Death Penalty and Justice

[o_mlly]

Since God IS Justice, are you telling me that He is opposed to Justice?

I conclude you have no Magisterial reference to support your interpretation.

Using your logic, since God is Charity are you telling us that He is opposed to charity? As I posted before, Christ has given us the grace to better understand God’s charity than God’s justice. Christ told his apostles as much in Mat 5:20: “For I say to you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and of the Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

No, Christ noted that it was Moses’ interpretation of that Law. As I mentioned above, where exactly in Deut does God give permission for divorce to happen? Could you give me the verse number?

I posted, “Christ corrected the Pharisees misinterpretation of the “second law” by noting it was not God’s law but Moses who yielded to the pressure of the stiff-necked Israelites.” So why do you ask for a verse?

If Moses erred in assuming that since there was no direct prohibtion in God’s Word, that such activity was permitted, well then, that is hardly the same as being God’s Word, now is it?

Now you are getting to the point. Christ corrected misinterpretations of His law then and continues to do now as He promised through the Church – His Mystical Body.

St. Thomas noted that the Moral Law ( what is, or is not Moral) is unchanging and was not changed in the New Law, do you agree with that?

All the laws of the Old Testament are not moral laws. They do not belong to the Eternal Law but to the Divine Law. Do you know the difference?

Do you also prefer the Angelic Doctor’s take on Capital Punishment?

I prefer JP II’s take on capital punishment.

 

[Brendan]

I conclude you have no Magisterial reference to support your interpretation.

Using your logic, since God is Charity are you telling us that He is opposed to charity? As I posted before, Christ has given us the grace to better understand God’s charity than God’s justice. Christ told his apostles as much in Mat 5:20: “For I say to you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and of the Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Yes, GOd is Charity and seeks Charity. In the exact same way that God seeks Justics.

I posted, “Christ corrected the Pharisees misinterpretation of the “second law” by noting it was not God’s law but Moses who yielded to the pressure of the stiff-necked Israelites.” So why do you ask for a verse?

Sorry, you statement was a bit misleading. It seems you were stating that the things listed in Deuteronomy were not actually from God. I’m glad we agree that they were.

Now you are getting to the point. Christ corrected misinterpretations of His law then and continues to do now as He promised through the Church – His Mystical Body.

So what misinterpretations do you see in Gen 9:5-6

All the laws of the Old Testament are not moral laws. They do not belong to the Eternal Law but to the Divine Law. Do you know the difference?

Yes, I do. That things that delt with the laws of Clean and Unclean. Those did not exist before the Exodus, and were strictly temporal.

The Moral Laws, acts that offend God or do not offend God, are eternal. Those prexist Exodus (such as Gen 9) and are eternal.

As Aquinas noted, God is unchanging, what offends God will always offend God. What does not, does not.

Do you consider Capital Punishment to be a matter of ritual cleanliness or a moral issue?

I prefer JP II’s take on capital punishment.

Do you see them as being in conflict? I do not. Both say that Capital Punishment may be used, and both agree that it is the State who has the authority to decide to implement it.

 

[o_mlly]

…
Yes, I do. That things that delt with the laws of Clean and Unclean. Those did not exist before the Exodus, and were strictly temporal.
The Moral Laws, acts that offend God or do not offend God, are eternal. Those prexist Exodus (such as Gen 9) and are eternal.
As Aquinas noted, God is unchanging, what offends God will always offend God. What does not, does not.
Do you consider Capital Punishment to be a matter of ritual cleanliness or a moral issue?
Do you see them as being in conflict? I do not. Both say that Capital Punishment may be used, and both agree that it is the State who has the authority to decide to implement it.

I think you understate the scope of Divine Laws in the OT by limiting them to only those laws dealing with ritual cleanliness. Many dealt with capital punishement. I think you also err in elevating the book of Exodus as if it is a gateway for laws which may be considered Eternal and laws which may be considered Divine. Within Exodus we are given the Ten Commandments (Eternal) as well as the Divine Laws:
Exodus 2:11-12
On one occasion, after Moses had grown up, when he visited his kinsmen and witnessed their forced labor, he saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew, one of his own kinsmen. Looking about and seeing no one, he slew the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.
Exodus 32:26-28
[H]e [Moses] stood at the gate of the camp and cried, “Whoever is for the LORD, let him come to me!” All the Levites then rallied to him, and he told them, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Put your sword on your hip, every one of you! Now go up and down the camp, from gate to gate, and slay your own kinsmen, your friends and neighbors!” The Levites carried out the command of Moses, and that day there fell about three thousand of the people.

As examples of Divine Law involving the capital punishment of genocide:
De 20:16-17
But in the cities of those nations which the LORD, your God, is giving you as your heritage, you shall not leave a single soul alive. You must doom them all-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the LORD, your God, has commanded you …
And individual conddemnations for sexual deviance:

Leviticus
9
"Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life.
10
If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
11
If a man disgraces his father by lying with his father’s wife, both the man and his stepmother shall be put to death; they have forfeited their lives.
12
If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; since they have committed an abhorrent deed, they have forfeited their lives.
13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.
14
If a man marries a woman and her mother also, the man and the two women as well shall be burned to death for their shameful conduct, so that such shamefulness may not be found among you.
15
If a man has carnal relations with an animal, the man shall be put to death, and the animal shall be slain.
16
If a woman goes up to any animal to mate with it, the woman and the animal shall be slain; let them both be put to death; their lives are forfeit.

For concerting with fortune-tellers:
27
“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortune-teller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.”

For gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Nu 15:32-36):
32
While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was discovered gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33
Those who caught him at it brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly.
34
But they kept him in custody, for there was no clear decision as to what should be done with him.
35
Then the LORD said to Moses, “This man shall be put to death; let the whole community stone him outside the camp.”
36
So the whole community led him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

For disobedience by children (De 21:18-21):
18
"If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they chastise him,
19
6 his father and mother shall have him apprehended and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city,
20
where they shall say to those city elders, ‘This son of ours is a stubborn and unruly fellow who will not listen to us; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’
21
Then all his fellow citizens shall stone him to death.
For cursing one’s parents (Ex 21:17):
17
"Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death.

Do you agree these are Divine Laws?

 

[Ender]

I think you understate the scope of Divine Laws in the OT by limiting them to only those laws dealing with ritual cleanliness. Many dealt with capital punishement.

All of this may be interesting (or not), but none of it is particularly relevant as the Church has not based its comments about capital punishment on these laws but on God’s charge to Noah in Genesis. Whatever may or may not be true of Deuteronomy or Exodus has no bearing on the meaning of Genesis.

Lycorth: I had not seen the Catechism of Thomas Aquinas before; thanks for that reference.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

All of this may be interesting (or not), but none of it is particularly relevant as the Church has not based its comments about capital punishment on these laws but on God’s charge to Noah in Genesis. Whatever may or may not be true of Deuteronomy or Exodus has no bearing on the meaning of Genesis.
Ender

No, that’s incorrect. I suggest a re-reading of *Dei Verbum *would be helpful in understanding that an holistic approach is required to interpret Scripture.

“But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out.”

We are not merely a People of the Book but of the Word. Some Catholics incorrectly believe their bishop’s authority to be merely analagous to the local franchise holder of a McDonald’s, However, your bishop is the prophetic voice of your community when he speaks pastorally. When the bishops speak in unison, the prophetic voice has greater volume and clarity – unless you choose to skip that part of the cafeteria ine and remain myopic, or in this case perhaps hyperopic as these documents are quite near:

1976—The Papal Commission on Justice and Peace expresses opposition to the use of capital punishment.

1980—The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issues “The Statement on Capital Punishment.”

2000—USCCB issues “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.”

2005—USCCB institutes the educational “Catholic Campaign To End the Use of the Death Penalty.”

I haven’t given up hope for you yet but you’ve got to widen your reading beyond Genesis.

 

[Ender]

No, that’s incorrect. I suggest a re-reading of *Dei Verbum *would be helpful in understanding that an holistic approach is required to interpret Scripture.

I’ve said before: I don’t interpret Scripture; I depend on the Church for that and when you say “that’s incorrect” you should at least recognize that your comment is not directed at my interpretation but at the Church’s.

We are not merely a People of the Book but of the Word.

True … that’s why I cite Church documents and refer to Scripture only when the Church does and with the interpretation the Church gives it.

1976 … 1980 …2000 … 2005

I don’t dispute that the USCCB is totally against the death penalty; what I dispute is the rationale behind their opposition and what you will not find in any of those documents is anything that obliges a Catholic to agree with them.

I haven’t given up hope for you yet but you’ve got to widen your reading beyond Genesis.

I sometimes wonder if those who oppose me even read, let alone understand, what I write. I’ll get beyond Genesis when the Church does, but Gn 9:5-6 has always been the basis of her understanding of capital punishment. It was central to the lengthy exposition of the subject in the Catechism of Trent, is true today, and will be true for all time. I’m not sure how widening my reading list will change that.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

I’ve said before: I don’t interpret Scripture; I depend on the Church for that and when you say “that’s incorrect” you should at least recognize that your comment is not directed at my interpretation but at the Church’s.

But my comment was directed at your error. You posted, “Whatever may or may not be true of Deuteronomy or Exodus has no bearing on the meaning of Genesis.” This is not Church teaching; Dei Verbum is a dogmatic document.

True … I don’t dispute that the USCCB is totally against the death penalty; what I dispute is the rationale behind their opposition and what you will not find in any of those documents is anything that obliges a Catholic to agree with them.

The Church merely proposes; she does not impose (JPII). However, a layman who finds himself out-of-step with the Roman Bishop, his own bishop and his pastor may have need to prayerfully re-think his position.

I sometimes wonder if those who oppose me even read, let alone understand, what I write. I’ll get beyond Genesis when the Church does, but Gn 9:5-6 has always been the basis of her understanding of capital punishment. It was central to the lengthy exposition of the subject in the Catechism of Trent, is true today, and will be true for all time. I’m not sure how widening my reading list will change that.

Ender

No one opposes you. What the Church opposes is the unjust use of the death penalty specifically in the United States, arguably the wealthiest country in the world’s history. The Church accepts the death penalty in principle but strictly forbids its practice until it is society’s last resort.

If the Council of Trent’s ban on dueling serves as an example of the possible duration of the current captial punishment debate, recall that over 300 years after the dueling ban, Pope Leo XIII felt impelled to write his encyclical on the morality of dueling, Pastoralis Officii.

 

[Ender]

But my comment was directed at your error. You posted, “Whatever may or may not be true of Deuteronomy or Exodus has no bearing on the meaning of Genesis.” This is not Church teaching; Dei Verbum is a dogmatic document.

Show us in Dei Verbum where the claim is made that something in Deuteronomy or Exodus negates Genesis 9:5-6. I am unimpressed with claims that “somewhere in Encyclical X your argument is refuted.”

The Church merely proposes; she does not impose (JPII). However, a layman who finds himself out-of-step with the Roman Bishop, his own bishop and his pastor may have need to prayerfully re-think his position.

It is because I have thought about this that I recognize the problem caused by Evangelium Vitae. I may be out of step with JPII and the USCCB but I am certainly in step with all the previous popes, bishops, teachers, and catechisms of the Church. I’ll grant you the last fifteen years; but I am in accord with the first 1,995.

The Church accepts the death penalty in principle but strictly forbids its practice until it is society’s last resort.

I don’t accept that JPII’s opinion constitutes Church teaching and I don’t accept that the phrase “public authority should” means that something is strictly forbidden. It does seem to be of a different order than the comment that does in fact strictly forbid abortion: *“Human life **must *be respected and protected absolutely.”

If the Council of Trent’s ban on dueling serves as an example of the possible duration of the current captial punishment debate, recall that over 300 years after the dueling ban, Pope Leo XIII felt impelled to write his encyclical on the morality of dueling, Pastoralis Officii.

The question of dueling has nothing in common with capital punishment. I’m pretty sure that, unlike capital punishment, God has not spoken out directly on dueling. It is also worth noting that in Pastoralis Officii Leo XIII acknowledges the propriety of capital punishment:

Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of public cause [that is, by public authority], to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self defense.

I think you should have chosen a different document.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

…
It is because I have thought about this that I recognize the problem caused by Evangelium Vitae. I may be out of step with JPII and the USCCB but I am certainly in step with all the previous popes, bishops, teachers, and catechisms of the Church. I’ll grant you the last fifteen years; but I am in accord with the first 1,995.
Ender

It’s time, I think, to shake the dust off our sandals. I will leave you thinking you are more “Catholic” than the pope (JPII).

 

[ChristineMac]

Ender - I just want to thank you for keeping up the ‘good fight’. (obviously, I am not actually calling this a fight, so please no one assume so). I just wanted to lend my support to one who truly studies the actual teachings of Holy Mother Church and, in true charity, attempts to instruct fellow Catholics. We need more Cathollics who are so well versed.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Under the legitimate defense teaching, the state which can safely incarcerate evil doers may not use lethal means to protect her citizens.

I disagree with this statement.

People sentenced to prision still do victimize other inmates, guards, and staff even to the point of killing them.

So to say that locking up all criminals protects the citizens of a state you must discount the citizenship of all others locked up and all the staff working there.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It’s time, I think, to shake the dust off our sandals. I will leave you thinking you are more “Catholic” than the pope (JPII).

This is an uncalled for ad hominem attack.

No need to attack someone just because they disagree with you.

 

[o_mlly]

I disagree with this statement.

People sentenced to prision still do victimize other inmates, guards, and staff even to the point of killing them.

So to say that locking up all criminals protects the citizens of a state you must discount the citizenship of all others locked up and all the staff working there.

But then you appear to agree with the statement:“Under the legitimate defense teaching, the state which can safely incarcerate evil doers may not use lethal means to protect her citizens” for your arguement is that the state cannot safely incarcerate evil doers. Are you an expert?

 

[o_mlly]

This is an uncalled for ad hominem attack.

No need to attack someone just because they disagree with you.

Ad hominem is an fallacious argument; not a re-statement of an opponents position. Ender can certainly speak for himself. If Ender does not think JPII less “Catholic” than he, I’m sure I’ll hear about it.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But then you appear to agree with the statement:“Under the legitimate defense teaching, the state which can safely incarcerate evil doers may not use lethal means to protect her citizens” for your arguement is that the state cannot safely incarcerate evil doers. Are you an expert?

Are you?

I have worked in the public saftey field and I have seen the assults that occur in prision to other prisioners, staff, and guards.

If you just watch the news you will learn much of this.

MSNBC also runs a series called “Locked Up” that profiles prisions and talks about all the crime and victimization that goes on lead by prisioners.

Open your eyes and see the light.

On a side note, you don’t like to be disagreed with do you? :sad_bye:

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ad hominem is an fallacious argument; not a re-statement of an opponents position. Ender can certainly speak for himself. If Ender does not think JPII less “Catholic” than he, I’m sure I’ll hear about it.

Actually an ad hominem attack is when you attack the person rather than their argument, which you did when you said that Ender thinks he is more “Catholic” than Pope John Paul II.

Rather than addressing his argument you made a disparaging remark about what Ender is thinking which you have no way of knowing, so not only was this an ad hominem attack it was also uncharitible and unchristian as you are placing a judgement you have no right to make.

Maybe it is time for us to shake the dust off our sandals and place you on our ignore lists as you do not seem to wish to actually discuss things with people who disagree with you.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Remain on topic and cease with the personal attacks.

 

[Ender]

"o_mlly:

Under the legitimate defense teaching, the state which can safely incarcerate evil doers may not use lethal means to protect her citizens.

I disagree with this statement.

People sentenced to prision still do victimize other inmates, guards, and staff even to the point of killing them.

This is a valid observation and goes to the claim made in the last sentence of 2267 that modern penal systems are adequate to “render inoffensive” the criminals incarcerated there, a statement that is so obviously an opinion that there should be no question but that we are not bound to agree with it. Evaluating the adequacy of penal systems is hardly a moral concern.

There is another objection to o_mlly’s statement that is even more significant, however, and that is that the Church never based her support of capital punishment on “the legitimate defense teaching.” Her position has always been based on the demand of justice, something legitimate defense not only ignores but actually renders irrelevant as the harm suffered by the victim is no longer considered in determining the punishment. It is justice and justice alone that validates punishment, a concept that has been understood and accepted for centuries.

*Regarding criminal punishment, retribution is a demand of justice whereby the criminal is compelled to render his proper due in satisfaction of the order violated by his actions. *(Black’s Law Dictionary, 1317)

Christine:

Ender

 

[Albert_Nygren]

Remain on topic and cease with the personal attacks.

Dear Mr Hilbert, I am not being sarcastic but I am asking for clarification so that I can follow the rule here. I read and reread the past 6 posts 3 times and could find nothing that I thought was completely off topic and I could not see anything that I would call a personal attack. Could you please cite an example of getting off topic and of a personal attack so that I might better follow the rules. Thanks

 

[toufell]

The LORD is good to those who wait for him, to the soul that seeks him.
It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD.

anyhow good topic