Genesis is where god refuses capital punishment for murder and intervenes to mark Cain specifically to protect the murderer from capital punishment. It was God who prevented blood for blood, probably because “the security of human life” was not an issue.The Commandment being spoken about there is the fifth commandment: thou shalt not kill (murder), and the end of that commandment is the preservation of human life. Genesis 9:6, however, speaks of the command to be followed when someone violates the fifth commandment. This is why Trent says that executing the murderer is in “paramount obedience” with this commandment, because no other means so clearly demonstrates the *“enormity of this sin”, *and of all the remedies for it *“the most efficacious is to form a just *conception of the wickedness of murder.”
*Genesis says murderers deserve death *because **life is precious; man is made in the image of God. How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live? (J. Budziszewski)
Ender
We are given no explanation for why God protected Cain but nowhere in any Church document that I have seen is this incident used to comment on capital punishment. Just as with the woman Christ saved from stoning, the Church has (apparently) never used that incident in defining its position on the death penalty. The Church does use, however, both Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4 as the basis for her teaching on this subject, and both of those sections support the use of capital punishment.Genesis is where god refuses capital punishment for murder and intervenes to mark Cain specifically to protect the murderer from capital punishment. It was God who prevented blood for blood, probably because “the security of human life” was not an issue.
Why use some example of Jesus when there are two contrary examples from others?We are given no explanation for why God protected Cain but nowhere in any Church document that I have seen is this incident used to comment on capital punishment. Just as with the woman Christ saved from stoning, the Church has (apparently) never used that incident in defining its position on the death penalty. The Church does use, however, both Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4 as the basis for her teaching on this subject, and both of those sections support the use of capital punishment.
Ender
Why use some example of Jesus when there are two contrary examples from others?We are given no explanation for why God protected Cain but nowhere in any Church document that I have seen is this incident used to comment on capital punishment. Just as with the woman Christ saved from stoning, the Church has (apparently) never used that incident in defining its position on the death penalty. The Church does use, however, both Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4 as the basis for her teaching on this subject, and both of those sections support the use of capital punishment.
Ender
The verses I quoted are the ones the Church cites; nowhere has the Church interpreted Jesus’ action with the woman caught in adultery to be a comment about capital punishment. It is not a case of choosing Paul and an unknown writer over Jesus, it is a case of choosing the Church’s interpretation of what those verses mean over Texas Roofer’s.Why use some example of Jesus when there are two contrary examples from others?
One Jesus is trumped by a Paul and an unknown.
Makes sense to me.
The church did not change positions in 1980, that is political speech given as a debate tatic to change the discussion pointPersons always want to interpret Jesus’ actions as being anti death penalty, but they are wrong because for centuries, until about 1980, the official church (FOUNDED BY THAT SAME JESUS), Popes, catechisms, church doctors, (I remember the teaching even in my 1965 high school), the official, undeniable teaching was that the church gives the state the right to inflict the proportional punishment of death penalty for certain crimes, especially murder (think Adolph Hitler and then Osama bin Laden.)
Who wonders? Only Adam and Eve are believed to have seen a generation without murder. All other generations have endured murder, the question you ask is “Were the Romans correct to kill Jesus?” You ask the question veiled, how about you simply answer your question, would you or another death penalty supporter like to explain how you would proudly have done your public service duty and crucified Jesus.However, you wonder, during the crucifixion, when Christ had the perfect opportunity to make a statement on the death penalty, why he didnt say something about the two robbers (not even there for murder) on the left and right. He welcomed the one who had faith (“today you will be with be in paradise,”) and even one of the robbers said, (Luke chapter 24, verse 41, ) which says, “…and we receive the due reward of our deeds, but this man (meaning Jesus) has done no evil.” The due reward is the death penalty. Why did Jesus not say the words to condemn the punishment which those two robbers were getting?..
I notice you skip all things important, would you have crucified Jesus as your civil duty, was Jesus’ death just in your mind?Weak post roof…
…show me any catechism or Pope or Bishop BEFORE 1980 that ever said anything negative about the death penalty…Even the 1994 catechism, prior to Evan Vitae of J P 2, supported the traditional belief of the catechism.
Article 5 of that Catechism deals with the fifth commandment (“You shall not kill”). Numbers 2263 – 2267 cover legitimate defense, including the right of the State to defend itself— even to the point of inflicting death—against both hostile nations and criminals. Hence the death penalty is treated in this section. In the 1994 text, the traditional teaching is set forth in number 2266: **“…the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” **(That was 1994 roof !!!)
The next section (2267) goes on to recommend that “if bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means….”
J P 2 changed it after Evan Vitae, but there is NO doubt that prior to the liberal Bishops letters in the early 80s, you are totally WRONG , Roof, about the history of the church and the death penalty.TOTALLY !!!..So where is your proof…Roof ???
These are both valid concerns but they are not both concerns of the Church. The Church can properly address only the moral issues involved; whether the punishment is fairly applied is not a question appropriate for her to answer. As to your first comment regarding whether the punishment is just, that is the primary question and the primary obligation of all punishment: is it just? As far as the Church is concerned, the answer has always been that death is a just punishment for the crime of murder.I have mixed feelings on Capital Punishment. on the one hand, it is justice, and it does assure society that that particular offender will never repeat his or her crime. My misgivings is that it appears to be randomly applied, and not at all equitable. That opens up another concern, which I cannot address here.
How long did it take the church to come out for eating shrimp? (lev.)Persons always want to interpret Jesus’ actions as being anti death penalty, but they are wrong because for centuries, until about 1980, the official church (FOUNDED BY THAT SAME JESUS), Popes, catechisms, church doctors, (I remember the teaching even in my 1965 high school), the official, undeniable teaching was that the church gives the state the right to inflict the proportional punishment of death penalty for certain crimes, especially murder (think Adolph Hitler and then Osama bin Laden.)
However, you wonder, during the crucifixion, when Christ had the perfect opportunity to make a statement on the death penalty, why he didnt say something about the two robbers (not even there for murder) on the left and right. He welcomed the one who had faith (“today you will be with be in paradise,”) and even one of the robbers said, (Luke chapter 24, verse 41, ) which says, “…and we receive the due reward of our deeds, but this man (meaning Jesus) has done no evil.” The due reward is the death penelty. Why did Jesus not say the words to condemn the punishment which those two robbers were getting?..
Closure can never be achieved until we can learn to forgive. Every time we go to Mass, we pray “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” What is your justification to withhold forgiveness?Many states had death penalty for rape for years until the liberals prevailed. If someone rapes your sister, then tell me how much you “love” the rapist and want to state to take care of him for life. Free tv, free food, “3 hots and a cot.” That’s really proportional “justice.”
Actually, the thread is about what the Church teaches, and since the Church unambiguously took the position that murderers should be executed you need to understand that your insult applies to her more than to those of us who believe what she teaches.Sigh. Yet another thread with the argument that “We must kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong”
Whether the death penalty should be applied to other crimes is irrelevant to the question of whether it should be applied to the crime of murder. Describing the position of those who support capital punishment as having a “thirst for vengeance” in simply an insult, not an argument, and as I said before: that’s the Church you’re talking about. If that’s what the Church teaches don’t insult us for believing it.But the death penalty issue goes further than that. What about the capital offenses in this country that are not for murder (treason comes to mind). What about the idea that many supporters of the death penalty would like to see the barbarity expanded to sex offenders? When does our thirst for vengeance stop?
I wouldn’t wait up nights expecting to see this happen.How long did it take the church to come out for eating shrimp? (lev.)
How long did it take the church to come out against slavery? (Paul)
So why is it not imaginable that the words of Jesus at the scene of a women’s capital punishment will not be interpreted to apply to capital punishment in our time?
Maybe the church is having some trouble getting over the fact that some saints in our church had people put to death for things that are not even crimes today. ( i e St. Thomas More having heretics killed)
Opposition to the death penalty is supported in the Catechism. Your bloodthirsty agenda is not.Actually, the thread is about what the Church teaches, and since the Church unambiguously took the position that murderers should be executed you need to understand that your insult applies to her more than to those of us who believe what she teaches.
Whether the death penalty should be applied to other crimes is irrelevant to the question of whether it should be applied to the crime of murder. Describing the position of those who support capital punishment as having a “thirst for vengeance” in simply an insult, not an argument, and as I said before: that’s the Church you’re talking about. If that’s what the Church teaches don’t insult us for believing it.
Ender
And St Thomas More put people to death and is a saint. As opposed to shaking the dust from our sandals as Jesus taught.I wouldn’t wait up nights expecting to see this happen.
“The death penalty is not intrinsically evil [like abortion and euthanasia are]. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.” (Archbishop Charles Chaput, 2005)
Ender