Didn’t Jesus also say we were not responsible for the sins of our fathers? To suggest that God plans to kill innocent people for the sins of others flies in the face of everything Jesus taught.Fratony and Ender:
I am involved in the death penalty debate, internationally, and often see the Cain reference as reflecting God’s anti death penalty declaration.
Some biblical review:
Yes, God not only protected some murderers, He also blessed some with His favor.
But He also wiped out nearly all of mankind with the flood.
It seems safe to say that God can do whatever God wishes.
We know that the story of Cain’s protection has nothing to do with God’s overall view of the death penalty, because of nearly countless references throughout the bible, as well as the interpretations and writings of scholars for many thousands of years.
Using Cain’s protection as reflecting God’s anti death penalty stance reflects wilfful ignorance, blatant dishonesty or a fool’s choice.
Even avoiding the many biblical references in favor of the death penalty, inclusive of the well known Genesis passage, which is for all peoples and all times, we are aware, biblically, all men die because of their sins. As all men die, it is safe to say that is a universal statement for all times, that “the wages of sin is death.” This is a standard established by God and, unfortunately, fulfilled by man.
Death is the proper outcome for any sin.
I think it clear that is the biblical message. Some wrongly say that is for natural death, only. No, it is for all earthly deaths - execution, cancer, car wrecks, “natural”, etc. Natural is in quotes because, for God, sin is not natural, but is the constant state of man.
The message is clear with the story of St. Dismas - it is not the manner of ones death that matters, but one’s state of grace at the time of their death.
usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans6.htm
Although, a brief and broad description, I think is biblically and historically accurate. I await comments.
I am not at all sure what you are talking about.Didn’t Jesus also say we were not responsible for the sins of our fathers? To suggest that God plans to kill innocent people for the sins of others flies in the face of everything Jesus taught.
And anything to do with Paul(Rom.)has to be taken in the context of his writings which he believed would be applicable for only a short period of time.
Peace
Anybody who believes in Jesus Christ, and follows his teachings belong to the Church.If this is in fact the Catholic interpretation of Cain’s story you should be able to cite some document confirming it. I’m pretty sure, however, that you won’t be able to quote any document whatever because the Church has never made the assertion you have made. I certainly accept that this is what you believe but it is surely not what the Church believes.
Unless you can quote what the Church teaches or has taught, this position has to be seen as entirely your own. Since the Church has existed for over 2000 years and since she has never in that entire time said anything resembling the position you have taken you might want to consider the possibility that you and she are not on the same page on this subject.
Ender
Actually you did say God planned to kill innocent people because of sin since you referenced natural disasters that kill innocent people.I am not at all sure what you are talking about.
First, I made no refrence to God’s “plans to kill innocent people for the sins of others”.
Secondly, I have never heard that the story of the good thief on the cross was a temporal one.
Could you explain what you are talking about?
Let’s simplify this. I am expounding on what is taught by the Roman Catholic Church; her position is my position. If you reject what she teaches then just say so and present your position for what it is: your own. Among other things, the main difference between our perspectives is that mine accords with what the Church teaches and yours does not. You may still hold that yours is the correct interpretation but you cannot hold that it is what your Church teaches.Before we hear about what the scholars of Christian law has to say, we can first hear what Jesus has to say about the scholars.
I find this ironic coming from you. The position of the Catholic Church on the death penalty is that the need to exercise the death penalty is rare, if not non-existent. This is in the CCC and was reiterated by Pope John Paul II. Perhaps you mean your position was in the society past what your position is today.; her position is my position. If you reject what she teaches then just say so and present your position for what it is: your own.
It is not just difficult to reconcile what is in the Catechism with what the Church teaches (present tense) but impossible to do so other than - as I have insisted countless times - by reading 2267 as a prudential suggestion that its use is harmful in current society.I find this ironic coming from you. The position of the Catholic Church on the death penalty is that the need to exercise the death penalty is rare, if not non-existent. This is in the CCC and was reiterated by Pope John Paul II. Perhaps you mean your position was in the society past what your position is today.
So what are you implying here? That *Kaczor *needs to “read his [JPII’s] view” in order to interpret it charitably, within the context of the teaching of the Church, but *you don’t *need to “read his view” (in order to interpret it uncharitably, removed from its context in the teaching of the Church)? Just to let you know, that’s an odd and very unconvincing view.Either he said something or he didn’t and clearly he didn’t make the statement you claim or there would be no need to “read his view.”
It does indeed reinforce your point: you think you don’t need to actually “read JPII’s view” in order to criticize it. For some reason you think only his defenders have to do that.This reinforces my point: no interpretation would be necessary if he actually made the statement at issue.
See above. Also, note that you quite rightly add the qualification “(in regard to the death penalty)” - you need to do this because the general statement would not be true. But you have chosen to “read his view” on the death penalty as isolated from his other statements (which is the opposite of what Kaczor did). Did you not notice yourself doing this? Why would you do this? I have to agree with pnewton’s comment on the irony of many of your comments.JPII made no statement whatever about retribution, a point I am not the only one to make, and since he said not a word about retribution (in regard to the death penalty) it is incorrect to claim that he taught about a point he didn’t even address.
*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. (Karl Keating)
I guess Karl is a busy guy, but it would be interesting to ask him if he had to “read” the Catechism before claiming that “to him” it expressed a view with the shortcoming it alleges. Pretty obvious that he did, isn’t it? Why do you think he says “To me…”?Ender
A quote from the Mosaic Law. It is what was required under the Law.I. What is your position on 2260?
2266 addresses punishment. 2267 addresses capital punishment. The two subjects are related, but not the same. We can have proportional punishment with or without capital punishment. “Proportional” is not the same as “an eye for an eye.” Proportional punishment is where the greatest punishment, whatever that may be (death, life in prisonment or watching Jerry Springer re-runs) is reserved for the most severe crimes.How do you rationalize what is said there and in 2266 with what is in 2267?
This is inadequate. It is not merely some random citation of Mosaic Law. First, it is not Mosaic Law at all; it is part of God’s covenant with Noah so it is not Moses’ law but God’s law. Second, there is nothing whatever to indicate that what it commands is something that used to be required but is no longer relevant to us. If that were the case there would be no purpose in including it in the Catechism. Quite the opposite as the section which quotes the passage in its entirety ends with the decree that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” It may be difficult to accept what it says but it is surely not difficult to understand it.A quote from the Mosaic Law. It is what was required under the Law.
The word used is not proportionate but commensurate and that obligation is not met simply by the-harshest-punishment-whatever-that-happens-to-be. The severity of the crime of murder does not change with time or place; it is fixed by the nature of the victim, therefore commensurate punishment is also fixed. We may disagree about what punishments meet that criterion but, whatever they are, they do not change and they are not dependent on the whims of various national penal systems.2266 addresses punishment. 2267 addresses capital punishment. The two subjects are related, but not the same. We can have proportional punishment with or without capital punishment. “Proportional” is not the same as “an eye for an eye.” Proportional punishment is where the greatest punishment, whatever that may be (death, life in prisonment or watching Jerry Springer re-runs) is reserved for the most severe crimes.
From:The word used is not proportionate but commensurate…
Interesting. This is what the Vatican’s web site says (and why am I not surprised the USCCB site is different?):From:
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml
- Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment *proportionate to the gravity of the offense
I am arguing that the Catechism contradicts itself so it is not sufficient to say I am arguing against what is being taught when the same criticism applies equally to you. You accept 2267 and ignore 2260 (plus 2266 and everything else the Church has ever said on the subject). I reject 2267 and accept the rest. Where is the case that I am the one arguing against what the Church teaches?In any case, my point is that you are arguing in this instance against what is being taught, as opposed to your mind and the Church’s mind being the same, as you said earlier.
The Vatican’s web site also says:Interesting. This is what the Vatican’s web site says (and why am I not surprised the USCCB site is different?):
- Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties *commensurate with the gravity of the crime.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
I am not an expert on this subject but I find the above comments odd. I don’t see any conflict between 2267 and the rest, but perhaps that’s because I don’t read 2260 as a directive for us to kill murderers but rather as warning of what will happen to us if we kill others. In Gen. 4:15 God puts a mark on Cain after he murdered Abel specifically so that others wouldn’t kill him so how is that consistent with the notion of it being a directive?I am arguing that the Catechism contradicts itself so it is not sufficient to say I am arguing against what is being taught when the same criticism applies equally to you. You accept 2267 and ignore 2260 (plus 2266 and everything else the Church has ever said on the subject). I reject 2267 and accept the rest. Where is the case that I am the one arguing against what the Church teaches?
It is a well known passage that the wages of sin is death Romans 6, I believe. Theologically, God establishes the order of things. Part of that is that sin results in death, whatever that death might be. In the realm of these teachings, all humans sin, therfore all die. None are innocent.Actually you did say God planned to kill innocent people because of sin since you referenced natural disasters that kill innocent people. Peace
The problem is that the Catechism destroys the purpose of sanction in 2267 and contradicts the purpose of punishment from 2260-2266.2266 addresses punishment. 2267 addresses capital punishment.
You are saying all death is caused by sin. Since at least one innocent has been killed by natural disasters, your premise and resulting conclusions are false.It is a well known passage that the wages of sin is death Romans 6, I believe. Theologically, God establishes the order of things. Part of that is that sin results in death, whatever that death might be. In the realm of these teachings, all humans sin, therfore all die. None are innocent.
Humans are responsible for committing their own sins, so they are responsible for their own deaths, just as similarly humans create a social contract, inclusive of a criminal justice system to handle criminals, who are punished because of their own wrongdoing.
We rightly blame the criminals for their own sanctions, for they are resposble for their crimes. We don’t blame the lawmakers for the sanctions imposed upon the criminals, but rightly hold those criminals responsible for their own sanctions. So do, sinners die as a result of their sins.
You are attempting to integrate humanism and the eternal, which creates some unmanageable conflics.
You seem to be saying that God is killing innocents because many have not committed death penalty eligible crimes, by man’s laws. Is that what you are saying?
If so, theologically, it seems quite clear that sinners are responsible for their own deaths and in humanism, God is irrelevant, and people die for whatever reason people die and God has nothing to do with it.
But, in both, the sinner/criminal are responsible for their own sanctions.
“Whoever sheds the blood (murders) of man, by man shall his blood be shed (execution).” How is this not a directive? Is this not simply saying that “Whoever murders shall be executed”? It may be reasonable to claim this passage no longer applies but its meaning is rather obvious.I am not an expert on this subject but I find the above comments odd. I don’t see any conflict between 2267 and the rest, but perhaps that’s because I don’t read 2260 as a directive for us to kill murderers but rather as warning of what will happen to us if we kill others.
That there have always been exceptions to the directive doesn’t make it any less a directive. There are other considerations and each case is determined uniquely, nonetheless, the general prescription holds: murderers are to be executed.In Gen. 4:15 God puts a mark on Cain after he murdered Abel specifically so that others wouldn’t kill him so how is that consistent with the notion of it being a directive?
Point to where the Church refers to these passages in this context and we can consider them. It is the Church, not me, who has singled out Gen 9:6 and I will point out again that your examples are from Mosaic Law while Gen 9:6 is something altogether different.If we are to read 2260 (nee Gen. 9:5-6) as a directive to kill murderers, there are plenty of more explicit directives that we seem to ignore. What about anyone who strikes or curses one of their parents (Ex. 21:15,17, Lv. 20:9), kidnaps (Ex. 21:16), or even works on the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14,15,35:2)? What about women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Dt. 22:20-22) or who are raped but do not cry out loudly enough for help (Dt. 22:23-24)?
Show me a Church document that interprets this incident as you do, but if you can’t then I see no reason to accept your personal interpretation of this passage.When Jesus was asked about enforcing these laws he said “Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her.” (Jn. 8:3-7) It seems like not putting people to death was a legitimate option for those people to take because Jesus wasn’t angy that the law wasn’t being upheld when the crowd dispersed.
It is not merely 2260 with which 2267 disagrees but with everything the Church has ever written on the subject. There is no historical support for 2267; it is not the development of doctrine, it is solely the prudential opinion of JPII. It has no support from Church teaching.Therefore it is not clear at all to me that 2260 is telling us that we must put murderers to death. 2267, on the other hand, is very clear on the conditions surrounding the use of the death penalty.
Let it be understood that by “the Catechism” you mean the teaching of the Catholic Church has problems.The problem is that the Catechism destroys the purpose of sanction in 2267 and contradicts the purpose of punishment from 2260-2266.
…HEREAFTER, THE CATECHISM HAS SOME PROBLEMS
I don’t believe that’s what Dudley means at all. The Catechism contains, in 2267, a prudential opinion that should never have been included. The problem is not with what the Church teaches but with what was put into the Catechism. In this case, those things are not the same.Let it be understood that by “the Catechism” you mean the teaching of the Catholic Church has problems.
I don’t know what statements 2260 says or what 2266 says or what 2267 says.It is not just difficult to reconcile what is in the Catechism with what the Church teaches (present tense) but impossible to do so other than - as I have insisted countless times - by reading 2267 as a prudential suggestion that its use is harmful in current society.
My explanations are entirely consistent with what the Church teaches and as hard as it is to accept, it is 2267 that is not. What is your position on 2260? How do you rationalize what is said there and in 2266 with what is in 2267? We all know what 2267 says but it is obvious that there is a great deal more than that one section. One can accept 2267 only by ignoring everything else the Church has ever said on the subject, including other comments in the very same Catechism. Why does that seem like the more reasonable approach to you?
Ender