Federal Executions Pit The Trump Administration Against The Catholic Church

Status
Not open for further replies.
It really appears like that , Do not kill, n the Cathecism at the beginning of the Chapter( let me find it for you, just a second, please…)
Here it is : PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION TWO
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

CHAPTER TWO
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”

ARTICLE 5
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT

You shall not kill.54
 
Last edited:
I mentioned the Commandment because Ender brought about a “ command”( read his post, please)
It may be disingenuous for you but it isn’t for me.
No mataras is no matarás . Even in self defense it isn’t taken lightly.
Anyway, I ve posted enough about this topic throughout the years. Even what St John Paul said about God ,Cain and what the mark meant
A culture of life from conception to natural … death doesn’t elude the DP so…
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
The development of this doctrine has to look back at what the situation was in history with regards to prisons first of all. Prisons in the past were not for long term holding. They didn’t have lifetime prisoners.
Click to expand...
I think a lot more has been made of this claim than it deserves. It is alleged to be true, but if it is I haven’t seen any discussion that makes an informed argument in favor of it. There is, for example, this:

“but if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge.” (Fifth Lateran Council, 1512-1517)

I doubt there was any inability to keep criminals imprisoned indefinitely. The Romans enslaved vast numbers of people, and their mines and quarries were worked by someone.

The bigger problem with your concern, however, is that it rests on a false assumption, which is that the protection of society is the primary objective of punishment. It isn’t; it is only a secondary objective. The primary objective is justice, specifically retributive justice. It isn’t that criminals shouldn’t be executed because it isn’t needed for society to be safe, it is that they often should be executed because that is the just punishment for their crimes.

That a punishment provides security does not justify its use. It is justifiable only if it is appropriate for the crime; if it is of commensurate severity. Justice is the obligation the State must satisfy, not protection.
 
I am posting St John Paul II again. It is worth it.

“ “ And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, “put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him” (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel’s death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth”

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
So, where has the Church ever taught that capital punishment is always a moral option?
Click to expand...
This is the wrong question. Where has she taught that it is never a moral option? That is where (it is implied) we are today, that it is always immoral.
No, the Church, the Pope, is still the Vicar of Christ and maintains the teaching authority over specific applications of doctrine, as well as doctrine.
Click to expand...
Neither the church in general nor a pope in particular has the authority to set moral truth. The implication here is that no matter what a pope says it must be true because he is pope, but that claim is destroyed if one pope contradicts another one; obviously they can’t both be right.

As for the application of doctrine, that is pretty much the definition of a prudential judgment, and disagreement with such a judgment is not to be confused with dissent from the church.

“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine.To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
 
Last edited:
Cardinal Dulles also said that without the directives of the Magisterium , theology would lack an adequate guide…

This was an encyclical cited.( full source and all)

We had this same conversation many months ago…
What do you have to say about St John Paul and Evangelium Vitae, that it is “ only “ a Pope’s opinion?
 
Last edited:
graciew said:
What do you have to say about St John Paul and Evangelium Vitae, that it is “ only “ a Pope’s opinion?
Click to expand...
The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good (Dulles)

Dulles was absolutely unambiguous about this: JPII’s position was prudential. Dulles also said:

Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops.

“Attentive to”, does not mean “must agree with”. That it is a judgment does not mean we are free to disregard it. We are free, however, to disagree with it if, having considered the issue, we think otherwise.

To be clear, it is not so much JPII’s prudential judgment against the use of capital punishment that I oppose as much as the arguments being made here that its use is in any way immoral. I don’t spend any time arguing that his judgment was invalid; rather I spend all my time on this forum arguing that your judgment (et al) of what the church actually teaches is incorrect. I’m disputing you, not him.
 
Anesti33 said:
It is a fallacy to say “such-and-such is immoral in a certain time and place, but it is moral in a different time and place.”
Click to expand...
Why? I know most fallacies. What is the name of that one? I can thing of endless examples where what you say is not true.
 
pnewton said:
48.png
Anesti33:
It is a fallacy to say “such-and-such is immoral in a certain time and place, but it is moral in a different time and place.”
Click to expand...
Why? I know most fallacies. What is the name of that one? I can thing of endless examples where what you say is not true.
Click to expand...
CCC 1958: The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history…
 
Last edited:
Exactly. It is our awareness of it that changes, as well as the priority it comes to have over other issues.

That’s not what the Church teaches today, so you are still putting your own personal insight over the Magisterium. Are you admitting this?

Exactly. What has become explicit is that the DP compromises the whole of human dignity. Revelation unfolds.

The issue remains that you have decided on your own that the Spirit does not guide the Church in this matter. Unless you have better access to the Spirit, your argument is your opinion. Opinions matter, and are to be respected, but in this case they do not represent Church teaching.
 
Of course not. Nor can we say that Jesus lacked an awareness of human dignity. However, we know from scripture that Jesus “grew in wisdom”, and the knowing of human dignity is a wisdom, it is not an all-or-none concept. So Jesus lacked wisdom at 10 that He knew at 30.

Actually, no. The Saints, like Jesus, also grew in wisdom, and as generations have written their findings, we have continued to grow in wisdom as a species.

Yes, the Church is consistently guided by the Spirit, and that is exactly what it seems like you are rejecting today.

Well, sin does perhaps offend God, but God has already forgiven us. God does not hold grudges against people He has yet to create. He has already forgiven them before He creates. Think of it this way: would the person who loves you most want you alive, even if they knew all your future sins? If your answer is no, well, God loves you more than anyone you know. If you answer yes, it is because you know the unconditional love of God.

There is nothing we can do to our own dignity. It is a constant, regardless of what we do. God created us good, and we remain so. It is not changeable.

This, again, is contrary to what the Holy Ghost is telling the Magisterium, which you seem to value.

Actually I did not oppose his position for his time. It is you who is trying to impose his position for his time onto the Church today. Is it charitable to St. Pius to quote him against Church teaching today? How do you think he feels about that?

Except that the opinion I hold is that of the Church, and yours not.
 
We lacked the wisdom in 1950 that we have today, and in 2020 we lack the wisdom that future Catholics will have in 2080. Jesus grew in wisdom; the Church grows in wisdom as revelation unfolds.

Have you not decided to emphasize past Church positions, while also deciding that what the Magisterium says today is incorrect?

And speaking of knowing minds, I have absolutely no dispute with the traditions of the Church. Revelation unfolds, remember? Jesus did the best He could with what He had as a boy, and Jesus did the best He could with what He had as a man. The Church has done the same over time. How can a person possibly dispute that?
 
Last edited:
OneSheep said:
Well, sin does perhaps offend God, but God has already forgiven us. God does not hold grudges against people He has yet to create. He has already forgiven them before He creates.
Click to expand...
We’ve been over this: God forgives only those who are repentant for their sins.
 
However its application varies and can demand refelction

CCC 1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.“

What is the common principle you understand the Church is referring to in this case?
Since you brought up natural law, I am asking you.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm
 
Last edited:
Good advice. I read it. So, are you a professional theologian, or are you following the words of a professional theologian?

Okay, there are plenty of other arguments, but growth in wisdom is already a change in circumstances. Do you think that St. Pius V would deny that the Church grows in wisdom, or that revelation unfolds?

It does not change. Our awareness of it changes. Did you get that part from my last post? We grow in wisdom; Jesus grew in wisdom.

Exactly. The deeper awareness of human dignity, as well as the practices that have come to light that oppose human dignity, such as the DP, have become explicit.

And this “seeming”, you sense, is guided by the Spirit, while the Magisterium is not?

They were not mistaken. Please read my earlier posts.

The people of Judah were not wrong when they decided that blasphemy was punishable by execution, nor were they wrong when they decided that adultery was punishable by execution. Are you seeing a pattern? The Spirit has been working for a Long time, and will continue to do so.

Well, maybe with your logic it would, but with my logic it does not. But let’s save this one for another time, shall we? 🙂

The State also exempts individuals from State-imposed criminal penalties. In fact, most States in the world today do not even have the death penalty. Are you also suggesting that the Spirit has had nothing to do with that?
 
It is ok. Don’t take it personal. I’m not taking it either.
We go in search of the truth in good faith.
Now another question which doesn’t square with what you are saying imo…about that being attentive doesn’t mean one must agree.(I would say one must /should assent…)
Why then would C. Dulles say “ ought not to be invoked( DP)?
What do you understand by “ ought not”? It is basically your language, English. So again, I am asking.Not that I have a pre-conceived answer
 
Last edited:
This is contrary to the sacredness of life.
How can one “ deprive” oneself of a God given gift? How can one return to God the gift of life He has given us by rejecting it?
Euthanasia then is ok with you?
 
Last edited:
Excuse me but the one that gets the lethal injection is a person not a government.
What are you talking about exactly?
What abstract ?
 
Last edited:
It doesn’t seem to hard for me to understand.

For the death penalty to be permitted certain criteria are necessary. Those criteria no longer exist, the death penalty is no longer permitted.

The Pope has authority to declare this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top