M
mrphyjammusashi
Guest
The same way I would explain the blood lust of the Inquisition.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
Well, if we’re going to start quoting Aquinas around here:
God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving: “Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:32). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fulness thereof. And thus it is said: “Mercy exalteth itself above judgment” (James 2:13).
elsewhere:
Certain works are attributed to justice, and certain others to mercy, because in some justice appears more forcibly and in others mercy. Even in the damnation of the reprobate mercy is seen, which, though it does not totally remit, yet somewhat alleviates, in punishing short of what is deserved.
In the justification of the ungodly, justice is seen, when God remits sins on account of love, though He Himself has mercifully infused that love. So we read of Magdalen: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much” (Luke 7:47).
God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving: “Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:32). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fulness thereof. And thus it is said: “Mercy exalteth itself above judgment” (James 2:13).
elsewhere:
Certain works are attributed to justice, and certain others to mercy, because in some justice appears more forcibly and in others mercy. Even in the damnation of the reprobate mercy is seen, which, though it does not totally remit, yet somewhat alleviates, in punishing short of what is deserved.
In the justification of the ungodly, justice is seen, when God remits sins on account of love, though He Himself has mercifully infused that love. So we read of Magdalen: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much” (Luke 7:47).
S
sw85
Guest
There’s the secondary question of how, if death does not in fact satisfy the demands of justice, Christ’s death was efficacious in satisfying the demands of justice with respect to the sins of all mankind.Not exactly. If your impression of capital punishment is right then the Church has been wrong for 2000 years since the Church even today recognizes the moral right of a State to execute criminals. If Jesus was actually condemning capital punishment as you contend then how do you explain the Church’s position?
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
A very reasonable thing to do … but what point are you trying to make? *“Mercy does not destroy justice …”. *OK, how should that comment be applied? Are you arguing that capital punishment should be avoided in all cases as acts of mercy? It would be helpful if you would make your point and then support it with a relevant citation instead of simply quoting Aquinas and leaving it to me to figure out how you meant it to apply.Well, if we’re going to start quoting Aquinas around here…
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Death, if the punishment is accepted, does satisfy the demands of justice. Christ’s death was very different from those of the criminals who receive that punishment: their punishment was earned, his obviously was not.There’s the secondary question of how, if death does not in fact satisfy the demands of justice, Christ’s death was efficacious in satisfying the demands of justice with respect to the sins of all mankind.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Just to be clear then: you believe the Church has been wrong for 2000 years in her teaching on capital punishment?The same way I would explain the blood lust of the Inquisition.
Ender
M
mrphyjammusashi
Guest
Yes.Just to be clear then: you believe the Church has been wrong for 2000 years in her teaching on capital punishment?
Ender
S
sw85
Guest
Right, and it is precisely because he was sinless that his death was efficacious in paying the debt of our sins. But this is true only because the death penalty is, at least in principle, just. If it’s unjust, then Christ’s death was pointless and accomplished nothing.Death, if the punishment is accepted, does satisfy the demands of justice. Christ’s death was very different from those of the criminals who receive that punishment: their punishment was earned, his obviously was not.
Ender
S
sw85
Guest
You realize the Church is incapable of error, you are required to give full assent of faith to all of its doctrinal teachings, and your denial of both of these is a mortal sin that imperils your soul and severs from communion with Christ and His Church?Yes.
M
mrphyjammusashi
Guest
Really? Then explain to me all the atrocities throughout history the Church has justified with doctrinal teachings. Go back and back and back, and when you are exhausted, you may stop at the Inquisition. I love the Church, but like my wife or my children, love requires complete and absolute honesty. If God has a problem with that, then my soul is damned, but that will be between the Father and I.You realize the Church is incapable of error, you are required to give full assent of faith to all of its doctrinal teachings, and your denial of both of these is a mortal sin that imperils your soul and severs from communion with Christ and His Church?
E
Ender
Guest
I want to tread carefully here. When we sin we incur a debt that only our punishment can pay. This is a matter of justice.Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime (JPII)Right, and it is precisely because he was sinless that his death was efficacious in paying the debt of our sins.
If we repent of our sins we are forgiven, but forgiveness does not eliminate the need for punishment.*At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” *(JPII)
Ender
S
sw85
Guest
You’re not required to endorse every action the Church undertakes, since those aren’t protected from error (though you should really do your homework before parroting meritless leftist lies about the Inquisition).Really? Then explain to me all the atrocities throughout history the Church has justified with doctrinal teachings. Go back and back and back, and when you are exhausted, you may stop at the Inquisition. I love the Church, but like my wife or my children, love requires complete and absolute honesty. If God has a problem with that, then my soul is damned, but that will be between the Father and I.
You ARE required to endorse their doctrinal teachings, including the principle that the state may licitly in principle put criminals to death, though it may also make a prudential judgment that it ought not to. God Himself protects the Church from error in doctrinal teachings. Denial of this is a mortal sin against faith.
I can’t imagine why you’d be so flippant about the fate of your own soul and that of your family when you know perfectly well sentiments like this are mortally sinful offenses against the duty of trust of and hope in God.
S
sw85
Guest
Right, but the punishment is (largely) satisfied by Christ’s death. We pay no more than we are able to pay; that’s the whole point of the Incarnation: man had to pay the price for his sins but only God could; hence God became man.I want to tread carefully here. When we sin we incur a debt that only our punishment can pay. This is a matter of justice.Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime (JPII)
If we repent of our sins we are forgiven, but forgiveness does not eliminate the need for punishment.*At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” *(JPII)
Ender
My point is that if these folks are right and the death penalty is always and everywhere in principle unjust, then Christ’s execution accomplished nothing. They would, basically, be denying the Incarnation.
M
mrphyjammusashi
Guest
You must be right, and the Earth is the center of the universe.You’re not required to endorse every action the Church undertakes, since those aren’t protected from error (though you should really do your homework before parroting meritless leftist lies about the Inquisition).
You ARE required to endorse their doctrinal teachings, including the principle that the state may licitly in principle put criminals to death, though it may also make a prudential judgment that it ought not to. God Himself protects the Church from error in doctrinal teachings. Denial of this is a mortal sin against faith.
I can’t imagine why you’d be so flippant about the fate of your own soul and that of your family when you know perfectly well sentiments like this are mortally sinful offenses against the duty of trust of and hope in God.
E
Ender
Guest
The belief that the Earth was the center of the universe was never a doctrine of the Church. Yes, churchmen and everyone else believed it to be true but it was never dogma and challenging that common (mis)conception was not what got Galileo in trouble. SW85’s comment about doctrine is accurate.You must be right, and the Earth is the center of the universe.
Ender
1
1SeekingChrist
Guest
I think, put simply, the death penalty is considered acceptable by the Church and has been endorsed as within the legitimate power of civil authority to use or not use that right. However, as a pastoral guideline (not a doctrine or dogma so not binding) considering modern technology that it is not necessary and should be exercised in only the most extreme cases. The basis of this pastoral guideline is primarily our greater understanding today than in past centuries the inherent dignity of the human person, I believe, and God’s desire that all men be saved. If you kill someone, there is no chance for redemption, but, if the man lives, he can be redeemed.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
That citation of Aquinas ties to my entire argument throughout this thread. However, since you need things broken down to minute detail, I will do so. My comments in red.A very reasonable thing to do … but what point are you trying to make? *“Mercy does not destroy justice …”. *OK, how should that comment be applied? Are you arguing that capital punishment should be avoided in all cases as acts of mercy? It would be helpful if you would make your point and then support it with a relevant citation instead of simply quoting Aquinas and leaving it to me to figure out how you meant it to apply.
Ender
God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His justice, but by doing something more than justice (this does not mean just punishment and something else besides. Indeed, it can mean something more complete than, yet different from the just punishment); thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving: “Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:32) (note: the forgiveness mentioned here does not preclude all punishment. Yet, if there is forgiveness, then mercy is possible). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fulness thereof (applying this to the current topic: the small mercy of commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment is a more perfect application of justice than mere execution). And thus it is said: “Mercy exalteth itself above judgment” (James 2:13).
…
Certain works are attributed to justice, and certain others to mercy, because in some justice appears more forcibly and in others mercy. Even in the damnation of the reprobate mercy is seen, which, though it does not totally remit, yet somewhat alleviates, in punishing short of what is deserved (“punishing short” i.e. by withholding the full force of punishment due for the crime. In the case of a murderer, by not executing him when it is possible to remove him from society without his death).
In the justification of the ungodly, justice is seen, when God remits sins on account of love, though He Himself has mercifully infused that love. So we read of Magdalen: “Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much” (Luke 7:47).
E
Ender
Guest
I understand this to mean you believe commuting the death penalty - which is the just punishment - to life in prison is an act of mercy and should be universally applied in all cases. Is that correct?Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fulness thereof (applying this to the current topic: the small mercy of commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment is a more perfect application of justice than mere execution).
Ender
S
SonCatcher
Guest
Will you please respond to the rest of the post?I understand this to mean you believe commuting the death penalty - which is the just punishment - to life in prison is an act of mercy and should be universally applied in all cases. Is that correct?
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
There can be little argument about the validity of this point.I think, put simply, the death penalty is considered acceptable by the Church and has been endorsed as within the legitimate power of civil authority to use or not use that right.
I agree with this as well.However, as a pastoral guideline (not a doctrine or dogma so not binding) …
The claim is that capital punishment is not necessary to achieve public safety. The more important implication is that it is not necessary to achieve justice and I am not aware of any argument even being attempted that addresses this point. This question is simply ignored.…considering modern technology that it is not necessary and should be exercised in only the most extreme cases.
“Greater understanding today”??? Don’t you find the charge troubling that the Church had a flawed understanding of man’s inherent dignity for 2000 years? I find this argument the least persuasive of all. I think the implications of this argument are widespread and devastating and I reject it out of hand.The basis of this pastoral guideline is primarily our greater understanding today than in past centuries the inherent dignity of the human person, I believe, and God’s desire that all men be saved.
This point has been addressed before and isn’t that compelling.Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications. (Romano Amerio, peritas, Vatican II)If you kill someone, there is no chance for redemption, but, if the man lives, he can be redeemed.
Ender
- Status
- Not open for further replies.