P
- Status
I
inocente
Guest
Are you claiming that it’s only possible to be cruel and inhuman to rich people?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
So the circumstances did change because we now have a “New Covenant,” meaning that under the circumstances now active under the “New Covenant,” it is no longer the right thing to do to stone people for adultery, blasphemy or sodomy, correct?No, the circumstances didn’t change. And God’s commands don’t change with the circumstances.
What changed was Christ bringing us the New Covenant.
Interesting how you throw in a few words to change the circumstances under which you justify changing moral rules while claiming what? That the rules haven’t changed because of circumstances, but because of a “New Covenant.” Why would a “New Covenant” be necessary unless the circumstances have changed?
So this is a “new command,” a new moral rule, under a “New Covenant,” all made possible because circumstances HAVE, indeed, changed, no? So changing circumstances do result in changing moral rules.
So explain why the “first covenant” was made obsolete if not because of changing circumstances? That, or because God arbitrarily comes up with “new covenants” from time to time to keep us on our toes.
By the way, there was more than one obselete covenant – I can think of a few: with Adam, with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses, and with David.
Apparently, it wasn’t “categorically wrong to cold-bloodily do that to one of God’s children” under the Mosaic Law. It wasn’t at that time “cruel, inhuman and an offense to the dignity of human life” to stone adulterers, blasphemers and sodomists under that covenant?
Perhaps, the “children of Israel” weren’t “God’s children” at that time? Otherwise, you have gotten yourself (and God) into what you might call a “relativist’s pickle:” in some times, under certain circumstances (like certain, but now, obsolete covenants) it was okay to inflict cruel, inhuman and dignity-offending punishments on God’s children but under certain circumstances (like “new covenants”) it is not permissible to do so.
Sounds like God is a relativist under your flailing attempt to justify your position.
On the contrary, it seems that these covenants have, built-into them all kinds of “get-out clauses” making cruel and inhuman commands circumstantially right under some covenants, but wrong under others.
God’s commands, then, do apply absolutely, but only (according to you) under certain covenantal circumstances, but THOSE are NOT “circumstances.” :doh2:
It does appear, however, that the Mosaic Law is brimming with “small print.” Didn’t Jesus say something about every jot and tittle of the Law being fulfilled and anyone who teaches others to ignore the small print will be considered least in the Kingdom of Heaven?
Doesn’t this assume that changes in circumstances must necessarily be trivial ones that, then, would make changes in God’s commands, likewise, ONLY trivial or “with the wind?”
Why can’t circumstantial changes sometimes be important and crucial, and warrant changes in God’s commands which are NOT “with the wind?”
Another way of looking at it is that, oh sure, there may be “new commands” in the sense that moral rules can change, but that does not mean the moral principles bolstering the rules have changed, just that circumstances – covenants and the like – have made the “policy” or rule changes necessary.
Not sure why you are trying to pin YOUR problem – YOUR “strange view” – on me. It is not I who was claiming that changes in moral rules entail moral relativism. That was your schtick, remember? Just as YOU were claiming changing circumstances – covenants and other such joint agreements – should not affect moral rules at all because rules are ABSOLUTE.
Yet, here you are espousing the rather “strange point of view” that stoning wasn’t cruel, inhuman or against human dignity under the “old covenant” but has become so under the new one as if the nature of being “human” has taken on a completely new character under the new covenant.
Care to explain how stoning used as punishment wasn’t cruel, inhuman or against human dignity back then, but is now? What has changed if not changing circumstances which led to the dissolution of the old covenant and the making of a new one?
You should know by now that you cannot hide behind ambiguous terms.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
No, what she is saying is that “rich people” (those societies with ample resources) may have the wherewithal to protect themselves from sadistic murderers without resorting to capital punishment, whereas some societies may find it so burdensome to house and feed sadistic murderers that burdening all of a struggling society with that requirement would be doubly harmful to that society.Are you claiming that it’s only possible to be cruel and inhuman to rich people?
The principle is the same: protect the innocent from unnecessary harm wherever possible. If incarcerating a known unrepentant sadistic murderer would cause even more harm to the struggling society – in the sense that resources needed to house and feed the capital offender would inflict even more harm on the innocent by depriving them of life necessities – then capital punishment could be justified under those circumstances (such as, say, under the covenant with Moses where desert wanderers could not adequately safeguard the innocent against capital offenders.)
The Principle of Justice – treating each according to their due – is not transgressed by capital punishment in this instance. It would be very much like protecting the innocent against unprovoked or unjust harm, but in this case it is the whole of society stepping up to do so BECAUSE the whole of society will be victimized.
Hopefully, you do not subscribe to the bastardized (or SJW) version of the “principle of justice” which wrongly insists that everyone be treated the same regardless of what is their due.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Agreed, as it is clear that I treat my kids differently now that they are adults compared to when they were infants, two, six, thirteen and eighteen. Same basic rule behind it all, as much as I was able to follow, but a definite change in the approach and its commands, in line with who they are and the nature of our relationship.
I
inocente
Guest
You put the New Covenant in air quotes as if you’ve not heard of it before. The New covenant isn’t a legal document, it’s the Eucharist: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22).
I found this explanation on Catholic Answers, I’ve not listened to it all but assume it’s correct, have a listen:
What Is the New Covenant? - catholic.com/radio/shows/what-is-the-new-covenant-5358#
Tell that to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, it was he who wrote "“By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.”
You’ve now convinced me you’ve never heard of the New Covenant before, or you wouldn’t be talking of Christ’s sacrifice as having get-out clauses.
You’re the Catholic, if the Eucharist isn’t absolute to you then nothing ever can be.
*CCC 1182 The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord’s Cross, from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited. In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen). *
I
inocente
Guest
This is consequentialism, something which one would usually find Catholics arguing against, as in this article - catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=680
Any society finds it burdensome to keep dangerous people from doing more harm. Never before heard a Christian argue that if one of God’s commands is too much of a burden then it’s OK to ignore it.
Rather than all these strange arguments, what you’re grasping for is the principle of the lesser of two evils. Pope Francis states that capital punishment is categorically evil, but evil could be allowable if the alternative is even more evil. But that’s not about whether a society is developed or not, it can’t be a general rule, it’s something which would have to be argued through on a case-by-case basis and only justified in the direst of circumstances. “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another”.
“Capital punishment is cruel, inhuman and an offense to the dignity of human life” is a categorical statement. Capital punishment isn’t justified by when or where you live or any other circumstance, it is always evil.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Don’t mind me. I don’t want to argue but just want to find out where this train of thought leads. Can’t know unless I bother to get it down. Let’s take the example of adultery, it would be different thousands of years ago than it is today in first world societies. Imagine your spouse has a fling with someone at work. (S)he’s distant, on edge, maybe too nice sometimes, some things in the marriage may seem to go worse or conversely, more smoothly. There’s weird hours, calls/txt’s, stuff like that. Chances are you have nothing to do with and may never see the new significant other. The same physical act is very different when the person involved is someone living in your home, or in very close proximity, a relation or the equivalent since you’ve known them all your life. If that person has your back in the hunt or battle, it is downright dangerous; ask Uriah. Different circumstances, different impact and hence we have basically a different act, with different karma, if you prefer the term, a different judgement from a Christian perspective. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Some judgements are tougher on earth, some later.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Pay attention to the words, inocente!
Hebrews says…
What the author of Hebrews is speaking of is THE ONE COVENANT made with THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL when he brought them out of Egypt. That would be the Mosaic Covenant.
There is nothing implied by specifying THAT ONE COVENANT with the “people of Israel” that no other covenants were made before or after there existed a “people of Israel.” Therefore God could still have had covenants with other “peoples” or “groups,” for example, the descendents of Noah or Abraham, or with specific individuals like David.
newadvent.org speaks of various covenants, for example the one with Noah…
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
An absolute covenant would be one that supercedes or overrides all others. Again, that doesn’t preclude the existence of other covenants, it merely makes that covenant the one that is above all others.
What makes Christ’s sacrifice “the new covenant,” the one that supersedes all others is that the symbol of the sacrifice (the creature that was killed to symbolize that the covenantal parties would rather die than break the terms of the covenant) was not merely a symbol but was the absolute God himself, Christ. That implies the symbolic nature of the covenant agreement was finalized, not by mere ritual slaughter, but by the Eternal Word Himself being slaughtered.
Ritual animals signified the “lasting” or defining nature of the covenant – if terms were broken the covenant would “die” just like the animal did. The “New Covenant,” with Christ (who can never die) as the sacrificial lamb, means that unlike other covenants, this one would never end.
Ergo, the old covenant, the ONE with the people of Israel (as opposed to the other covenants with Adam, with Noah, with Abraham, with David) was replaced with an everlasting one between the new people of Israel (the Church or Body of Christ) with Christ (God Himself.) The two have become one flesh in the Eucharist just as a bride and groom become one flesh in marriage. The difference is that the “one flesh” or “one body” in the case of the Church is a glorified one that lives eternally – it cannot die.
There can be no other covenant which supersedes Christ’s marriage to the Church – giving himself eternally in sacrifice to his Bride on earth in the Eucharist – because no other covenant is written and signed in God’s body and blood.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Well, no, your conflating teleology with consequentialism shows a rather superficial understanding of ethics. The moral life is necessarily aimed at end goods or the ultimate good – the Summum Bonum. This is different from merely the consequences or outcomes of actions, in that the Summum Bonum lies in the very nature of existence itself – Aristotle’s Final Cause in the sense of the WHY things exist in the first place.
If capital punishment is “categorically evil,” then the final judgement and final punishment of unrepentant wrongdoers is also “categorically evil.”
If capital punishment, I.e., the death of the body, is categorically evil, then, a fortiori, the final death or perdition of evil doers is also “categorically evil.”
It would be if those who do evil intentionally didn’t deserve final death, but if death is the just result of wrongdoing, it cannot be “categorically evil.”
Your claim amounts to a claim that God’s judgement would also be “categorically evil” when he sentences reprobate sinners to their just end. Or, more aptly, when death came into the world as a result of Adam’s sin.
Is God’s final judgement or even his death sentence overshadowing all human beings subject to a charge of “consequentialism” and declared “categorically evil” in the same way that capital punishment is?
Why wouldn’t it be if the dignity and honour due even to evil-doers supersedes all demands of justice, as if those demands are purely consequentialist?
Ergo, God is wrong to judge anyone and must not only be merciful, but must go the further step of judging all evil to be good as a matter of principle and NOT consequence, since by your principle – consequentialism is bad ethics – consequences shouldn’t matter.
So human mortality is an example of God doing evil – inflicting capital punishment as a consequence of human sin (and thus consequentialism at work) – to say nothing of God’s authority to finally judge human beings at the end of time. The just consequences of human actions should never override the dignity of human life, therefore, God would be wrong to inflict punishment (death or perdition) on human beings no matter what they have done.
Doing evil is thus indistinguishable from doing good because the consequences of doing either shouldn’t matter in the least because… well, consequentialism.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Then killing another person in self-defense “isn’t justified by when or where you live or any other circumstance, it is always evil,” because a society that cannot defend itself against a murderer in any other way could not, in principle, justifiably use capital punishment to defend itself since it is “always evil,” according to you. It must always – prior to the existence of systems of Justice/Incarceration – leave itself vulnerable to attack by those who have a mind to do others harm.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I am saying, as the CC does: if it’s possible to secure the threat with other means than death, then that is what society must seek to do.Are you claiming that it’s only possible to be cruel and inhuman to rich people?
And if it’s not possible, then capital punishment is, unfortunately, the only option.
So, yes, rich people (that is, societies) have the means to prevent a bad guy from harming others (it’s called secure prisons).
Poor people (that is, societies) do not, and therefore it may be necessary for the death penalty to be enforced in order to secure the safety of the nation.
E
e_c
Guest
You simply do not understand the teaching of the Church on the death penalty. It is, without apology, defended by the Council of Trent. However, it should not be a frequent means of justice for a wealthy society that can afford to detain and maintain extremely dangerous criminals.
If the pope said what you quote him as saying, in the way you’ve written it, it’s a very inarticulate explanation.
I
inocente
Guest
The part you quoted is actually Hebrews quoting Jerimiah.
Pay attention to the words, Pedro! Jerimiah’s prophecy is that the Lord declares “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts” (c.f Romans 2 “They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness”).
So it’s kind of final. Couldn’t be any more final. But I take your point that you think God cannot be a foundation for morality because anyone can claim God just made an even newer covenant which authorizes whatever they feel like doing today.
You complicate everything by adding all these sub-clauses, as if killing a child of God can ever be virtuous. Doesn’t matter whether it’s in self-defense or cold-blooded execution or any other circumstance, killing is categorically evil but it may be justified.
Read up on the principle of double effect, it was invented by Thomas Aquinas after all.
I
inocente
Guest
As I said earlier, we all usually work out the right thing to do by looking at the consequences of different options. But we don’t only look at the consequences. Most of us don’t think any means is permissible, such as rape or torture or killing. Most of us believe some acts are categorically wrong.
But apparently that doesn’t include everyone, and obviously God cannot possibly be the foundation for morality if you can make such complicated arguments to turn evil into good and vice into virtue
.
I
inocente
Guest
Agreed.
I
inocente
Guest
Another poster introduced that quote from Vatican Radio - en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/03/20/pope_francis_no_crime_ever_deserves_the_death_penalty/1130871
The text of the original letter is at the Vatican - w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/es/letters/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150320_lettera-pena-morte.html
“La pena de muerte es contraria al sentido de la humanitas y a la misericordia divina, que debe ser modelo para la justicia de los hombres. Implica un trato cruel, inhumano y degradante”
“The death penalty is contrary to the sense of humanitas and divine mercy, which must be the model for the justice of mankind. It involves cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment”.
[Don’t know Latin, *humanitas = philanthropy?, love of humanity?]
The Pope also writes “La vida, especialmente la humana, pertenece sólo a Dios”. “Life, especially human life, belongs only to God”.
O
o_mlly
Guest
The ends (consequences) do justify the means if, and only if, the means are not intrinsically evil.
If by “categorically evil” you mean intrinsically evil, then certainly you do not imply that killing itself is categorically evil as self-defense arguments are well understood as morally acceptable. If you mean that the state sponsored killing is intrinsically evil then defending in a just war would be immoral.
An act may be “cruel, inhuman and an offense to the dignity of human life” and not be a categorically (intrinsically) evil act. After all, imprisonment may also certainly be defined as “cruel, inhuman, and an offense to the dignity of human life.”
I
inocente
Guest
“Consequentialism is the view that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences.” - iep.utm.edu/conseque/
As the article goes on to say, consequentialists are only concerned with outcomes, not with anything else such as “doing one’s duty, respecting rights, obeying nature, obeying God, obeying one’s own heart”, etc.
That’s why Catholics usually argue against it. But apparently not on this thread.
I mean what I said, that killing another child of God is always evil but may be justified. I think you shouldn’t put words into the Pope’s mouth, he said the death penalty is cruel and inhuman, not imprisonment.
- Status