E
Ender
Guest
Running out of arguments are we? I did warn that your position would be difficult to sustain.
Ender
- Status
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Perhaps so; as I’ve said before I am very reluctant to make personal interpretations of Scripture. I don’t, however, have any trouble understanding how the Church interprets Scripture. She has made it quite plain that Gen 9:5-6 (along with Rom 13:1-5) is the basis of her position on capital punishment.
Ender
O
o_mlly
Guest
Are the “we” you and “Super Grover”? If yes, then I agree you’ve run out of arguments; you are merely repeating your claims without citations and ignoring mine.
One can sustain merely by prolonging without advancing. Is that your goal? I never wanted to sustain my position; only prove it. Having done that, I must move on and wish you well.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Genesis 9:5-6 is an example of civil law, which can change, as opposed to moral law, which cannot. If the Church wishes to change her position on capital punishment, and there does seen to be a shift, then she can without any ramifications to infallibility.
E
Ender
Guest
Explain what makes this civil law as opposed to moral law and where the Church implies that your interpretation is correct. This is not something that Noah created - as Moses created the “Mosaic” laws - it is God giving the law to Noah. It is God who said (essentially) “If you murder someone your life is forfeit because man, being made in my image, is holy.” This is not something the Church invented and she has no authority whatever to change what has been handed on to her.
“If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millenia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture.” (Cardinal Avery Dulles)
Ender
C
CWBetts
Guest
It is actually quite simple. What is the purpose of the law? to maintain order.
A
Albert_Nygren
Guest
I’ve looked through the comments on this thread and don’t see what I think are the 2 most important factors in the question of the death penalty. One is that the purpose of punishment for being convicted of a crime has nothing to do with justice; it has to do with motivating other people to not commit the same crime. If everyone who robbed a bank was caught and severely punished, you would find that people would soon stop robbing banks. The death penalty is a huge motivating factor to motivate a person to not commit the crime of murder.
One of the problems we have is people don’t think they are going to be caught. Regarding the morality of the death penalty itself, I don’t see how there can be much argument on a religious basis. When God gave his laws to Moses He also gave the punishments He wanted imposed. For many crimes God “ordered” the death penalty to be used. If God is for it, how can any of us be against it.
Again, speaking specifically about the death penalty, someone quoted some church authority who said that because of modern methods of keeping lawbreakers from hurting others, the death penalty should be rarely if ever used. Whoever said that must not be aware of the conditions in modern prisons in the US. I knew a guard in the Minnesota State Prison who said that the murder rate in prisons was 10 times higher than outside of prisons.
Minnesota does not have the death penalty so that a person that is sentenced to life in prison doesn’t have much to lose if he/she murders someone in the prison. And of course, the fact is that some prisoners have killed 4 or 5 people while they were in prison and some of those murdered were guards.
The fact that so many people are murdered in prison was my 2nd justification for the use of the death penalty. It is really the only way to try to motivate prisoners that are in for life, to not murder while they are in prison.
One of the reasons I have heard a priest give for being against the death penalty is that the Church wants to give everyone in prison the maximum time allowed to come to repentance before the prisoner died. The priest said that it would be terrible if the prisoner was executed 1 week before he would have come to repentance and Salvation. The interesting statistic I have heard is that repentance and turning to God is much more frequent on Death Row than in the general population.
One of the problems we have is people don’t think they are going to be caught. Regarding the morality of the death penalty itself, I don’t see how there can be much argument on a religious basis. When God gave his laws to Moses He also gave the punishments He wanted imposed. For many crimes God “ordered” the death penalty to be used. If God is for it, how can any of us be against it.
Again, speaking specifically about the death penalty, someone quoted some church authority who said that because of modern methods of keeping lawbreakers from hurting others, the death penalty should be rarely if ever used. Whoever said that must not be aware of the conditions in modern prisons in the US. I knew a guard in the Minnesota State Prison who said that the murder rate in prisons was 10 times higher than outside of prisons.
Minnesota does not have the death penalty so that a person that is sentenced to life in prison doesn’t have much to lose if he/she murders someone in the prison. And of course, the fact is that some prisoners have killed 4 or 5 people while they were in prison and some of those murdered were guards.
The fact that so many people are murdered in prison was my 2nd justification for the use of the death penalty. It is really the only way to try to motivate prisoners that are in for life, to not murder while they are in prison.
One of the reasons I have heard a priest give for being against the death penalty is that the Church wants to give everyone in prison the maximum time allowed to come to repentance before the prisoner died. The priest said that it would be terrible if the prisoner was executed 1 week before he would have come to repentance and Salvation. The interesting statistic I have heard is that repentance and turning to God is much more frequent on Death Row than in the general population.
E
Ender
Guest
The Church states the primary objective of punishment in the Catechism (2266):* “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”* As Cardinal Dulles explained: The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. I think it’s quite clear that what the Catechism is talking about is retribution. This is the primary objective of all punishment. Deterrence is a valid objective but it is a secondary one. As for retribution, it is required by justice for when we sin we incur a debt that punishment alone can pay.
[T]he act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas, ST)
The Mosaic Law was just that: the law of Moses, applicable to that time; those were not God’s laws meant to be applicable for all time. What is not temporary, however, was God’s command to Noah that murderers be put to death. Moses’ law may have had an expiration date but God’s law surely does not.
That opinion is in the Catechism (2267) and, as you point out, doesn’t seem to correlate very well with the facts.
I see no reason to believe that merely by living longer one will be more inclined to repent, especially if that life is lived in the company of the depraved. As Samuel Johnson said:* “The prospect of hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully”* so I would not be at all surprised if your statistics were correct. Besides, as Aquinas observed:
“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.”
Ender
A
Albert_Nygren
Guest
To Ender; We seem to agree with each other, and the church, that the death penalty as the punishment for murder is acceptable. You and I seem to agree that the death penalty for the crime of murder is actually commanded by God.
What I don’t understand is your objection to my point that in the laws that God gave Moses that God commanded the death penalty for certain crimes. You say that the Moses gave these laws while God gave His law to Noah and because Moses gave his laws that they are time limited.
I think that Sacred Scripture is quite clear that God gave His laws to Moses and that Moses did not make up the laws he gave all by himself. Now I understand that St. Paul told the gentile converts that they did not have to obey all of the Judaic laws about diet, holidays, and circumcision. Yet he also said in 2nd Timothy, “that all scripture was God breathed (inspired by God) (the only scripture at the time was the Old Testament), and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
From my own estimate, about 3/4 of what Jesus said were quotes from The Old Testament. Is it Church teaching that the laws that God gave to Mose were time limited? If that is the case, what about the 10 Commandments. Don’t we have to follow those anymore?
Respectfully, yours in Christ.
What I don’t understand is your objection to my point that in the laws that God gave Moses that God commanded the death penalty for certain crimes. You say that the Moses gave these laws while God gave His law to Noah and because Moses gave his laws that they are time limited.
I think that Sacred Scripture is quite clear that God gave His laws to Moses and that Moses did not make up the laws he gave all by himself. Now I understand that St. Paul told the gentile converts that they did not have to obey all of the Judaic laws about diet, holidays, and circumcision. Yet he also said in 2nd Timothy, “that all scripture was God breathed (inspired by God) (the only scripture at the time was the Old Testament), and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
From my own estimate, about 3/4 of what Jesus said were quotes from The Old Testament. Is it Church teaching that the laws that God gave to Mose were time limited? If that is the case, what about the 10 Commandments. Don’t we have to follow those anymore?
Respectfully, yours in Christ.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes.
OK, I need to be more careful about this as I really don’t have much knowledge of Church teaching on Mosaic Law. Mostly I don’t like to tie the death penalty to Mosaic Law because its interpretation has quite clearly changed, Christ himself did that for some things (e.g. divorce), and I cannot dispute an argument claiming that the interpretation of the death penalty has changed also. I can, however, defend the claim that the Church’s position on capital punishment has always been based on Genesis 9:5-6 and that even today the Church refers to those two passages.
That the power claimed by Christ over the law implies divine authority is shown by the fact that he did not create another law by abolishing the old one. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17). It is clear that God could not abolish the law which he himself had given. He can, however, as Jesus Christ did, make clear its full significance. He explained its correct meaning, and corrected false interpretations and arbitrary applications, to which the people and even their teachers and rulers had subjected it, yielding to the weaknesses and limitations of the human condition. (JPII, General Audience, 1987)
This is the problem. In at least one case (divorce) the old law was changed - with an explanation of why - and in other cases false interpretations were corrected. So, from a variety of reasons, what was valid under Moses was revised under Christ and the argument that the death penalty was one of the changes is an unnecessary one to have given the strength of the argument based on God’s command to Noah. Nor (more significantly) have I found any citation where the Church refers to Mosaic Law to support its position on capital punishment.
Ender
O
o_mlly
Guest
The tension in Catholic teaching on the use of the death penalty is not a novelty of the 20th and 21st centuries; its roots are deep. See
jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/36/4/470
The conflict, I think, stems from a collision in her teachings on justifiable homicide as a legitimate defense and the state’s right to judiciously exercise the death penalty.
While the former teaching has been constant in applying the principle that lethal force is only justified when the death of the aggressed is reasonably determined as the intention of the aggressor, the latter, a muddled teaching rooted in Noahide law and Mosaic law – both more often nomadic civilizations where exile, dismemberment and death were the only available options for exacting justice upon evil doers – as seen in the above article has troubled a Church which consists no longer of primarily nomadic tribes but established states with the ability to incarcerate for life, if necessary, evil doers.
Under the legitimate defense teaching, the state which can safely incarcerate evil doers may not use lethal means to protect her citizens. Under the tradtional state’s right to do so, the Church must acknowledge her tradtional teaching but the signs of the times are not supportive that the rules of law for nomadic tribes apply equally to the modern state.
In her own time, the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is sythensizing the two teachings.
jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/36/4/470
The conflict, I think, stems from a collision in her teachings on justifiable homicide as a legitimate defense and the state’s right to judiciously exercise the death penalty.
While the former teaching has been constant in applying the principle that lethal force is only justified when the death of the aggressed is reasonably determined as the intention of the aggressor, the latter, a muddled teaching rooted in Noahide law and Mosaic law – both more often nomadic civilizations where exile, dismemberment and death were the only available options for exacting justice upon evil doers – as seen in the above article has troubled a Church which consists no longer of primarily nomadic tribes but established states with the ability to incarcerate for life, if necessary, evil doers.
Under the legitimate defense teaching, the state which can safely incarcerate evil doers may not use lethal means to protect her citizens. Under the tradtional state’s right to do so, the Church must acknowledge her tradtional teaching but the signs of the times are not supportive that the rules of law for nomadic tribes apply equally to the modern state.
In her own time, the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is sythensizing the two teachings.
E
Ender
Guest
Thanks for the reference - although I don’t think it made a good case for their being (historically) any “tension” in the Church’s position on capital punishment. That is a very recent development.
The current position is in line with the “legitimate defense” argument but the historical justification was always based on the Gen 9:5-6 and Rom 13:1-5 which had nothing to do with defense.
This is really a stretch and the approach denigrates the entire Bible. A similar argument could be made about what Jesus taught being tailored to backward, agrarian people with little direct application to modern life. In fact the Church believes the books of the Bible - including Genesis - were inspired by the Holy Spirit and that what was true then is true now. Besides, there never was a Noahide law; there was God’s covenant with Noah - and God has not abrogated any of his covenants.
Yes, this is JPII’s opinion which has quite literally nothing whatever to do with what the Church taught in the past.
JPII’s opinions were not necessarily guided by the Holy Spirit and there is no synthesis of positions possible; we can accept one or the other but not both.
Ender
P
portarica
Guest
You need to read all of Dulles’ reasons for the death penalty. One is that he said there is no evidence in the bible that was contrary to it.
That obviously ignores the one instance when Jesus spoke about it : the stoning of the woman.
Now I know your retort will be that the church didn’t consider the one instance when Jesus was present at a capital punishment scene, saying that the prescribed capital punishment in Lev.for adultery , shouldn’t be carried out is not evidence that Jesus really really meant don’t throw the stones.
Now we catholics with the backing of the church have jettisoned most of Lev as not being true anymore, we know that much of Genesis is not true and we know that much of Paul was conditional and changed when his audience changed.
So you place more import on Gen and Paul then on what Jesus actually preached about?
As for PX and his saying we have to listen to the Supreme Authority (and he didn’t mean Christ) that has been changed as evidenced by Popes and Bishops admonishing that people should leave their positions if doing their work would entail violating the doctrines of the church.
But , you are onto something, there is a group of catholics that think the church can not be better than it is now or was in the past.
Unfortunately, that ignores the wide ranging scope of potential that Jesus’ messages have for the betterment of not only the church, but the whole of humanity.
That’s a little sad, but I guess there is comfort in not wanting to know how great the world would be if the church was not only a depository of faith, but a gushing fountain of knowledge and a truly universal beacon of hope for all of God’s children.I can only imagine the burden of applying what Jesus taught to everyone of our actions. It scares me too, to think of how a simple thing like doing what He taught would probably cause most of us to modify much of our behavior. I know it is an impossible task , and its nice to know that the church really doesn’t hold us to that type of standard, because if it did it would be in a creed or something.
But, imagine if the teachings of Jesus were emphasized and people really did treat the least like they may be Him? Not only would capital punishment be minimized, but so would abortions and all the other desired goals of Jesus.
Those would be admirable goals, but they are just too hard, so lets stick with the tried and formerly true.
Peace
O
o_mlly
Guest
You have put it well, portarica. Our faith has a future.
While the Spirit’s guidance is a constant to His Church, man’s understanding of His revelations will always be less than perfect (but not erroneous) this side of the Parousia. However, with His grace, we progress in our understanding of His eternal truths.
As to the misunderstanding which some hold as to the Church’s authority to amplify and clarifiy her teachings, the roots of their misunderstanding, I think, lies first in not appreciating the differences between Natural Law, Divine Law and Eternal Law. Aquinas can get them up to speed. The second is the mistake to think that we are merely a People of the Book – that is a sola scriptura religion.
P
portarica
Guest
I think one of the truly awesome aspects of Jesus’ teachings in how they remain so timeless and applicable without condition to the present day.
They are so open ended that we can’t divorce them from any of our actions or thoughts.
There are no loopholes like in the OT or after the Gospels. It wasn’t about dying shortly as in Acts or Rev or Paul, but about living each day as if it not only our final day, but as if it is the first day of the rest of our lives.
Peace
P
portarica
Guest
Ender, the coolest thing about Jesus was that His teachings are not conditional as you suggested above.
Most of the other writers are somewhat conditional. But there is a timelessness to Jesus’ teachings that make them absolutely beautiful and so full of eternal potential .
But that’s what makes them so scary to follow, one can’t just say we followed the rules, because in essence there are no restrictions or limitations on what He taught. The inclusiveness of His teachings to all of our actions and thoughts creates such a burden of responsibility and personal accountability upon us that in many instances we want to follow lesser standards that are more easily achievable and hold the same promise of salvation through the church.
Peace
Most of the other writers are somewhat conditional. But there is a timelessness to Jesus’ teachings that make them absolutely beautiful and so full of eternal potential .
But that’s what makes them so scary to follow, one can’t just say we followed the rules, because in essence there are no restrictions or limitations on what He taught. The inclusiveness of His teachings to all of our actions and thoughts creates such a burden of responsibility and personal accountability upon us that in many instances we want to follow lesser standards that are more easily achievable and hold the same promise of salvation through the church.
Peace
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, my response is that the Church does not share your interpretation of that event.
I am not able to say which parts of the Bible we are free to ignore; I look to the Church to explain it. That after all is their mission.
I care about the Church’s understanding of what God is teaching. You prefer your own interpretation; I am stuck with what the Church teaches.
I guess I’ll have to wait for the Church to catch up with you.
Very emotionally put … but nothing you have written addresses anything I’ve said. You give me JPII and personal interpretation, I give you Aquinas, Augustine, and a whole string of popes and catechisms. The problem with your opinion is that there is almost nothing in Church history to support it.
Ender
P
portarica
Guest
Actually I do have church history on my side. That’s why I used examples of how the church has changed or developed its interpretations.
Just as the church no longer has heretics killed, the church has become more attuned to Jesus’ teachings in other respects as well.
Peace
E
Ender
Guest
First, I haven’t suggested anything of the sort; everything I have presented is based on what the Church has taught. Second, how do you know what Jesus taught? Do you interpret the Gospels yourself or do you look to the Church to fully explain them? If you look to the Church - as I do - then you should be able to find what the Church has said that supports your position - as I have. If the Church says “This is so”, on what basis can you reject her claim?
Ender
B
Brendan
Guest
That is actually not true.
Look at the passage more closely. It notes that the Pharisees were looking to trap Jesus.
So what was the nature of the trap.
In presenting the woman, they were leaving Christ two choices.
- Agree that she should be stoned
- Deny that she could be stoned.
In the second case, they could say that Christ advocated the violation of the Mosaic Law, in which case, they could use that with the people to show that Jesus was not the Messiah.
If what you say is true, that Christ denied the Mosic law in this matter, then He fell for the Pharisee’s trap. But that is NOT what happened.
He told them to go ahead and stone her!!! Under the Jewish Law, the Pharisees WERE sinless. They kept not only the law of Moses, but all the other man made laws, to the last iota. That was their entire philosphy.
So Christ evaded their trap. The Pharisees could not go to the Roman authorities, as they would not have considered the Pharisees to be ‘sinless’ and they would have been laughed out of court.
And they could not go to the people claiming that Christ broke the Mosic Law, because they would have recognized what Christ said, that the Pharisees could begin the stoning.
Now, of course the Pharisees knew they could not actually stone her (as did Christ), as that would have run afoul of Roman law, and they recognized that Christ escaped their trap. Note that the eldest Pharisees, the ones most learned in the law, left first, they recognized that their trap did not work.
Christ neither advocated going against Roman Law, nor did He advocate a violation of the Mosic Law (which He could not, as Christ was the one who gave that Law to Moses in the first place
)- Status