Capital punishment is justified

[Mboo]

To exist by God’s divine act is good.

it’s good in the order of God, but it’s not good for those who suffer in hell! to take a comparison, locking up a criminal in prison is good for society order, but it is not good for the criminal himself.
So for someone who suffers in Hell, not to exist at all would be better, and it is even obvious. Indeed, if we propose to any person (including you) to choose between ceasing to exist permanently or suffering eternally in Hell, his choice will be obvious.

 

[Mboo]

The fact that God is allowing someone to exist apart from him for all eternity is a merciful act.

No it is a consequence of his justice, because the goal of existence is to live united with God. It is the justice of God that can prevent that, not his mercy.
Divine mercy in this case may just temper the rigors of his justice, so without the mercy of God, the damned would suffer more.
Make disappear completely the damned would be better for them, but that would not be good for divine justice.

 

[thistle]

One is bound first and foremost by one’s conscience. What has changed now is that disagreement is now dissent, but permissible.

Not correct. We are bound by all Church doctrine (infallible and non-infallible) and by Church discipline.
We may disagree with discipline but not doctrine.
Conscience must be informed in line with doctrine.
For example, a Catholic may not say his conscience says abortion, rape, murder is okay even though it contradicts Church teachings. Such a view would put the person in a state of mortal sin.

You also have to remember that Christ gave the Church authority to teach in matters of faith and morals. That means ALL Church teachings have the full authority of Christ supporting them. To reject a Church teaching is to reject Christ.

 

[cathapolo]

Two great talks that expound the Catholic position in this regard are the following:

 

[pnewton]

Not correct. We are bound by all Church doctrine (infallible and non-infallible) and by Church discipline.
We may disagree with discipline but not doctrine.

Then we are also bound by 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

So, how can we say that one who has formed their conscience in line with what the Church has taught now has an uniformed conscience now that this teaching has been developed somewhat a few months ago? My understanding of the death penalty has taken years.

I really do not see any condemnation that can be laid on people for following their properly formed conscience because it does not agree with mine, even laying aside the (valid) point that the new passage contains some part that are not doctrine.

 

[thistle]

For example, a Catholic may not say his conscience says abortion, rape, murder is okay even though it contradicts Church teachings. Such a view would put the person in a state of mortal sin.

I notice you ignored my example. Are you saying that if a Catholic says his conscience firmly holds that the Church’s (and consequently God) teaching on abortion, rape and murder is wrong and that they are not sins of grave matter and such a catholic is not in a state of mortal sin???

 

[pnewton]

I notice you ignored my example.

I did (meaning I did ignore it). I thought it too much of a rabbit trail to follow. I also did not go into detail with my first post about formation of conscience. I was trying to stick with how following one conscience would apply in this situation.

 

[thistle]

I did. I thought it too much of a rabbit trail to follow. I also did not go into detail with my first post about formation of conscience. I was trying to stick with how following one conscience would apply in this situation.

No you didn’t. If you think I am confused then simply answer my question about the example of abortion, rape and murder.

 

[IWantGod]

but it’s not good for those who suffer in hell!

It’s not a good experience, but the objective value of the person does not change, because that value is eternally determined by God’s will and nature. If we were to say that the very existence that is given by God is not good, then this would be an error, metaphysically speaking, because that would suggests God’s creation is not good. But it is true that somebody can be immoral despite the value that God has given them, and even suffer hell while still having the same existential value.

 

[Mboo]

To be in hell is not a good thing for the one who is in Hell, but it is a good thing for the justice of God.

 

[IWantGod]

No it is a consequence of his justice,

justice is just another face of love. But even in justice God doesn’t cease being love. People don’t just suffer hell for the sake of punishment, they suffer hell because there is no other possible state for them to be in once they have eternally rejected God’s love. If it were good for a person in hell to cease to exist, then they would cease to exist. It is good to exist, that’s why people go to hell rather than cease to be.

God is not a torturer. It’s not simply a matter of deserving, hell is necessary.

 

[Mboo]

justice is just another face of love. But even in justice God doesn’t cease being love. People don’t just suffer hell for the sake of punishment, they suffer hell because there is no other possible state for them to be once they have eternally rejected God’s love

just no! Hell is the only situation JUST for the damned. There are situations where the damned could be better (like non existence), but it would not be right.

 

[IWantGod]

just no! Hell is the only situation JUST for the damned.

God is eternal love. God loves the damned. If you think people in hell are just discarded rubbish, you are mistaken. God wants to save everyone.

 

[Mboo]

God loves His Son more than us, and for the love of his Son, he must repair all the injustices we have done to his extrinsic glory, even if for that he must send us to Hell.

 

[IWantGod]

God loves His Son more than us, and for the love of his Son, he must repair all the injustices we have done to his extrinsic glory, even if for that he must send us to Hell.

Regardless. God is eternal love, and that love does not change, regardless of our sins. People go to hell because they reject God’s love, not because God rejects us. If that were the case we would all go to hell since none of us are deserving of heaven. Heaven is a merciful gift. It’s not a question of deserving. That’s why good works alone is not enough. You have to accept God in your heart.

 

[Mboo]

God wants to save everyone.

another mistake of the modernist pastoral that is being conveyed today. the ultimate goal of creation is not the happiness of man, but the extrinsic glory of God.
What God absolutely wants is not the eternal happiness of man (all that God absolutely wants is realized), but the extrinsic glory of his Son.
He wants the eternal happiness of man, but it’s not an absolute will, but a hypothetical will.

 

[IWantGod]

another mistake of the modernist pastoral that is being conveyed today.

It’s not a mistake, you are simply interpreting God’s will in that way. Your interpretation is a mistake. God’s love never changes.

 

[IWantGod]

the ultimate goal of creation is not the happiness of man, but the extrinsic glory of God.

Creation is a reflection of God’s glory, and since God is love, creation is a reflection of his love. Thus it stands to reason that God will’s us to love him because of love, and he allows us to reject him because of love. This is true justice. Hell is just a natural consequence of that rejection. It’s not an artificial construct designed to torture sinners.

God wants to save everyone because God is love…

 

[Mboo]

Regardless. God is eternal love, and that love does not change, regardless of our sins

you project on God, your “sentimentalist” and Western conception of love. Yes God is love, otherwise those whom He sent to Hell according to His righteousness would suffer more.

 

[Roguish]

I guess the moratorium on this topic has expired.

Out of curiosity, apparently some here, including you, know which topics have been outlawed by the moderators. Where do you get this info? Is there a list?

Mute it then. But the Church cannot stand between a man and his conscience.

The new change seemed more to be an exercise in changing the Catechism to test the waters for forthcoming changes to other teachings. Perhaps the plan is to incrementally move away from previous teachings, and after a certain amount of years it can be considered “development of doctrine.”

I get this feeling as well. We’re being “warmed up” for more change. It seems that it’s no problem for our current Pope if many of us, including high-ranking clergy, feel that the change is wrong. I am getting the uncomfortable feeling that the point is mostly just for us to get used to this kind of thing, until we give up voicing dissent, either because we don’t notice it anymore or we’re tired of fighting a battle we obviously won’t win. I hate to say it, but at this stage Rome’s tactics are beginning to strike me as sly.