative, not mans. Plus it is Old Testament. God was vengeful in those days. He sent his Son to us so that would not be have to be done again until the Last Day.

 

[fix]

JoeyWarren:

Well if I am seeing in a skewed manner, then most of the priests in Montgomery area are seeing in a skewed manner as well. My comment is what I have heard before from other priests. Matter of fact this was expressed during the last Diocese pastoral council. And it was the general consensus. I don’t stand alone on this. I have the backing of priests and of the Arch-Bishop.

So, if there are priests and bishops who disagree with these folks, which is the correct understanding?

 

[Brendan]

JoeyWarren:

I ask you to envision all of the children coming to Christ and sitting on his lap and at his feet. Now envision a man sitting in an electric chair. Now envision that same Christ with children walking up and throwing the switch. It’s the basic WWJD question. I just don’t see Christ throwing the switch. I see him asking the Executione " Are you without sin" And I see him asking the Jurors " Are you without sin" and then asking the Judge and Prosecutor “Are you without sin”

Imagine Christ sitting on a throne casting someone into Hell.

Is that a different Christ than the one you are imaging?

Which one is the real Christ?

Can you imagine Christ saying this?

If, in any of the cities which the LORD, your God,
gives you to dwell in, you hear it said
14 that certain scoundrels have sprung up among you and
have led astray the inhabitants of their city to serve other
gods whom you have not known,
15 you must inquire carefully into the matter and
investigate it thoroughly. If you find that it is true and an
established fact that this abomination has been committed in
your midst,
16 you shall put the inhabitants of that city to the
sword, dooming the city and all life that is in it, even its
cattle, to the sword.

(Deut 13)

And if Christ didn’t say it, who did?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Brendan:

Imagine Christ sitting on a throne casting someone into Hell. Is that a different Christ than the one you are imaging? Which one is the real Christ?

Yes I can imagine it. And the point is? You are trying to equate the Capital Punishment to the Final Judgement which are two separate issues and in no way relates to each other. Committing murder is a temporary turning away from God and you can be forgiven. When you stand before Jesus on Judgement Day, you being cast in to hell will be your own fault and the possiblility of forgiveness has expired.

Brendan:

Can you imagine Christ saying this? (Deut 13) And if Christ didn’t say it, who did?

Again Old Testament. Show me in the new testament that Jesus validates “Murder for a Murder” Or Murder for any crime against the law for that matter.

 

[JoeyWarren]

fix:

So, if there are priests and bishops who disagree with these folks, which is the correct understanding?

Understanding? They are in alignment with the Catechism via looking at it from a modern non-barbaric blood thirsty viewpoint.

 

[fix]

JoeyWarren:

Your question is?

Why do you accept the interpretation when other priests and bishops may not? Are both interpretations correct?

 

[Brendan]

JoeyWarren:

Again Old Testament. Show me in the new testament that Jesus validates “Murder for a Murder” Or Murder for any crime against the law for that matter.

Are you saying that Christ changed His mind on the subject?

Or is the God of the Old Testament somehow a different God from Christ?

 

[JoeyWarren]

fix:

Why do you accept the interpretation when other priests and bishops may not? Are both interpretations correct?

Both intrepretations?

 

[Della]

turboEDvo:

No.

The Church teaches that it is wrong to take life.

The Church also teaches that it is justifiable murder if the murder of an agressor is an unintended result of self-defense. This means that you did not intend to kill the individual but did so while protecting yourself.

However:
“The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.” CCC 2264

This is because the murder of an attacker MUST be the unintended result of self-defense (as CCC 2264 goes on to say)

As well:

“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 definitively 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.’” Quoted from CCC 2267

Thus, it would appear that the Church has actually said that the necessity to murder a man is virtually non-existent in today’s society.

To summarize, the Church says that killing is wrong and there is essentially no need on the state level to kill people.

Eamon

None of this tells us that the execution of criminals is intrinsically evil. If it were intrinsically evil it could never be allowed. You yourself have to admit it can be allowed, though severely limited according to the circumstances outlined in the quotes you cited. I’m not denying any of that.

You, though, can’t deny Church teaching in order to make your point. The truth is, and always will be, that the Church does not teach that the execution of criminals is intrinsically evil, and that is that, no matter if you want to accept it or not.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Brendan:

Are you saying that Christ changed His mind on the subject?
Or is the God of the Old Testament somehow a different God from Christ?

No and No.
And in a sense Yes and Yes.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JoeyWarren:

I personally see this as a quandary.

The official platform of the some politiical parties are contary to Divine Law. The Communist Party is one. And the Democratic Pary is another. I don’t see a quandary.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JoeyWarren:

…Again Old Testament. Show me in the new testament that Jesus validates “Murder for a Murder” Or Murder for any crime against the law for that matter.

It isn’t murder for murder. But Jesus does advocate the death penalty…

*"I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve." * (Rev 2:23)

 

[Isidore_AK]

JoeyWarren:

Again Old Testament. Show me in the new testament that Jesus validates “Murder for a Murder” Or Murder for any crime against the law for that matter.

The point you fail to grasp is that a just execution is not murder. The execution of the innocent is murder (for example: Abortion would qualify), but the just execution of a guilty criminal by the state is acceptable to the Church, has been used by the Church…and other than the liberal Bishops of our current age, the Church has never stood against the just execution of criminals.

 

[estesbob]

JoeyWarren:

Understanding? They are in alignment with the Catechism via looking at it from a modern non-barbaric blood thirsty viewpoint.

Now that we are in Lent those of us who pray the “hours” are reading Exodus. To deccribe the Old Testament as being from a barbaric bloodthirsty viewpoint show such a profound ignorance of Scripture as to make one wonder if you have studied it at all? This , however, is quite common for those who study Church teaching and Scripture from the standpoint of wanting to validate their political views.

 

[estesbob]

JoeyWarren:

Well if I am seeing in a skewed manner, then most of the priests in Montgomery area are seeing in a skewed manner as well. My comment is what I have heard before from other priests. Matter of fact this was expressed during the last Diocese pastoral council. And it was the general consensus. I don’t stand alone on this. I have the backing of priests and of the Arch-Bishop.

It may very well be the general consenus of the Priests and Bishops in the Montgomery area that the Death penatly is wrong. However that is not what the discussion is about. It is about whether the CHURCH teaches the death penalty is wrong. It does not.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Isidore_AK:

The point you fail to grasp is that a just execution is not murder. The execution of the innocent is murder (for example: Abortion would qualify), but the just execution of a guilty criminal by the state is acceptable to the Church, has been used by the Church…and other than the liberal Bishops of our current age, the Church has never stood against the just execution of criminals.

A rose is a rose and by any other name is still a rose.
Execution is a Murder.
The USA defines an Execution as “Judicial Homocide”.
Judical Homocide is what is written on the Death Certificate.

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.67

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 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 nonexistent.”

The last paragraph of this catechism makes it wrong to execute. And I would suggest you read “This is our Faith” by Michael Francis Pennock which is being currently used to teach a lot of RCIA classes.

 

[fix]

JoeyWarren:

Both intrepretations?

Yes, both meaning the interpretations from the priests and bishop in your area and those that differ from other areas? In another post you implied your view was correct because some priests and bishops held similar views. I pointed out other priests and bishops say the opposite.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I will redirect you to post #98