T
thinkandmull
Guest
The catechism is vague, but I think john paul’s encyclical was more precise. Also, Pope Francis has taken the teaching to a new level as well
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
(Step 1: characterize my opponent’s comments as offensively as possible…)
The problem with this inventive interpretation is that the clarification of “past teachings and word definitions” you speak of takes place in the catechism between sections 2266 and 2267. Just how much do you think time and circumstance can change in that space?
I’ll just assume you don’t respond to my actual comments because you lack the wherewithal to do so, and if I am confident in my position it is in large measure because I have yet to encounter a reasoned rebuttal.
Ender
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Pope Francis says the DP is “inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed. It is an offence against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person, which contradicts God’s plan for man and society, and his merciful justice, and impedes the penalty from fulfilling any just objective. It does not render justice to the victims, but rather fosters vengeance… When the death penalty is applied, it is not for a current act of aggression, but rather for an act committed in the past. It is also applied to persons whose current ability to cause harm is not current, as it has been neutralized – they are already deprived of their liberty.”*
T
thinkandmull
Guest
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Pius XII disagreed with Pope Francis:
Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12PSYCH.HTM
Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12PSYCH.HTM
E
Ender
Guest
It is a mistake to believe that all the OT laws were simply abrogated by Jesus, especially after he explicitly stated “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law …."(Mt 5:17) It is certainly true, however, that not all of the Mosaic laws are still followed.
This passage, it should be noted, has not been abolished:“Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” (Gn 9:6)
This is part of the Noahic covenant and will stand until the end of time.
Ender
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Ahem, you were the one who stated the CCC has the defective understanding on this point I believe?
You want the authors to rebutt you before you dial down the stance?
Hmm. Not sure that would work even if they did phone you.
It didn’t work for Luther, the Pope’s rebuttal just wasn’t well reasoned
.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
What moral choice is involved in stopping my skinny teenage domestic intruder with a few well placed punches or a bullet in the chest
.Give us a break with the face saving rationalisations and that Ender is always right approach.
B
BornInMarch
Guest
No he didn’t. Jesus said so himself.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-20
And regardless, the Catholic Church still permits governments to practice capitol punishment.
E
Ender
Guest
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
O
o_mlly
Guest
In Evangelium Vitae, JP II confirms that the intentional killing of innocent human life is murder, is immoral.
He also confirms the traditional teaching that the state maintains the right to kill non-innocent human life. However, the two other sources that determine the morality of that act, the intent and the circumstances, still bear on the community’s decision to execute one of its own.
M
mikekle
Guest
Why should ‘the state’ be exempt when everyone else is required to abide though?
I get suspicious whenever ‘the state’ is given special privileges/ leeway, or consideration when it comes to translation of bible verses.
E
Ender
Guest
"Blue_Horizon:
Ender
As you cited it yourself, you should recognize that my actual comment was that “we” have a defective understanding, something I believe the catechism has contributed to.“We now have a defective understanding of punishment itself. If we reject the concept of retribution, as the catechism in 2267 appears to do by implicitly denying the use of capital punishment as an act of retributive justice, we separate punishment from justice itself. If we are not to punish a person because his actions merit it, how do we justify any punishment?”
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
- Notwithstanding we see that Princes and Governors put thieves and other malefactors to death, who nevertheless are men, and it is not holden that they do evil herein, but well. Princes and Governors that have public authority, put malefactors to death, not as masters of men’s lives, but as ministers of God, as St. Paul saith. *Because God willeth and commandeth that malefactors be punished and killed, when they deserve it, that good men may be safe, and live in peace. And for this purpose God hath given the sword into the hands of Princes and Rulers to do justice, in defending the good, and chastising the bad. And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice: and whereas the commandment of God saith: Thou shalt not kill, it is understood, by thy private authority. (Catechism of St. Bellarmine)
O
o_mlly
Guest
The community does not have any special privileges. Individually, or collectively as the community, one or everyone may never intentionally take an innocent human life. Individually, or collectively as the community, anyone or everyone may take a non-innocent human life. The intention and circumstances of the individual’s or community’s act are in the latter always withstanding.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Well put.
It is also interesting what the Church seems to teach re directly intending to kill the guilty.
My reading is that this is also always and everywhere illicit - even though some would not call it murder.
That is, on those occasions that the State may kill the guilty, they still may not directly will to do so.
E
Ender
Guest
To assert this is to claim one can simultaneously believe both A and not-A. In any execution the end desired by the act is the death of the criminal. It would seem there could hardly be an act of killing more premeditated, more intentional than this. The death is scheduled, it is witnessed, and it is proclaimed complete by a doctor. How can it be said the State did not directly will such a death?
Ender
- Status