Federal Executions Pit The Trump Administration Against The Catholic Church

Status
Not open for further replies.
Motherwit said:
If the Church is wrong, where do we go for moral teaching?
Click to expand...
Well, we can go to the GOP. Or we can take the approach of our Protestant brothers and let each Catholic interpret Church teaching for himself.
 
MikeInVA said:
OneSheep claimed that the [Holy] Spirit revealed something that caused the Church to change its teachings. I ask again, what was this revelation?
Click to expand...
The Church didn’t change it’s teaching. The death penalty was permitted by States if it served the common good. Being conditional upon that end has always been explicit. Otherwise over the last 150 years the Church would have been denouncing the abolition of the dp as it was rolled out across the world. No, the Church has been forced to defend 2000 years of the true nature of the conditional permission for States to use the death penalty against the false claim that it is a divine right and the Church has no business to speak about it again.
MikeInVA said:
What “moral awareness” was the Church lacking?
Click to expand...
The Church wasn’t lacking moral awareness.
 
[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.
Click to expand...
Is the Death Penalty the only possible way?

No, Life in Prison without the possibility of Parole renders the “only possible way” as inadmissible.
MikeInVA said:
What “moral awareness” was the Church lacking?
Click to expand...
“Moral Awareness” is relative.

Did the Church during the Spanish Inquisition have a “Moral Awareness”?
 
MikeInVA said:
What has the Spirit revealed that changes 2000 years of Catholic teaching?
Click to expand...
First of all, it is not a new revelation, but an unfolding revelation. In my opinion, and I do not speak for the Magisterium, what has unfolded is the meaning of the basic dignity of human life. What has concurrently happened in history is that ability to apprehend people has become more advanced and certain.
redcatholic said:
trump… Biden
Click to expand...
I didn’t intend the thread to get into a factional discussion. Factionalism is against the teachings of the catechism.
MikeInVA said:
What “moral awareness” was the Church lacking?
Click to expand...
I think it is more of an awareness of the dignity of God’s children, that is only my opinion though. The end of the DP has to do in part with the strengthening of our understanding of human dignity.

Do you understand how a murderer still can have dignity, as a loved creation of God? I know that sounds a little crazy…
 
MikeInVA said:
48.png
RootKitWarrior:
“Moral Awareness” is relative.
Click to expand...
Not really. Catholics believe in objective morality.
Click to expand...
The death penalty is permitted if it serves the common good. If it harms the common good it is forbidden. That is the Church teaching.
 
OneSheep said:
I think it is more of an awareness of the dignity of God’s children, that is only my opinion though.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard it more than once. So Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, etc. did not recognize the dignity of God’s children?
OneSheep said:
Do you understand how a murderer still can have dignity, as a loved creation of God? I know that sounds a little crazy…
Click to expand...
I believe that he has the dignity of someone made in the image and likeness of God, and he should be encouraged to repent of his sins. I also accept the authority of civil government to execute criminals who have committed severe crimes to maintain order.
 
Motherwit said:
The death penalty is permitted if it serves the common good.
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you found that:
  1. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
Click to expand...
MikeInVA said:
So Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, etc. did not recognize the dignity of God’s children?
Click to expand...
They did, but the recognition has developed over time and influence by the Spirit - that’s what I’m seeing.
MikeInVA said:
I believe that he has the dignity of someone made in the image and likeness of God, and he should be encouraged to repent of his sins. I also accept the authority of civil government to execute criminals who have committed severe crimes to maintain order.
Click to expand...
Yes, encouraging someone to repent is good, but executing someone does not help the individual repent, right?

We can maintain the same order with imprisonment, which was not as certain in the past.
 
MikeInVA said:
Please explain what you’re seeing, because I don’t see anything new. St. Thomas was pretty thorough.
Click to expand...
  1. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
Click to expand...
I don’t know Aquinas well enough to explain. As you probably know, the Church’s teachings on slavery have also changed since Aquinas. I was talking to someone today about Aquinas’ stances, and it can be seen that Aquinas was not really inviting people to stretch, but more of justifying the way that things were at the time, but that is more of a feeling, I don’t have a bunch of examples on hand to support that. Aquinas was great, but he did not have the benefit of the unfolding revelation of the last few centuries. The Spirit has invited the Church to a deeper look at human dignity, and leaders of the Church have done just that.
 
You m sorry but when the thread has trump in the headline and it’s a political position it will be factional and I think you know this.
 
OneSheep said:
48.png
Motherwit:
The death penalty is permitted if it serves the common good.
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you found that:
Click to expand...
It comes from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica circa 1265 AD. In response to the objection that the death penalty is forbidden based on the Matthew 13 verse forbidding “uprooting the cockle” ie wicked men… Aquinas

“Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.” ST II II 64 2

The death penalty has always been conditional implicitly for the first 1200 years perhaps, but at least since Aquinas, it has been explicit. The Church teaching today recognizes that it doesn’t serve the common good and is inadmissible.
 
Last edited:
redcatholic said:
You m sorry but when the thread has trump in the headline and it’s a political position it will be factional and I think you know this.
Click to expand...
Well, how about that! Someone changed my title! Thanks for calling that to my attention. I did not have “trump” in my title.
Motherwit said:
The Church teaching today recognizes that it doesn’t serve the common good and is inadmissible.
Click to expand...
Correct. Aquinas was appropriate at his time, but now we see that it doesn’t serve the common good. Augustine doesn’t have the last word today, Aquinas doesn’t either. The “last word” is what the Church teaches at the most recent update, as you probably know.
 
Motherwit said:
It comes from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica circa 1265 AD. In response to the objection that the death penalty is forbidden based on the Matthew 13 verse forbidding “uprooting the cockle” ie wicked men… Aquinas
Click to expand...
Well do you think we can disregard something written 755 years ago when we now have the CCC which provides the most current guidance?
 
OneSheep said:
Correct. Aquinas was appropriate at his time, but now we see that it doesn’t serve the common good. Augustine doesn’t have the last word today, Aquinas doesn’t either. The “last word” is what the Church teaches at the most recent update, as you probably know.
Click to expand...
And the majority of that is covered in the CCC.
 
RootKitWarrior said:
48.png
Motherwit:
It comes from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica circa 1265 AD. In response to the objection that the death penalty is forbidden based on the Matthew 13 verse forbidding “uprooting the cockle” ie wicked men… Aquinas
Click to expand...
Well do you think we can disregard something written 755 years ago when we now have the CCC which provides the most current guidance?
Click to expand...
All the Saints address the times they live in applying the timeless principles of Christian teaching. That’s the great gift of the living Church. We have Christ’s guidance through that Magisterium whatever time we happen to be alive.
 
Lol. Well this is exactly why the death penalty is called for. Death penalty of the forums that is. Dead man walking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top