Erika Kirk Forgives Charlie's Killer in Heartbreaking Memorial Speech

Status
Not open for further replies.
vz71 said:
Just to clarify.
You believe the act of forgiveness to be otherwise for her not speaking out against the DP?
Click to expand...
I am not her spiritual guide, it is not for me to "qualify" her forgiveness.


According to the catechism of the Catholic Church in 1997 - the DP should be apply in some circumstances that are very rare, almost not existent and since 2018 says that the DP is not admissible in any circumstance.
She did no ask the Prosecutor not to seek the DP.

I feel that in that situation, Catholics following the teaching would ask that the DP not to be sought my the prosecution.
A life sentence is enough of a punishment.

A person may be struggling with forgiveness and still ask that the DP not be sought on moral grounds.

One thing that is for sure - if the shooter is kept alive, there is the possibility in the future for him to repent and apologize to the family.
It is done more often now, expert say if brings closure. For example it could bring closure to the two children, who will become adults and come to terms with this.
 
vz71 said:
Then why are you?

You say you are not to "qualify" her forgiveness.
But then spend pages qualifying your answer.

Please speak plainly.
Click to expand...

Erika Kirk has not taken a step against the DP - she is leaving it to the government.

People that share the moral philosophy of the Catholic Catechism, may feel that requesting that the DP not be sought is part of the path to complete forgiveness.
People that share the moral philosophy of the teaching would feel that requesting that the DP not be sought is the correct step, even if they have not come to term with forgiving the perpetrator.

People that want to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church, will be compelled to request that the DP not be sought, as it is admissible and in the 2018, the Pope stated the Church will actively lobby for the abolition of the DP

I think I covered all cases.

Erika Kirk is not in any of those cases and it is not for me to make assumption about her spiritual journey, especially since the death of her husband is so recent.

Since Turning Point is not a religious organization and not a Catholic one, there is no pledge to follow Catholic Catechism.

I think this is plain talk.
I will address respectful questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nanny1935 said:
Erika Kirk has not taken a step against the DP
Click to expand...
Is that a requirement?
Is her act of forgiving somehow less for actions you believe should be done but were not?

I am confused here.
You keep stating you are not to judge, but then keep adding to your answer a bunch of qualifiers.

Are you, or are you not, judging rather harshly the act of forgiveness?
If you are not, then why the statements:
Nanny1935 said:
People that share the moral philosophy of the Catholic Catechism, may feel that requesting that the DP not be sought is part of the path to complete forgiveness.
People that share the moral philosophy of the teaching would feel that requesting that the DP not be sought is the correct step, even if they have not come to term with forgiving the perpetrator.

People that want to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church, will be compelled to request that the DP not be sought, as it is admissible and in the 2018, the Pope stated the Church will actively lobby for the abolition of the DP
Click to expand...


Are you not implying that she really is not forgiving because she didn't do what you think should have been done?
 
vz71 said:
Is that a requirement?
Is her act of forgiving somehow less for actions you believe should be done but were not?

I am confused here.
You keep stating you are not to judge, but then keep adding to your answer a bunch of qualifiers.

Are you, or are you not, judging rather harshly the act of forgiveness?
If you are not, then why the statements:



Are you not implying that she really is not forgiving because she didn't do what you think should have been done?
Click to expand...
I am implying nothing and I explicitly said it is not our place to comment on her spiritual journey, especially with the death of her husband so recent.

I am talking about the Catholic teaching: paragraph 2267 in Catholic Catechism, "Evangelium Vitae" (1995) and Pope Francis Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017 and our actions as Catholics -
As Catholics we are told not to support the DP.

Even more, since 2018 we are told the Church seeks to inspire lawmakers to abolish it and to inspire voters to take a stand against it.

If I got the teaching correctly- I am open to hear opinions if I got the teaching incorrectly- the teaching of the Catholic Church is that in our actions as civilians, we should do what is in our power in each situation to avoid the DP. The base for the moral prescription is that the DP goes against human dignity (a broader concept than moral punishment, since it also limits a discussion on security: the DP as deterrence)

In the words of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Donum Veritatis (1990) :
Paragraph III “ordinary teaching on faith and morals.”

"To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals – presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect."

It is unfortunate that one statement (albeit accurate, both recounting facts and citing Catholic foundation ) created such a strong reaction and distracted from relevant issues. Such aggressive reactions severely limits contributions on this forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vz71 said:
Is that a requirement?
Is her act of forgiving somehow less for actions you believe should be done but were not?

I am confused here.
You keep stating you are not to judge, but then keep adding to your answer a bunch of qualifiers.

Are you, or are you not, judging rather harshly the act of forgiveness?
If you are not, then why the statements:



Are you not implying that she really is not forgiving because she didn't do what you think should have been done?
Click to expand...
I will address separately the issue of both questions
1. Is her act of forgiving somehow less for actions you believe should be done but were not?
2. Are you implying that she really is not forgiving because she didn't do what you think should have been done?
Both these questions qualify as Loaded questions
I will not distract this thread with it a debate on it - you can read about it here: https://effectiviology.com/loaded-question/#How_to_respond_to_a_loaded_question

Or a summary from Google: Yes, a loaded question is considered bad communication because it contains a false or unproven assumption, making it manipulative and potentially defensive, rather than fostering honest dialogue. These questions are a form of logical fallacy that undermine rational discussion, can create confusion, lead to unfair assumptions about the respondent, and derail communication by shifting focus away from the actual topic.

There are two false premises- (i) that an argument is based on what i think is moral (ii) that I would judge forgiveness based on my own moral judgement

I request that communication in this forum remains civil- we can include that avoiding loaded questions is another way of keeping civility
In plain language- your comment was mean.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nanny1935 said:
I will address separately the issue of both questions
1. Is her act of forgiving somehow less for actions you believe should be done but were not?
2. Are you implying that she really is not forgiving because she didn't do what you think should have been done?
Both these questions qualify as Loaded questions
I will not distract this thread with it a debate on it - you can read about it here: https://effectiviology.com/loaded-question/#How_to_respond_to_a_loaded_question

Or a summary from Google: Yes, a loaded question is considered bad communication because it contains a false or unproven assumption, making it manipulative and potentially defensive, rather than fostering honest dialogue. These questions are a form of logical fallacy that undermine rational discussion, can create confusion, lead to unfair assumptions about the respondent, and derail communication by shifting focus away from the actual topic.

There are two false premises- (i) that an argument is based on what i think is moral (ii) that I would judge forgiveness based on my own moral judgement

I request that communication in this forum remains civil- we can include that avoiding loaded questions is another way of keeping civility
In plain language- the comment was mean.
Click to expand...
Odd.
The questions were not loaded the first several times they were asked.
Seems to me that is just an excuse to avoid the answer.

In any case.

I find it especially heinous that individuals would predicate an act of forgiveness on some arbitrary standard.
Her forgiveness of the assassin that killed her husband is admirable, it is something we need to see more in our society, she is setting a wonderful example for a great deal of people, and most important, she appears to be doing so simply based upon God's will.

The concept that somehow this is lacking because she did not speak about the death penalty is hideous.
It is the accusation from people that want to find something somehow wrong with another's moral character.
They have a need to find a problem with a morally upright action.
Why? I have no idea.
Perhaps others can shine a light on this.

Why exactly is there a need for others to tear down morally upright acts by others?
 
vz71 said:
Odd.
The questions were not loaded the first several times they were asked.
Seems to me that is just an excuse to avoid the answer.

In any case.

I find it especially heinous that individuals would predicate an act of forgiveness on some arbitrary standard.
Her forgiveness of the assassin that killed her husband is admirable, it is something we need to see more in our society, she is setting a wonderful example for a great deal of people, and most important, she appears to be doing so simply based upon God's will.

The concept that somehow this is lacking because she did not speak about the death penalty is hideous.
It is the accusation from people that want to find something somehow wrong with another's moral character.
They have a need to find a problem with a morally upright action.
Why? I have no idea.
Perhaps others can shine a light on this.

Why exactly is there a need for others to tear down morally upright acts by others?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about my comments? If yes,
I do not know how to say this diplomatically while at the same time clearly -
Perhaps you have issues with reading comprehension - you do not understand written english.
Or perhaps it is malfeasance - I do not want to make assumptions in that direction- but your attacks are so constant on this site,
that I feel I need to consider the possibility and advocate for safety.
Please do not insist on this issue, twisting words, looking for a meaning or intention that is not there.
I am owed an apology - loaded questions and a loaded attack like this one- do damage.
Let's keep the conversation civil.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vz71 said:
Let's hope that the example she displayed keeps going.
It appears to have moved others.

www.foxnews.com

Tim Allen says Erika Kirk's memorial speech inspired him to forgive his father's killer

Tim Allen publicly forgives the man who killed his father after being moved by Erika Kirk's funeral speech forgiving her husband Charlie Kirk's accused killer.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
I hope it will inspire you to forgive people that you disagree with and inspire you to stop shooting verbal attacks at them in this forum.
Your posts are not civil, instead of changing your attitude, you look for new ways to attack people with whom you disagree.

This forum is called Catholic Questions - we deal with national issues as they relate to the Catholic faith. A civil conversation with well founded comments on the Catholic teachings can inspire our learning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a good thread, but I do ask that everyone consider their comments before posting, and consider whether they fall under the rubric of proper discourse. Considering the way in which one's questions are crafted, before posing them, is essential to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top