Absolutely. His mercy endures forever. Jesus said “He who seeks will find…” All we need to do is be contrite and understand that alone we are nothing and that God will do all he can. If you draw to him he will to you. Punishments in hell are for “exceeding long periods of time.” And we’ve all been there. So they say “forever”. Contrition is needed first.Are you saying that God will always forgive us regardless of what we do?
Ender
If one needs contrition before they are forgiven, then it is false to say “God will always forgive us regardless of what we do.” God’s forgiveness is conditional to those who seek it. Those who do not seek it are the ones who are in danger of hell.Absolutely. His mercy endures forever. Jesus said “He who seeks will find…” All we need to do is be contrite and understand that alone we are nothing and that God will do all he can. If you draw to him he will to you. Punishments in hell are for “exceeding long periods of time.” And we’ve all been there. So they say “forever”. Contrition is needed first.
Bill
Well yes I guess you could say that. You can’t go to absolution saying what you’ve done and be thinking about when your going to do it again. That’s not true contrition.If one needs contrition before they are forgiven, then it is false to say “God will always forgive us regardless of what we do.” God’s forgiveness is conditional to those who seek it. Those who do not seek it are the ones who are in danger of hell.
The original objection was about the death penalty. You’re broadening the debate into the question of justice overall.How are you going to win an appeal? To much deference is given to the trial courts. If you make no objection to something during the trial you waive that right forever. Reversals are made in clear or plain error cases or Abuse of discretion of the trial court Judge. If this doesn’t exist there’s not basis for appeal. It depends on your council. If he raises no objects your toast. Is he working for you or competent? You might get a new trial, but be re sentenced to an even harsher sentence. If you get life with mercy because the jury recommends it. A new jury might say execution.
This is the point. As I said, mercy is not something that should be universally and unconditionally applied. It is not appropriate at least in cases where the sinner is unrepentant.On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy, opposing grace and truth (JPII)If one needs contrition before they are forgiven, then it is false to say “God will always forgive us regardless of what we do.” God’s forgiveness is conditional to those who seek it. Those who do not seek it are the ones who are in danger of hell.
Yes I’m beginning to notice that. I agree of course with your ¶ 2.The original objection was about the death penalty. You’re broadening the debate into the question of justice overall.
And human nature being what it is, there will always be cases of injustice, either because of deliberate evil, badly designed legal systems, and sheer human error.
Secondly I’m Australian, not American, and we don’t have quite the same system you do.
Mercy is for this life. Judgement about whether someone goes to heaven or hell is for after this life and is God’s alone.**Does this mean you disbelieve in hell? Surely if hell exists there are those who have not received God’s mercy, but if not everyone receives God’s mercy what is the argument that we should be more merciful than God? ** Beyond that, how do we reject a punishment that has been set by God himself? Did you ignore the comment of Innocent I?Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.
- 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)
Ender
Yes I see a little clearer now what you mean. And IMO I think the persons should not only say “They’re sorry”. But walk the walk too. In lesser cases get therapy and maybe a second chance. In capital cases, at least in my state we don’t have capital punishment. But a jury has to recommend mercy for a person to not get a life sentence. In the US they go by the USSG for one thing too and there is capital punishment. As one poster said. There’s just (to me) something wrong with man being able to kill man.This is the point. As I said, mercy is not something that should be universally and unconditionally applied. It is not appropriate at least in cases where the sinner is unrepentant.On the part of man only a lack of good will can limit {mercy}, a lack of readiness to be converted and to repent, in other words persistence in obstinacy, opposing grace and truth (JPII)
And this goes to a point I raised earlier about mercy. If we consider it merciful to impose a lesser punishment than a person deserves, and LWOP is the lesser - and therefore merciful punishment - then that assertion contains within it the recognition that the just punishment is execution. So, if it is not appropriate to be merciful in those cases where the killer is unrepentant, what argument is there that he shouldn’t receive the just punishment?
Ender
Mercy is not just for this life; we all believe in a merciful God, but as I keep pointing out mercy is not always appropriate, and in those cases where it is not what is the argument for not imposing the just punishment, the one deserved by the nature of the crime?Mercy is for this life.
I understand your feelings. The church, however, has never taught that; she has always recognized instances where such actions were allowed.Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?There’s just (to me) something wrong with man being able to kill man.
The reason being that man’s judgment can be flawed. How many death row inmate have been exonerated by DNA? That’s our system. If a police officer for example thinks a certain person is doing something. But he might be able to implicate another person, make a case and win. He’ll make that case to get someone. He can always get the guy that’s doing something at a later time. As the saying goes “A bird in hand is worth two in a bush”. At least police officers I know would do it.I understand your feelings. The church, however, has never taught that; she has always recognized instances where such actions were allowed.Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
- In self-defense…
- In a just war…
- By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore Catechism)
Ender
I guess they would be judged themselves later. It's situation like that that makes me doubt capital punishment. Along with the situations that have been coming up lately with executions being botched. The movie "An Innocent Man" with Tom Selleck to me is very real to life. Or can be.These are prudential reasons for objecting to its use, and you and I may validly disagree on them. The church takes no position here.The reason being that man’s judgment can be flawed…Along with the situations that have been coming up lately with executions being botched. The movie “An Innocent Man” with Tom Selleck to me is very real to life.
This is the point I’ve been making. There may be practical objections to capital punishment but there are no moral ones.As far as the church allowing it. I guess it does.
Let me ask one last thing about this issue. You say this is not a “moral” issue. So in accordance with the aforesaid §2267, the church is not making a “moral” determination? Or is it? The church is infallible in “faith and morals” at certain times in certain situations. is this one because it’s in the CCC an infallible teaching?These are prudential reasons for objecting to its use, and you and I may validly disagree on them. The church takes no position here.
This is the point I’ve been making. There may be practical objections to capital punishment but there are no moral ones.
Ender
My position on capital punishment is that while prudential objections to its use may be raised, moral objections to it are not valid inasmuch as the church has always accepted it as a right of States to employ. In light of that caveat here is how I interpret the document you cited. In their introduction they stated:In 1994…the Bishops of the United States…addressed the evil of violence in our society expressed in many forms. An example of accepted violence in our culture is the death penalty.
That’s correct. I believe that 2267 is a prudential judgment, not a moral one, and there is no doctrinal objection to the use of capital punishment.Let me ask one last thing about this issue. You say this is not a “moral” issue. So in accordance with the aforesaid §2267, the church is not making a “moral” determination?
A teaching doesn’t become more binding because it is found in the catechism. The validity it has in the catechism stems entirely from the validity that comes from its original source. The fact that something is in the catechism does not make it infallible. If it was not already infallible, its inclusion in the catechism does not make it so.The church is infallible in “faith and morals” at certain times in certain situations. is this one because it’s in the CCC an infallible teaching?
The Catechism is directed to us, the people of this age to show the relevance of the Scripture, Tradition and the Church in our times.Let me ask one last thing about this issue. You say this is not a “moral” issue. So in accordance with the aforesaid §2267, the church is not making a “moral” determination? Or is it? The church is infallible in “faith and morals” at certain times in certain situations. is this one because it’s in the CCC an infallible teaching?
Bill
CCC 2267 …Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it…Hence we can be assured that the CCC is fully doctrinal and does not contain opinions we can take or leave.
OK. I am asking that as a Catholic. I take many views when studying something. Including the Bible. But I must also trust in “infallibility”. As I understand. Or accept it as the most authentistic of the church’s teachings anyway.The Catechism is directed to us, the people of this age to show the relevance of the Scripture, Tradition and the Church in our times.
11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium.
The Church interprets scripture and Tradition for us to faithfully trust in as we strive to live in modern times. (This will apply to all ages until the end of time).
Card. Ratzinger… “Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church”
Hence we can be assured that the CCC is fully doctrinal and does not contain opinions we can take or leave.
An act we are taught in philosophy is judged in 3 ways. Objective, subjective, and relative. If one objectively had good intentions and the results were more disasterly relatively speaking things would need to change.CCC 2267 …Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it…
The evaluation of the penal capabilities of modern states is an opinion. It is not possible to consider the above statement an expression of doctrine.…cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'
Rare? Practically non-existent? Could anyone rationally conceive of doctrines being expressed this way? I’ve already cited Cardinal Dulles regarding the prudential nature of 2267 so I won’t repeat his comment, but here are some others.The most reasonable explanation for the current pope’s stance on this question is that his opposition is an exercise in prudence, which is the application of eternally true principles to the changing circumstances of time and place. The highest virtue of political action, prudence involves making judgments about which well-intentioned men may in good conscience disagree. (Dennis Teti, Hillsdale College)
It is, I think, unfortunate that this prudential judgement was added to the Catechism. No matter how valuable it may be, the protection of the Holy Spirit does not apply to it, nor can such judgments ever be part of the Church’s Magisterium. The Church has no special gift for discerning the capabilities of the modern age in comparison with past ages… (Dr Jeff Mirus)
*To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. *(Karl Keating)
Ender
The Church teaches that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. When something is not intrinsically evil, its morality depends on the intention and circumstances that motivate it.OK. I am asking that as a Catholic. I take many views when studying something. Including the Bible. But I must also trust in “infallibility”. As I understand. Or accept it as the most authentistic of the church’s teachings anyway.
Bill