Death Penalty and Justice

[portarica]

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

From your post 199:“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.”

Peace

 

[portarica]

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.

1. Agree that she should be stoned
2. Deny that she could be stoned.

In the first case, they would have a case to bring before the Roman authorities, that Jesus of Nazereth advocated the violation of Roman law. Roman law prohibited Jews from putting anyone to death

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 )

So Jesus wanted her killed?

Nope!

He came up with a solution that in today’s terms was politically correct. He created a paradox that saved the woman and made a point in total congruency with His teachings.

So apply that to the present times, let he who is without sin pull the trigger, start the drip of drugs, flick the switch , release the trap door or start whatever death penalty process is called for by states.

That is the beauty of His teachings, it is the responsibility that the individual takes for his or her own actions that decides whether we believe in him by treating the least like they may be Him.

Because it could be Him that we shoot, overdose, fry or hang.

Peace

 

[Brendan]

So Jesus wanted her killed?

Nope!

He came up with a solution that in today’s terms was politically correct. He created a paradox that saved the woman and made a point in total congruency with His teachings.

So apply that to the present times, let he who is without sin pull the trigger, start the drip of drugs, flick the switch , release the trap door or start whatever death penalty process is called for by states.

That is the beauty of His teachings, it is the responsibility that the individual takes for his or her own actions that decides whether we believe in him by treating the least like they may be Him.

Because it could be Him that we shoot, overdose, fry or hang.

Peace

As far as Jesus not wanting her to be killed, Christ really wanted her not to have sinned in the first place!!!. But since she did, Christ was not opposed to justice for the crime being done.

Remember, CHRIST was the one who gave the law to Noah, who gave the Law to Moses. Those are just as much Christ’s teachings as anything in the Gospels.

No, Roman law prevented her from being stoned, at least without a Roman trial, that was already a fact before the woman was even brought to Christ. So her life was not in any danger.

As far as one without sin, if that is a requirement that you would place, anyone who had recently been either Baptized or went to Confession would do

 

[portarica]

As far as Jesus not wanting her to be killed, Christ really wanted her not to have sinned in the first place!!!. But since she did, Christ was not opposed to justice for the crime being done.

Remember, CHRIST was the one who gave the law to Noah, who gave the Law to Moses. Those are just as much Christ’s teachings as anything in the Gospels.

No, Roman law prevented her from being stoned, at least without a Roman trial, that was already a fact before the woman was even brought to Christ. So her life was not in any danger.

As far as one without sin, if that is a requirement that you would place, anyone who had recently been either Baptized or went to Confession would do

Agreed about not wanting the woman to sin.

Disagree about the Law aspect. The stoning punishment is proscribed in Lev which has been mostly jettisoned except for the anti gay crowd and evangelical fundamentalists, even those that eat shrimp.

And I do believe that historically the Romans allowed their conquered subjects to continue to use their former customs as long as they didn’t interfere with the Roman needs.

As to being free from sin, as soon as you want someone else dead , then you are no longer free from sin.

Peace

 

[Brendan]

Agreed about not wanting the woman to sin.

Disagree about the Law aspect. The stoning punishment is proscribed in Lev which has been mostly jettisoned except for the anti gay crowd and evangelical fundamentalists, even those that eat shrimp.

The CEREMONIAL law, the law of what is ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ was removed. The Moral Law is unchanging, and must always be so, as God Himself is unchanging.

And I do believe that historically the Romans allowed their conquered subjects to continue to use their former customs as long as they didn’t interfere with the Roman needs.

Nope, that is why the Sanhedrin had to bring Christ to Pilate instead of stoning him themselves.

As to being free from sin, as soon as you want someone else dead , then you are no longer free from sin.

Peace

As mentioned many times, the use of capital punishment, in and of itself, is not an evil, and desireing it is not an evil.

 

[o_mlly]

As far as Jesus not wanting her to be killed, Christ really wanted her not to have sinned in the first place!!!. But since she did, Christ was not opposed to justice for the crime being done.

Do you have a Magisterial reference for such an interpretation?

Remember, CHRIST was the one who gave the law to Noah, who gave the Law to Moses. Those are just as much Christ’s teachings as anything in the Gospels.

Christ specifically cautions us in Matthew 19:8- 9 that what is written in Deuteronomy is not necessarily the law given by God.

They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

From Malachi:

And you say, “Why is it?”-- Because the LORD is witness between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have broken faith though she is your companion, your betrothed wife. “Did he not make one being, with flesh and spirit: and what does that one require but godly offspring? You must then safeguard life that is your own, and not break faith with the wife of your youth. “For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, And covering one’s garment with injustice, says the LORD of hosts; You must then safeguard life that is your own, and not break faith” (Malachi 2:14-16).

Juxtaposed to Deuteronomy:

If a man is discovered having relations with a woman who is married to another, both the man and the woman with whom he has had relations shall die. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst” (Deut 22:22).

When a man, after marrying a woman and having relations with her, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and therefore he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house” (Deut 24:1).

 

[Ender]

Look at the passage more closely. It notes that the Pharisees were looking to trap Jesus. …

This was very nicely presented. Given that the Church has never discussed this incident in the context of capital punishment I feel sure that your explanation is accurate.

Ender

 

[Ender]

From your post 199:“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.”

I made that comment in an (obviously unsuccessful) attempt to point out the nature of the argument you were using to discredit everything in the Bible except for the Gospels. It is the same form of argument you made against Paul except I applied it to Jesus. Yes, I consider my claim against Jesus silly … just like your claim against Paul.

Ender

 

[portarica]

This was very nicely presented. Given that the Church has never discussed this incident in the context of capital punishment I feel sure that your explanation is accurate.

Ender

You are right, the pharisees posed a capital punishment question to Jesus and He showed them that it was not to be done.

Peace

 

[Ender]

You are right, the pharisees posed a capital punishment question to Jesus and He showed them that it was not to be done.

If this is indeed what Jesus intended it went completely over the head of the Church as there is not a single reference to Jn 8:7 in either the current Catechism or in Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. There is this, however, from one of JPII’s homilies, which confirms Brendon’s explanation and gives the true significance of the event - which is about conversion and forgiveness.

*Accused even of opposing the Law, Jesus is “put to the test”: if he absolves the woman caught in flagrant adultery, it will be said that he has transgressed the precepts of Moses; if he condemns her, it will be said that he is inconsistent with his message of mercy towards sinners. ** But Jesus does not fall into the trap. By his silence he invites everyone to self-reflection. On the one hand, he invites the woman to acknowledge the wrong committed; on the other, he invites her accusers not to shrink from an examination of conscience: **“Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (Jn 8: 7). *

• The woman’s situation is certainly serious. ** But the message flows precisely from this situation: in whatever condition we find ourselves, we can always open ourselves to conversion and receive forgiveness for our sins.***

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/2001/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20010401_nostra-signora-suffragio_en.html

Ender

 

[Albert_Nygren]

One of the things that you guys should know is that the entire incident involving the woman caught in the act of adultery was probably a put up deal by the Pharisees. Adultery is a private thing. The 2 people usually weren’t having sex in the middle of the street. Yet Moses law stated that a person could not be put to death except on the testimony of 2 witnesses. Since the crime was done in private, where did they get 2 witnesses from.

One of the witnesses was probably the man who was having sex with another man’s wife! The other fact of Moses law that applies here is that when someone was convicted of a capital crime and stoning to death was the punishment; it was the 2 witnesses who were legally required to throw the first stones.

So, when Jesus said, let he who is without sin, cast the first stone, Jesus was not talking to the whole crowd; He was only talking to the 2 witnesses, when He said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”. This is especially interesting if the witness who was supposed to cast the first stone was actually the man who had committed adultery! He had committed the same sin as the woman brought before Jesus!

In any case, because Jesus confronted the one who was legally required to throw the first stone, does not in any way prove that Jesus was against capital punishment. The incident with the woman did not have to relate to capital punishment at all.

Another thing to think about when trying to figure out what is “God’s Law” regarding Capital punishment, is the issue of does God want any one killed as punishment for a crime? If you read in the book of Acts, Chap 5 vs 1 through 10, you will read the story of Ananias and his wife Sapphira.

Ananias and his wife Sapphira owned some land. They sold the land and gave the money to the apostles to be used to feed the poor Christians. They were not required to do that but the problem was that they held some of the money back and kept it for themselves. This also was not a problem. The problem and the sin was that they lied to the apostles and said that they had not kept any of the money for themselves. Because of that sin, The Holy Spirit killed Ananias and Sapphira Himself. The couple just dropped dead after they were confronted on their lie.

If God didn’t want capital punishment He wouldn’t have killed Ananias and Sapphira for the crime of lying.

 

[portarica]

One of the things that you guys should know is that the entire incident involving the woman caught in the act of adultery was probably a put up deal by the Pharisees. Adultery is a private thing. The 2 people usually weren’t having sex in the middle of the street. Yet Moses law stated that a person could not be put to death except on the testimony of 2 witnesses. Since the crime was done in private, where did they get 2 witnesses from.

One of the witnesses was probably the man who was having sex with another man’s wife! The other fact of Moses law that applies here is that when someone was convicted of a capital crime and stoning to death was the punishment; it was the 2 witnesses who were legally required to throw the first stones.

So, when Jesus said, let he who is without sin, cast the first stone, Jesus was not talking to the whole crowd; He was only talking to the 2 witnesses, when He said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”. This is especially interesting if the witness who was supposed to cast the first stone was actually the man who had committed adultery! He had committed the same sin as the woman brought before Jesus!

In any case, because Jesus confronted the one who was legally required to throw the first stone, does not in any way prove that Jesus was against capital punishment. The incident with the woman did not have to relate to capital punishment at all.

Another thing to think about when trying to figure out what is “God’s Law” regarding Capital punishment, is the issue of does God want any one killed as punishment for a crime? If you read in the book of Acts, Chap 5 vs 1 through 10, you will read the story of Ananias and his wife Sapphira.

Ananias and his wife Sapphira owned some land. They sold the land and gave the money to the apostles to be used to feed the poor Christians. They were not required to do that but the problem was that they held some of the money back and kept it for themselves. This also was not a problem. The problem and the sin was that they lied to the apostles and said that they had not kept any of the money for themselves. Because of that sin, The Holy Spirit killed Ananias and Sapphira Himself. The couple just dropped dead after they were confronted on their lie.

If God didn’t want capital punishment He wouldn’t have killed Ananias and Sapphira for the crime of lying.

If Acts was true, we wouldn’t be here today.

And just as there are incongruous things in the OT vs. Gospels there are incongruous things in the books following the gospels.

And your example of the couple also flies in the face of what Jesus taught about forgiveness. If the killing ,as you suggest was God’s doing.

Peace

 

[o_mlly]

…
If God didn’t want capital punishment He wouldn’t have killed Ananias and Sapphira for the crime of lying.

I think that the above rephrased as "If … then … " logic is quite flawed. If God killed Ananias and Sapphria, then He gives His creatures authority to do the same.

The Author of life always has the right to take what is His. The creature is not endowed with the same rights as His Creator. To extend the rights of the Creator to the creature without another supporting premise is illogical. Some will use the Old Law as that second premise but ignore the New Law implying that Jesus Christ’s life makes no difference.

As to the relation of the Old law – fear and the New Law – love, Aquinas’ perspective is, as usual, instructive:
*t belongs to the law to direct human acts according to the order of righteousness (4): wherein also the New Law surpasses the Old Law, since it directs our internal acts, according to Matthew 5:20: “Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Hence the saying that “the Old Law restrains the hand, but the New Law controls the mind” ( Sentent. iii, D, xl).

Thirdly, it belongs to the law to induce men to observe its commandments. This the Old Law did by the fear of punishment: but the New Law, by love, which is poured into our hearts by the grace of Christ, bestowed in the New Law, but foreshadowed in the Old. Hence Augustine says (Contra Adimant. Manich. discip. xvii) that “there is little difference [The ‘little difference’ refers to the Latin words ‘timor’ and ‘amor’–‘fear’ and ‘love.’] between the Law and the Gospel–fear and love.”

Reply to Objection 1. As the father of a family issues different commands to the children and to the adults, so also the one King, God, in His one kingdom, gave one law to men, while they were yet imperfect, and another more perfect law, when, by the preceding law, they had been led to a greater capacity for Divine things.

Reply to Objection 2. The salvation of man could not be achieved otherwise than through Christ, according to Acts 4:12: “There is no other name . . . given to men, whereby we must be saved.” Consequently the law that brings all to salvation could not be given until after the coming of Christ. But before His coming it was necessary to give to the people, of whom Christ was to be born, a law containing certain rudiments of righteousness unto salvation, in order to prepare them to receive Him.
Summa Q.91 a.5.*

 

[Brendan]

Do you have a Magisterial reference for such an interpretation?

Christ specifically cautions us in Matthew 19:8- 9 that what is written in Deuteronomy is not necessarily the law given by God.

Actually, No. If you read Deut, or any of the books of Moses, Divorce is never actually permitted. It states certain things about what a person can or should do if their spouse isses a writ of divorce, but it makes no allowances for it. So the Word of God NEVER allowed for divorce. Christ reinforces this by noting the Moses allowed it.

Contrast this to capital punishment, in which Christ not only permitted it, but actually commanded it to happen in certain situations.

They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

From Malachi:

And you say, “Why is it?”-- Because the LORD is witness between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have broken faith though she is your companion, your betrothed wife. “Did he not make one being, with flesh and spirit: and what does that one require but godly offspring? You must then safeguard life that is your own, and not break faith with the wife of your youth. “For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, And covering one’s garment with injustice, says the LORD of hosts; You must then safeguard life that is your own, and not break faith” (Malachi 2:14-16).

Juxtaposed to Deuteronomy:

If a man is discovered having relations with a woman who is married to another, both the man and the woman with whom he has had relations shall die. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst” (Deut 22:22).

When a man, after marrying a woman and having relations with her, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and therefore he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house” (Deut 24:1).

See, Christ tells us through Moses that:

1. Person(s) discovered in adultery are to put to death.
2. In those occasions, men have been know to issue writs of divorce.

So where in Deuteronomy, does God actually permit divorce instead of simply noting that human do it in certain circumstances.

You will find that it doesn’t, noting that men do this at times is not a statement of approval or permission; thus there is no contradiction between Deut and Malachi.

Again, contrast this with Capital Punishment, where Christ actually COMMANDS it to be done, not only via the Mosic Law, but centuries prior via Noah.

And even extends in via David ( Ps 101:8)

In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

The Council of Trent used this very passage to note the correctness of Capital Punishment in it’s outline of the 5th Commandment

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord (Pslm 101:8).

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly;6586593:

Do you have a Magisterial reference for such an interpretation?

No, but I need one for your claim that, “But since she did [sin], Christ was not opposed to justice for the crime being done.” Here you pretend to enter the mind of God. I think at least you should reference the Magisterium unless it is a private revelation.

Actually, No. If you read Deut, or any of the books of Moses, Divorce is never actually permitted. …

I assume you read Deut 24:1 and know that the word “Deuteronomy” means “second law.” 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.

As to the rest of your post, I respect your insights but prefer St. Thomas’ analysis to yours as to the relationship of the Old Law to the New Law.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan;6589121:

No, but I need one for your claim that, “But since she did [sin], Christ was not opposed to justice for the crime being done.” Here you pretend to enter the mind of God. I think at least you should reference the Magisterium unless it is a private revelation.

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

I assume you read Deut 24:1 and know that the word “Deuteronomy” means “second law.” 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.

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?

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?

But if God gave direct commands, tell us not simply what is ceremonially clean, but what is Moral, then do we not follow it?

As to the rest of your post, I respect your insights but prefer St. Thomas’ analysis to yours as to the relationship of the Old Law to the New Law.

Correct, 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?

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

 

[rovimax]

I think there will be more injustice if we will not allow a person to change and turn back to God. God wants all men to be saved, right?

 

[Lycorth]

From the Catechism of Saint Thomas Aquinas:

The Execution of Criminals.–Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill. Thus, we read: “I will kill and I will make to live.” It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.” And again: “For if thou dost that which is evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain. Because he is God’s minister.” To Moses also it was said: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.” And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority.

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

Execution of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

From the Catechism of Saint Pius X:

It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**2267 **Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, **the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. **If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

And in order to clarify that the excerpt in red is a non-binding opinion of the late pontiff rather than a doctrinal statement:

From Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. **While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. **There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

 

[Brendan]

I think there will be more injustice if we will not allow a person to change and turn back to God. God wants all men to be saved, right?

But Capital Punishment is not inflicted in a way that would prohibt that.

As a matter of fact, Cardinal Avery Dulles noted that there is a large body of Christian record that notes that an impending execution actually PROMOTES a reconcilliation with God.

A modern example would be Timothy McVeigh. He was Baptized a Catholic, but, needless to say, was not raised as such.

But while on death row, he requested and recieved Sacramental Absolution. In addition, just prior to his execution, he requested and recieved Last Rites, which includes an Absolution, Communion and the Apostolic Blessing ( a plenary indulgence which removes the temporal punishment due to the crime).

As such, it is a decent possibility that McVeight went straight to Heaven. Which should be a cause of rejoicing by all good Catholics. The lost sheep was found.

So true and Divine Justice, accompanied by True Mercy were accomplished.

 

[Brendan]

I assume you read Deut 24:1 and know that the word “Deuteronomy” means “second law.” 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.

Go back and read what Christ said. He never said that Deuteronmy itself was not God’s Word (He couldn’t, as that would be a lie)

Rather, He said that MOSES allowed divorce. God’s Word in Deuteronmy, the Second Law, never said such a thing.

Rather it merely states that men do that. Exodus also said that men made a golden calf and worshipped it. No one considers that to be a statement of endorsement either

Christ doesn’t contradict Himself, it is not the Nature of God to do so. The Moral Law He set down is true then, was true when He walked the Earth and is true today.