First, I must thank Texas Roofer for stepping up and responding to these questions in my absence. They were originally directed toward our
“burpee” friend who believes law (at least doctrine and statements from hundreds and even thousands of years ago) trumps God’s Word, the Church’s clear teaching, Christian ethics and morality. Sounds very much like those Pharisees and Scholars of the Law that Jesus thoroughly trashed, doesn’t it. How did He put it? Oh yes, He said that inside they were “filled with plunder and evil”.
If 2267 of the current catechism was all the Church had said about capital punishment (or justice, mercy, atonement, punishment, and the expiation of sin) then you would have a strong case. Unfortunately for your position, 2267 does not correlate with what the Church has traditionally taught and it is even at odds with other parts of the Catechism.
I admit I do not know every paragraph of the Catechism. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to those statements that contradict the one one capital punishment. Thanks. And if this current teaching does not “correlate” with tradition, which do we follow?
They may be from the mouth of Jesus but they come with your personal interpretation. Provide some citation to a Church document that agrees with you if you want them taken seriously.
I forget, who was there to interpret Jesus for the first disciples and followers? They seem fairly clear to me. I trust what Jesus tells me; YOU are the one who wants to interpret everything differently and “prove” it by numerous citations. I will stick with the Word of God, thank you.
OK, Vatican City had the death penalty on her books until 1969. Is that recent enough?
At least it is in the 20th century. So you are saying that the Vatican NO LONGER has the death penalty “on her books”? And hasn’t for 40 years! VERY interesting. Since the Church changed this rule and now has one which agrees with its CURRENT teachings, as well as the statements of Pope John Paul II, that would appear to put a huge crack in your argument. A VERY huge crack.
Thank you very, very much for sharing that.
(A small aside here. I really liked JP II at the beginning, partly because he and my family are from the same area of Poland and I happen to share his name. Then I thought he was a little too conservative. But now, after reading several posts where Traditional Catholics and other apparent conservatives attack JP II and blame him for various things, and I learn more about what he said and did, my respect for him is definitely increasing. Thanks, guys, for that as well)
Justice is served only when the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime. That may or may not require execution but 2267 is indifferent to the need for justice because it bases the use of capital punishment solely on the protection of society.
If you believe that the merciful punishment is imprisonment, don’t you at the same time have to admit that the just punishment is execution? Mercy consists of lessening the punishment one deserves, so if the merciful punishment is life without the possibility of parole then the just punishment must surely be execution.
The Catechism and therefore the Church are “indifferent to the need for justice”? Wow, if there is one thing the Church has consistently taught during my lifetime, it is the need for justice. I also seem to recall something about “tempering justice with mercy” or is it vice versa. Either way it works.
To you justice means that the “punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime.” That is much better than arguing that the death penalty prevents crime and protects people from future crimes. Those ideas has been thoroughly proven wrong time and again.
I think “just punishment” can certainly be imprisonment, and I am not the only one who thinks that. Many states in our country do, many countries of the world do, and many religions do (including the one with a Pope). I consider myself in very good company in that respect.
The Church does not interpret this passage the way you do. What the Church does do, however, is interpret Genesis 9:6 literally:
Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
I am learning how you do things here. Bible passages that don’t agree with your position are interpreted differently or dismissed, but those that seem to back your position are to be taken literally! Very good. Can’t lose an argument that way. Plus I just love how you go back to one of the earliest Bibilical passages of all, from thousands of years ago, and say that it takes precedence over what God told us later, through Jesus. As I said earlier about the OT and the NT, God must be very schizophrenic. Or he lies, lies, lies. Because that is the only way you can explain this, UNLESS as the Catholic Church appears to believe, God gave us a new and higher law when Jesus came to this earth. In this one, I will go with the Catholic Church. You, of course, are free to take a position contrary to your Church.
Your personal understanding of scripture is not the issue here; the question is what the Church teaches and she has never interpreted the story of the woman threatened with stoning to mean that the murderer should not be executed. To the contrary, she has taught, and teaches today, that Gen 9:6 means what it says. Ender
I wasn’t using this passage to make my points about the death penalty. I was using it to ask who of you will be the one to judge someone else; who of you will “cast the first stone”, who of you is willing to be one to separate the “good” from the “bad” and then obliterate the “bad”. Obviously, our friend *“burpee” *is all set to take on that role. But for reasons most will undestand from reading his posts, he is the last person I would want to see in a position of authority regarding life and death. I shudder to think about it.
On this Feast of the Assumption, I think we should all say an extra prayer, asking for the intercession of Mary, the epitome of Grace and Mercy, in helping our friend
"burpee". He truly needs those prayers.
