frantony said:*
Now when the Catholic Church get cornered about errors in their teachings in Catechism of the Catholic Church, and logic behind Inquisitions and selling of indulgences for financing the building of St. Peters in Rome, they conveniently hide behind the excuse that they are not doctrines of the Church.*
So what? The fact that it is cited by the Church is irrelevant, that has never been in dispute here. Your pointing this out ad nauseam suggests that you don’t understand that.Over the course of this thread I have made a number of points; that comment was addressed to only one of them, which is that this is not some random, proof-texted passage that I have selected and to which I have given my personal interpretation. Rather, that it is a passage that is frequently cited by the Church.
Cute, Ender. It was teaching what? Something that JasonSB and I obviously don’t dispute, therefore something that doesn’t need to be taught to us and is irrelevant in the present context.This shouldn’t be all that controversial. Dulles was merely explaining a fact of Church teaching. It was a teaching moment, one you could benefit from heeding.
You’re missing the point, again. Even if its “especially significant,” that doesn’t tell us that it must be interpreted so as to manufacture an obvious contradiction in the CCC. Sorry you can’t see this point, but it really is an obvious one.Does this really strike you as a significant objection? Obviously all scripture is significant but the Church just as obviously gives special significance to some passages over others. Gen 9:6 is one of those passages.
You again completely miss the point. Obviously that’s the general context, but that does not make it relevant as a response to the specific well-reasoned arguments that JasonSB has presented. If you think it does, may God help you - I can’t.Oh. I thought from the fact that Dulles was talking specifically about the death penalty and cited Gen 9:5-6 and Rom 13:1-4 as scripture teachings that formed Catholic thought on the subject that the context couldn’t be much more obvious.
Yes, your point is quite obvious; it’s just not the one I was addressing.Even if its “especially significant,” that doesn’t tell us that it must be interpreted so as to manufacture an obvious contradiction in the CCC. Sorry you can’t see this point, but it really is an obvious one.
My original comment was directed to this not-so-well-reasoned statement that Jason made: “Furthermore, if every phrase in the Bible can be read in isolation and taken at face value the way you are here, what need do we have of the Church?” I’ve been pointing out that claiming Gen 9:6 is central to the topic and pretty much means what it says is neither taking a phrase in isolation nor forcing from it an invalid interpretation. The significance and its historical interpretation have been set by the Church.Obviously that’s the general context, but that does not make it relevant as a response to the specific well-reasoned arguments that JasonSB has presented.
*Though I believe in Jesus Christ and the veracity and the effectiveness of His teachings absolutely, there is nothing special I detest or like about the Catholic or any other Church. I find it no holier nor less fallible than a Muslim Mosque or Hindu Temple.Charges like this aren’t interesting; this isn’t arguing, it’s venting and it’s not relevant. Find something useful to say; “I detest the Church” won’t take you very far. I don’t think most people care.*
*
Ender
*
*
***Jesus had only used his logic and knowledge of law to save people from death sentences, because He came to save and heal people not to accuse, condemn, and sentence them to death. If Jesus was today, here in person, he would have surely opposed sentencing of anyone to death. ***
Frantony:
That is a common misunderstanding with no biblical or theological support.
Biblical scholar Lloyd R. Bailey’s book Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says (Abingdon Press, 1987): An approved synopsis.
The Bible clearly asserts, from beginning to end, without any reservation, that righteous judgement includes the execution of a murderer. In the case of murder, the biblical materials offer the clearest and most sustained justification for the death penalty. The purpose of capital punishment is justice - deterrence is irrelevant. A person who takes a human life, without proper sanction, forfeits any right to life - no alternative is allowed and the community must not be swayed by values to the contrary.
Listen carefully to the Bible as the Word of God rather than seek to improve upon it by means of human values. However meritorious mercy may be, however abundantly evident it may be in God’s own dealings, murder was an offense for which mercy and pity were not allowed and for which monetary compensation was strictly forbidden. The sentence is set by God’s torah and a judge cannot have discretion in this matter. Murder is something utterly on its own, nothing can be compared to it.
It should not be overlooked, in seeking to discover the ‘mind of Jesus Christ’ on the issue of murder and its punishments, that He goes beyond torah to the statement that even verbal abuse makes one deserving of ‘the hell of fire’. Far from releasing believers from prior law, Jesus was a ‘hard liner’ who made things even tougher, stating that He has come not ‘to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them.’, offering even stronger interpretations than in the original (Matthew 5:17-22). Indeed, Jesus admonishes the Pharisees not to misuse torah for their own ends, but to honor God and torah. And of all the text in the Bible, which one does Jesus select to emphasize that crucial point? ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH’ (Matthew 15:1-9).
All interpretations, contrary to the biblical support of capital punishment, are false. Interpreters ought to listen to the Bible’s own agenda, rather than to squeeze from it implications for their own agenda. As the ancient rabbis taught, "Do not seek to be more righteous than your Creator.’ (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33.).
This book is mandatory reading for those who wish to undertake a thorough and accurate look at this often misused and misunderstood area of concern and debate.
Except that something that itself is not proven can scarcely be considered proof. I notice those terms are thrown around freely here. Apart from a few people who wish to promote the death penalty those who “detest” the Church, I do not know of anyone who sees the teaching of the Church as inconsistent.***. ***
*The existence of in-consistency in the CCC regarding the subject of capital punishment alone is a proof that something is amiss there, that the Church has to correct. *
*The Pharisees reminded Jesus that the Mosaic Law demanded Mary Magdalene to be stoned to death and asked Him “But what do you say?”Frantony:
That is a common misunderstanding with no biblical or theological support.
Biblical scholar Lloyd R. Bailey’s book Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says (Abingdon Press, 1987): An approved synopsis.
The Bible clearly asserts, from beginning to end, without any reservation, that righteous judgement includes the execution of a murderer. In the case of murder, the biblical materials offer the clearest and most sustained justification for the death penalty. The purpose of capital punishment is justice - deterrence is irrelevant. A person who takes a human life, without proper sanction, forfeits any right to life - no alternative is allowed and the community must not be swayed by values to the contrary.
Listen carefully to the Bible as the Word of God rather than seek to improve upon it by means of human values. However meritorious mercy may be, however abundantly evident it may be in God’s own dealings, murder was an offense for which mercy and pity were not allowed and for which monetary compensation was strictly forbidden. The sentence is set by God’s torah and a judge cannot have discretion in this matter. Murder is something utterly on its own, nothing can be compared to it.
It should not be overlooked, in seeking to discover the ‘mind of Jesus Christ’ on the issue of murder and its punishments, that He goes beyond torah to the statement that even verbal abuse makes one deserving of ‘the hell of fire’. Far from releasing believers from prior law, Jesus was a ‘hard liner’ who made things even tougher, stating that He has come not ‘to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them.’, offering even stronger interpretations than in the original (Matthew 5:17-22). Indeed, Jesus admonishes the Pharisees not to misuse torah for their own ends, but to honor God and torah. And of all the text in the Bible, which one does Jesus select to emphasize that crucial point? ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH’ (Matthew 15:1-9).
All interpretations, contrary to the biblical support of capital punishment, are false. Interpreters ought to listen to the Bible’s own agenda, rather than to squeeze from it implications for their own agenda. As the ancient rabbis taught, "Do not seek to be more righteous than your Creator.’ (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33.).
This book is mandatory reading for those who wish to undertake a thorough and accurate look at this often misused and misunderstood area of concern and debate.
Even if you assume that we are free to interpret the Bible however we choose, and that our interpretation is valid simply because it is ours, this comment would still make no sense because we are in fact judging people constantly. You say later on that: "What I detest is their sins, crimes, and errors in the CCC." Excuse me? If no man is to judge another how can you claim that others have sinned and committed crimes and errors?*By saying that only a sinless person could throw the first stone, Jesus was highlighting the fact that no man is without sin, and therefore no man is allowed to judge another. *
This is a total misunderstanding of what is forbidden us. We are not absolutely forbidden to judge anything at all; we are forbidden to judge things we cannot know or to judge from hatred. *In the book of Matthew chapter 7 verse 1 the reading starts by saying
“Judge not, that you be not judged”.
This will be applicable to Hitler, Mussoloni, Pope, President of United States, or Iran.
The Pharisees reminded Jesus that the Mosaic Law demanded Mary Magdalene to be stoned to death and asked Him “But what do you say?”
At this point, Jesus stooped down and starting writing something in the dirt.
When He straightened up, He said, “"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Then He stooped down and wrote again. One by one, the people left.
Here Jesus upheld the Mosaic law and the legal penalty for adultery—which is stoning to death—**Therefore Jesus could not be accused of being against the Law. **
But unlike the Pharisees and the Catholic Church scholars (who want to kill the sinner), Jesus, using His wisdom and knowledge of Law, saved Mary from death.
Fratony:
dudleysharp;7213263:
"This teaching remains necessary for all time."Why would a Compendium repeat the exact phrase from the text:
**When it is quite clear that is what it already said?/**quote]You go on and on about how contradictory the Catechism is to understand and how poorly it is written when it does not support widespread use of the death penalty, yet in the section you see as supporting widespread use of the death penalty you claim it is clear. The only explaination I can see for these two opposite ideas is that you read the catechism as an advocate for the death penalty to find ammunition. A Catholic approaches the Catechism as a student sitting at the feet of of a teacher.
I have commented on the meaning of 2260, as supported by teaching of the Holy Father. I commented on the difference between the approach to punishment in general and capital punishment specifically. That is because I seek to impose the will of the Catholic Church on my conscience, not the other way around.
First, I was responding to your comment on the Compendium, which you did not respond to.
Secondly, this covers two issues, both your failure to respond to the Compendium issue, and your other points, which go to your same two errors.
Through 2266, the CCC supports long known teachings, inclusive of the death penalty being the proper sanction for murder - “the teaching remains necessary for all time”. 2267 is a disaster which not only contradicts itself, has teachings which conflict with long known established teachings, through 2266 in the CCC.
So of course, I am going to point them out. That is what this entire thread has been about.
The only recorded time Jesus addressed the death penalty was when He stopped the stoning of the woman who committed adultery.Frantony:
That is a common misunderstanding with no biblical or theological support.
Biblical scholar Lloyd R. Bailey’s book Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says (Abingdon Press, 1987): An approved synopsis.
The Bible clearly asserts, from beginning to end, without any reservation, that righteous judgement includes the execution of a murderer. In the case of murder, the biblical materials offer the clearest and most sustained justification for the death penalty. The purpose of capital punishment is justice - deterrence is irrelevant. A person who takes a human life, without proper sanction, forfeits any right to life - no alternative is allowed and the community must not be swayed by values to the contrary.
Listen carefully to the Bible as the Word of God rather than seek to improve upon it by means of human values. However meritorious mercy may be, however abundantly evident it may be in God’s own dealings, murder was an offense for which mercy and pity were not allowed and for which monetary compensation was strictly forbidden. The sentence is set by God’s torah and a judge cannot have discretion in this matter. Murder is something utterly on its own, nothing can be compared to it.
It should not be overlooked, in seeking to discover the ‘mind of Jesus Christ’ on the issue of murder and its punishments, that He goes beyond torah to the statement that even verbal abuse makes one deserving of ‘the hell of fire’. Far from releasing believers from prior law, Jesus was a ‘hard liner’ who made things even tougher, stating that He has come not ‘to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them.’, offering even stronger interpretations than in the original (Matthew 5:17-22). Indeed, Jesus admonishes the Pharisees not to misuse torah for their own ends, but to honor God and torah. And of all the text in the Bible, which one does Jesus select to emphasize that crucial point? ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH’ (Matthew 15:1-9).
All interpretations, contrary to the biblical support of capital punishment, are false. Interpreters ought to listen to the Bible’s own agenda, rather than to squeeze from it implications for their own agenda. As the ancient rabbis taught, "Do not seek to be more righteous than your Creator.’ (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33.).
This book is mandatory reading for those who wish to undertake a thorough and accurate look at this often misused and misunderstood area of concern and debate.
" Then He stooped down and wrote again. One by one, the people left.frantony;7247768 said:The Pharisees reminded Jesus that the Mosaic Law demanded Mary Magdalene to be stoned to death and asked Him “But what do you say?”
At this point, Jesus stooped down and starting writing something in the dirt.
When He straightened up, He said, “"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.
Here Jesus upheld the Mosaic law and the legal penalty for adultery—which is stoning to death—**Therefore Jesus could not be accused of being against the Law. **
But unlike the Pharisees and the Catholic Church scholars (who want to kill the sinner), Jesus, using His wisdom and knowledge of Law, saved Mary from death.
Fratony:Astounding that you think the Pharisees had to remind Jesus of something.I want you to think about that.***John 8
- Dear dudleysharp,
For your benefit, I am pasting below, the phrases from John’s Gospel where you can see that Pharisees did remind Jesus of some things.*
1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, ***
***4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
***5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? ******
6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
*I think that Catholics should read more Bible than books written by some Sister Helen Prejean, Lloyd R. Bailey, Andrew Tallman, or Richard Eric Gunby. Who are they, and why do you think that they understand Jesus’ teachings better than me, or a fisherman, a prostitute, or a tax collector ?
Even if you assume that we are free to interpret the Bible however we choose, and that our interpretation is valid simply because it is ours, this comment would still make no sense because we are in fact judging people constantly. You say later on that: "What I detest is their sins, crimes, and errors in the CCC." Excuse me? If no man is to judge another how can you claim that others have sinned and committed crimes and errors?
Jesus did not ask us not to detest sins. He asked us not to detest sinners.
We can pass judgement on acts, results, and performances, but not on the actor, or the performer.
Homosexuality is a sin, and I can pass a judgement on that. But I am not allowed to pass judgement on a homosexual, because I do not know about the circumstances that made him a homosexual; what he went through in his home in his childhood, or in his church, or school.
This is a total misunderstanding of what is forbidden us. We are not absolutely forbidden to judge anything at all; we are forbidden to judge things we cannot know or to judge from hatred. *
Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. *
Thou shalt not judge. (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states. Or else He forbids judgment about Divine things, which we ought not to judge, but simply believe, since they are above us, as Hilary declares in his commentary on Mt. 5. Or again according to Chrysostom, He forbids the judgment which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart. (Aquinas)
As a Christian, I have to follow Christ; because He said “Follow me”.
He did not ask me to follow Augustine, or Hilary, or any body else.
He taught that only what he said was “right”, because he had approval from His Father in everything He did or said. By sacrificing Himself for all mankind, He proved that He did not have any selfish motives in His teachings.
Everybody else including Popes and Augustines had their selfish agenda, or personal axe to grind.
If you believe that each of us is free to decide for himself the meaning of scripture then you have to recognize that this must mean that it has no meaning at all. You cannot proclaim your right to determine what scripture means and deny that right to others; there is no rational basis for that. We all play by the same rules. I don’t think you really understand the implications of your own beliefs.
On the other hand, it is you who are bringing interpretations by numerous persons and Santa Clauses (other than Jesus ) who I do not know, or care to know. For a common man who is not a Biblical scholar with a PhD, Jesus’teachings are very clear and straight forward, and he does not need any additional interpretations. He spoke in parables in relation to seeds, and birds, which were easily understood by the average bloke, but was difficult to de-cipher for the learned men.
The Catholic Church has to take their present stand on Death sentence, if they have to justify their burnings and killings during Inquisition.
Tony
" Then He stooped down and wrote again. One by one, the people left.frantony;7247768 said:The Pharisees reminded Jesus that the Mosaic Law demanded Mary Magdalene to be stoned to death and asked Him “But what do you say?”
At this point, Jesus stooped down and starting writing something in the dirt.
When He straightened up, He said, “"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.
Here Jesus upheld the Mosaic law and the legal penalty for adultery—which is stoning to death—**Therefore Jesus could not be accused of being against the Law. **
But unlike the Pharisees and the Catholic Church scholars (who want to kill the sinner), Jesus, using His wisdom and knowledge of Law, saved Mary from death.
Fratony:Astounding that you think the Pharisees had to remind Jesus of something.I want you to think about that.Then, this:“the Pharisees wanted to make Jesus a heretic for opposing capital punishment, but He evaded their trap. The tremendous irony is that now, two thousand years later, people who claim to love Jesus teach that He was precisely the heretic His enemies wanted to paint Him as.”John 8 and the death penalty: The Woman Caught in Adultery
Compiled by Dudley Sharp
- Anti-death penalty activist Sister Helen Prejean, often inaccurate, get this right: “It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical proof text in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus’ admonition “Let him without sin cast the first stone”, when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) – the Mosaic Law prescribed death – should be read in its proper context. This passage is an entrapment story, which sought to how Jesus’ wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment . Sister Helen Prejean, Dead Man Walking.
- What about the woman caught in adultery? From “Why I Support Capital Punishment”, by Andrew Tallman, sections 7-11 biblical review, sections 1-6 secular review See Part 11
andrewtallmanshowarticles.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-i-support-capital-punishment-part_07.html
“Therefore their motives (to entrap Jesus) were nothing but evil. They were not seeking to follow God’s Law-Word in godly fashion; rather, they were attempting to employ surreptitiously what Moses said, towards their own evil ends of trying to trip Jesus up. What a foul thing.”
- Sanctity of Life & the Death Penalty: Flip sides of the same “Divine” coin
Author: Richard Eric Gunby, Quodlibet Journal: Volume 5 Number 2-3, July 2003
ISSN: 1526-6575 John 8:2-11 (NRSV)
“This cannot be read as an example of Jesus doing away with the law. Far from it! This is an example of Jesus, again, going by the clear unencumbered dictates of the law and not allowing it to be used towards evil ends in His presence. It is Jesus together with the Law triumphant over His enemies and their tradition. This is clearly an upholding of the law.”
quodlibet.net/articles/gunby-sanctity.shtml
as of 4/24/10
Start here: • John 7:53 - 8.11: The “woman taken in adultery” story: Metzger’s statement. Just before page 105 and through page 201
- John 8: The Woman Caught in Adultery – Dealing with Capital Offenses Lawfully
reocities.com/CapitolHill/lobby/3562/adultry.html- Excellent review of the challenges to the authenticity of John 8
multiline.com.au/~johnm/religion/spurious.htm
as of 8/6/10
more
newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm
Please note the word “but” in Rom. 6. The relationship between law and grace is a contrast, not a comparison. *
- For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Rom. 6:14-15)
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:16).
First of all we know that the bible from start to finish isn’t even true. The earth isn’t 6000 years old and properly cooked pork doesn’t kill you and Paul thought we were all going to be dead by now.Frantony:
That is a common misunderstanding with no biblical or theological support.
Biblical scholar Lloyd R. Bailey’s book Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says (Abingdon Press, 1987): An approved synopsis.
The Bible clearly asserts, from beginning to end, without any reservation, that righteous judgement includes the execution of a murderer. In the case of murder, the biblical materials offer the clearest and most sustained justification for the death penalty. The purpose of capital punishment is justice - deterrence is irrelevant. A person who takes a human life, without proper sanction, forfeits any right to life - no alternative is allowed and the community must not be swayed by values to the contrary.
Listen carefully to the Bible as the Word of God rather than seek to improve upon it by means of human values. However meritorious mercy may be, however abundantly evident it may be in God’s own dealings, murder was an offense for which mercy and pity were not allowed and for which monetary compensation was strictly forbidden. The sentence is set by God’s torah and a judge cannot have discretion in this matter. Murder is something utterly on its own, nothing can be compared to it.
It should not be overlooked, in seeking to discover the ‘mind of Jesus Christ’ on the issue of murder and its punishments, that He goes beyond torah to the statement that even verbal abuse makes one deserving of ‘the hell of fire’. Far from releasing believers from prior law, Jesus was a ‘hard liner’ who made things even tougher, stating that He has come not ‘to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them.’, offering even stronger interpretations than in the original (Matthew 5:17-22). Indeed, Jesus admonishes the Pharisees not to misuse torah for their own ends, but to honor God and torah. And of all the text in the Bible, which one does Jesus select to emphasize that crucial point? ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH’ (Matthew 15:1-9).
All interpretations, contrary to the biblical support of capital punishment, are false. Interpreters ought to listen to the Bible’s own agenda, rather than to squeeze from it implications for their own agenda. As the ancient rabbis taught, "Do not seek to be more righteous than your Creator.’ (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33.).
This book is mandatory reading for those who wish to undertake a thorough and accurate look at this often misused and misunderstood area of concern and debate.
Since you and frantony have set yourselves up as having the final say on what the bible means and what Jesus taught it is not really possible to discuss this - or any - topic with either of you. All discussions begin and end with* “my understanding is correct and nothing else matters.” *We can no more make progress on this topic than we could on whether chocolate tastes better than vanilla. Arguing opinions is neither interesting nor useful.So to pick and choose instances in the bible that are contrary to the whole spirit of what Jesus taught…
*I think that Catholics should read more Bible than books written by some Sister Helen Prejean, Lloyd R. Bailey, Andrew Tallman, or Richard Eric Gunby. Who are they, and why do you think that they understand Jesus’ teachings better than me, or a fisherman, a prostitute, or a tax collector ?
First of all I don’t think I hold the final opinion on anything. I just try to make cases using what Jesus taught as a priority. If you think that is an invalid way to discuss things you are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.Since you and frantony have set yourselves up as having the final say on what the bible means and what Jesus taught it is not really possible to discuss this - or any - topic with either of you. All discussions begin and end with* “my understanding is correct and nothing else matters.” *We can no more make progress on this topic than we could on whether chocolate tastes better than vanilla. Arguing opinions is neither interesting nor useful.
Ender