Pope Francis: Death penalty is contrary to the Gospel

[OneSheep]

I am not necessarily advocating an Anselm theory of atonement. The use of terms like ‘expiation’ and ‘propitiation’ are used in the liturgy and magisterial documents in regard to the sacrifice of Christ as well as the sacrificial nature of the Mass. The point of my statement was to show that punishment for sins is not from the flesh as you had stated. The fact that we die in the first place (even if of natural causes) is a consequential punishment for the Fall. When King David lost his child to death as a punishment for his sins of murder and adultery even though his sin was already forgiven as announced to him by Nathan demonstrates that punishment for grave crimes is not a matter of the flesh. That all mankind is deserving of punishment due to man’s sinfulness is not Anselmian.

Well, “that all mankind is deserving of punishment” is definitely a core principle to Anselmian theology.

When I say punsihment is “of the flesh” I am saying that human compulsion to punish wrongdoing just that, a human desire to punish, it is part of our human nature. Chimpanzees also have a compulsion to punish wrongdoing, it is part of their nature.

The dillema is this, friend: When we forgive at the deepest level, as Christ did from the cross, with a forgiveness that involves understanding, then the sense of incurred debt goes away, period. Is this your experience? In fact, if we continue to “hold something against” someone, as stated in Mark 11:25, we are not done forgiving.

It boils down to images of God. Is God truly of unlimited love and mercy? If so, He always forgives, as Christ showed us from the cross, and He forgives at the deepest level of understanding, for He is omniscient. So whatever human notions we have of “we deserve” are just that, human notions. We think we deserve punishment, God has already forgiven.

Using the King David example, then, is using the example of a God who holds something against someone. This is a projected image (as all images are), an image of a God who is less that infinitely merciful.

I repeat, though, because it is core.: When we forgive, all sense of debt goes away, the focus is purely on mercy (which may involve imposing something uncomfortable to the other through legal means). Is this your experience?

 

[irenaeus1]

Using the King David example, then, is using the example of a God who holds something against someone. This is a projected image (as all images are), an image of a God who is less that infinitely merciful.

So scripture is in error then??? Second Samuel projected a false image of God? You seem to have a low view of sacred scripture or perceive God’s inability to reveal Himself to his people. This would also seem to imply the Church falsely projects an image of God who is less than infinitely merciful on her members since she teaches that there is often temporal punishment remaining even after the sin is forgiven.

To better understand where you are coming from, do you believe that God no longer punishes the sins of people now that we are on the New Testament side of the cross?

 

[irenaeus1]

There seems to be confusion on the issue of mercy. You want to state that mankind is not deserving of punishment, and that somehow, human nature is responsible for the ‘desire to punish.’ Actually, it is a matter of justice that punishment is fitting to redress the moral order, and mercy involves the lessening or elimination of said punishment. In fact, mercy is meaningless if punishment is not in reality deserved. Allow me to provide an example: If a person is wrongfully imprisoned and it is discovered that the person was indeed not guilty of the crime for which he was incarcerated, then releasing him from prison is not an act of mercy but of justice - after all, he doesn’t belong there. Releasing the prisoner [under the auspices of reasonable assurance of the prisoner’s reform or at least his firm purpose of amendment] is an act of mercy ONLY IF the prisoner is indeed guilty of the crime for which he is accused.

 

[OneSheep]

So scripture is in error then???

I think it is unwise to second-guess the value of what was written for contemporary readers. It is also unwise to apply past concepts to argue against the truths of unfolding revelation.

Jesus asks us to forgive, and to be merciful to everyone.

Second Samuel projected a false image of God?

If the image is such that God killed his son as payment for something King David did, yes, that is a false image. I don’t think that modern Jewish people even accept the view of one person paying for the sins of another.

To better understand where you are coming from, do you believe that God no longer punishes the sins of people now that we are on the New Testament side of the cross?

I observe that the image of God vengefully punishing anyone is one corrected by Jesus as He was being crucified. He said, “Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”.

…then releasing him from prison is not an act of mercy but of justice…

It is indeed merciful. Jesus came to “set the captives free”. God’s justice is mercy.

Releasing a prisoner who no longer benefits from incarceration and is deemed no longer a threat to society is also merciful. Releasing a prisoner whose situation does not fit those criteria would not be merciful to any person directly involved. (It might be “merciful” to taxpayers in some sense)

 

[irenaeus1]

I don’t know how to explain this any clearer, but releasing a person wrongfully imprisoned is NOT an act of mercy, but rather a matter of justice; i.e., he should have never been put into prison in the first place. And justice is NOT mercy. Justice is to render what is rightly due to another. Mercy, however, is not due to anyone, unless of course in this context, you believe God owes you forgiveness. Justice is a right; mercy is a gift.

And I am not second-guessing the value of what was written for contemporary readers as if it meant something different to readers of that time or first-century Christians for that matter. Again, you seem to have difficulty in believing that God will punish anyone as if that is contrary to His character. What about after King David about 1,000 years later in the early church when God took the lives of Ananias and Sapphira? The Book of Acts could hardly be considered didactic fiction.

As for Jesus correcting the image of God vengefully punishing anyone, you must have missed out on many of Jesus’ parables where he illustrates exactly that fact.

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t know how to explain this any clearer, but releasing a person wrongfully imprisoned is NOT an act of mercy, but rather a matter of justice; i.e., he should have never been put into prison in the first place.

Yes, it is a matter of justice, and it is merciful to carry out what is just, as long as what is just has the intrinsic purpose of mercy. Are you saying that doing the best thing for someone is not a matter of mercy? It might be helpful to check the Corporal and Spiritual works of mercy. “Ransom the captive” is a freeing, is it not?

And justice is NOT mercy.

“The heart of a Father who goes beyond our little concept of justice to open us to the limitless horizons of his mercy.”

Library : God's Justice Is Mercy | Catholic Culture

Again, you seem to have difficulty in believing that God will punish anyone as if that is contrary to His character.

Actually, punishment may very well be the best thing, the most merciful thing, for the sinner.

What is the purpose of justice?

What about 1,000 years later in the early church when God took the lives of Ananias and Sapphira? The Book of Acts could hardly be considered didactic fiction.

The story of Ananias and Sapphira may prove that even people after Revelation can be in error, as well as those who document events. Killing people is not the work of the Spirit, if that is what is gleaned. Just imagine what would happen if the same occurred today, and the hierarchy supported it. One word: Exodus.

It is a spiritual work of mercy to comfort the afflicted. Who in that room did such for Sapphira? That’s correct, none of them, quite the opposite. Can you possibly imagine such callous behavior from a person in any pastoral position today?

As for Jesus correcting the image of God vengefully punishing anyone, you must have missed out on many of Jesus is parables where he illustrates exactly that fact.

Name one parable, and we can address it!

 

[irenaeus1]

Ok. I see where we may be talking past one another. When I am speaking of mercy, I am referring to compassion and leniency shown to an offender. I recognize that mercy can also refer to compassion shown to victims of adversity or misfortune; i.e., poor, sick, naked, ignorant, etc. But I am referring to the former; namely, God showing mercy [compassion and leniency] to the sinner, especially one who is repentant or where God exercises patience allowing time for one to come to repentance. This is not justice, which is to render what is due by right to another. Mercy is not owed, for a gift is not earned… unless or course, your definition of mercy is that God owes you compassion and forgiveness. Does God owe you mercy and forgiveness?

As for your surprising view of scripture that Acts 5 is in error is quite amazing as this goes to the heart of inspiration of scripture as the Word of God. In fact, if this is your position, how do you know anything regarding the character and image of God provided by Jesus? How do you know that the view of a loving and compassionate God is even correct or just someone’s wishful thinking of what they hope God is like. After all, you are appealing to the same scriptures of which you impugn. Or in the case of the Gospel of Luke and Acts, who have the same author, who was apparently in error regarding Acts 5 but correct in presenting Jesus’ teaching?

 

[irenaeus1]

Name one parable, and we can address it!

As for the parables of Jesus, I’m not sure that it is worth the effort to propose a sample listing because you most likely will claim that Jesus’ words were not recorded correctly and that the writer misunderstood due to a false image of God as you have done for other scripture citations. But let’s try this anyway, shall we?

Matt 18:23-34 is an excellent illustration of the difference between justice and mercy.

The next two are fresh on my mind because they were recent readings at Mass - the first from a couple of Sundays ago; the second from yesterday’s daily Mass readings.

Matt 22:1-14
Lk 12:39-48

There are many more, but I’ll stop there for now.

 

[OneSheep]

This is not justice, which is to render what is due by right to another

What is the purpose of justice?

Does God owe you mercy and forgiveness?

If I thought that, which I do not, I would be operating from my human compulsion for reward/punishment.

As for your surprising view of scripture that Acts 5 is in error is quite amazing as this goes to the heart of inspiration of scripture as the Word of God. In fact, if this is your position, how do you know anything regarding the character and image of God provided by Jesus?

Note: I qualified the error with an “if”. One can view the story as having nothing to do with the workings of the Spirit, and that Peter did not even will the deaths of the couple. The author could have simply left out the part about people present offering comfort and condolence. We have to go to the purpose of the story: to motivate contemporary followers to abide by contemporary mores, which was evident in the (subsequent) fearing followers. The intent was good, but the story in no way reflects God’s forgiveness, in my reading of it.

…someone’s wishful thinking of what they hope God is like…

All of us can know God as love. If something in scripture seems to present that God is less loving and merciful than the person who loves us most, something is amiss. There is a great book, Healing our image of God by the Linns, who extrapolate on this.

after all, you are appealing to the same scriptures of which you impugn. Or in the case of the Gospel of Luke and Acts, who have the same author, who was apparently in error regarding Acts 5 but correct in presenting Jesus’ teaching?

Hey, everyone makes mistakes. Miraculously, though, Luke 23:34 does not appear in early manuscripts, and some theorize that it was added by an anonymous scribe, though the words are certainly in keeping with the Sermon on the Mount and other of Jesus’ teachings (and the murder of St. Stephen). To me, the addition of 23:34, if it happened that way, is proof that the Spirit is alive, working with scripture and guiding us toward a deeper understanding.

 

[OneSheep]

Matt 18:23-34 is an excellent illustration of the difference between justice and mercy.

This is an excellent parable, and a great example of scripture that can be read incorrectly, especially leaving out Matt:18:21-22, which says this:

21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[g]

Jesus proceeds to tell a story in which the Master does not forgive “seventy-seven times”, but only forgives once.

What the Scripture-scholar/priest explained from the parable is that the suffering that we endure when we don’t forgive is not a punishment from God, but a natural consequence. We suffer not only from the torment, the lack of holiness when holding a grudge, but we can only project that God forgives conditionally, because we treat others the same way. The person essentially does not know True Love, the person is inadvertently alienated.

What the priest said is that God always forgives, but if we do not, we cannot know His forgiveness. We know it when we do it.

When we hold a grudge, it is like eating poison and waiting for the other person to die. (Alcoholics Anonymous)

Do you want me to address the others parables?

 

[irenaeus1]

Hey, everyone makes mistakes

Not if the Holy Spirit protects them from error when writing scripture.

 

[irenaeus1]

Oh my… Speaking of interpreting this parable incorrectly, you have provided quite a novel interpretation. We could go on to one of the other parables, but we first need to get this one right. First, Jesus’ response to Peter regarding the number of times to offer forgiveness is then illustrated by the servant who refused to forgive his fellow servant who owed him a much smaller amount than that which the first servant owed to his Master. The Master in this parable represents God – the Master does not represent the individual who refuses to forgive multiple times or decides only to forgive once. Nice try by this scholar/priest; he apparently did not read verse 35, although I’m sure he had a nice work-around to explain that away as well.

In this parable we are taught, first, that our sins against God are infinitely greater and more numerous than our neighbors’ offences against us; secondly, that God will not extend his mercy to us, if we are not merciful to our neighbor. And this is the commentary provided by Ss. Augustine, Chrysostom, Aquinas, Haydock, and numerous others. The late Fr. Raymond Brown refers to this parable as the eloquent parable of the unforgiving servant that invokes divine judgment on those who refuse to forgive. And this is not that difficult… this is the plain face-value meaning of the parable.

 

[irenaeus1]

If something in scripture seems to present that God is less loving and merciful than the person who loves us most, something is amiss. There is a great book, Healing our image of God by the Linns, who extrapolate on this.

As to the Linns, I actually heard his brother Fr. Linn speak in person a few years ago regarding one of his brother’s books, and he proceeded to explain that all the talk in the NT regarding eternal punishment and eternal fire does not really refer to punishment at all. He also mentioned that if God is less loving and merciful than the person who loves us most, something is amiss. However, I believe the Linns simply misunderstand what loving and merciful mean with respect to God. The Linns seem essentially to teach a form of universalism. At that moment, I knew I was not going to waste my money purchasing his book because if he misses this fundamental aspect, how much more has he gotten wrong?

 

[OneSheep]

I think it is accurate to say that you have a different image of God than I do, and the Linns. It’s okay, no ones’ images are exactly the same.

The image I have begins with a God who loves and forgives unconditionally, and it seems as though your image does not.

I also had this image of God, the God who forgives conditionally. However, when I forgave as Jesus did in Luke23:34, as He designated in Mark 11:25, I forgave unconditionally, “cleaning out” all the resentments that tormented and polluted my soul (the pollution, I found later, caused anxiety about the afterlife and the afterlife of others.) When I forgave without condition, I knew that God does not less. It is a forgiveness that proceeds from understanding, and God’s understanding is unlimited.

The invitation, friend, is to forgive every single person, including yourself, through understanding. What did he not know? What did I not know? There is always something. We have a blindness, an inadvertent blindness, when we seek justice.

The crowd who hung Jesus had this blindness.

 

[OneSheep]

The Master in this parable represents God – the Master does not represent the individual who refuses to forgive multiple times or decides only to forgive once. Nice try by this scholar/priest; he apparently did not read verse 35, although I’m sure he had a nice work-around to explain that away as well…

… this is the plain face-value meaning of the parable.

Yes, he did explain it, 35 was the starting point of his explanation.

Here it is:

35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”

The priest starts from the premise that everything in the Bible can be taken literally unless is appears to contradict something else. The bottom line of Jesus’ ministry is that He showed us a Father, an Abba, who loves us dearly, without condition. He always forgives. So any “treatment” has to do with helping us in some way. In this case, though, the torture is not any “treatment” at all, it is a description of what it is like to have an unforgiving heart. We do not know a God who always forgives unless we do the same, and in the mean time the torment is the anxiety and living with resentment in our hearts.

The late Fr. Raymond Brown refers to this parable as the eloquent parable of the unforgiving servant that invokes divine judgment on those who refuse to forgive.

So, have you forgiven everyone you hold anything against?

 

[irenaeus1]

The image I have begins with a God who loves and forgives unconditionally, and it seems as though your image does not.

Yes, the image of God that I have is a bit different from yours. The image of God that I have come to know derives from what God has revealed about Himself through sacred scripture and apostolic tradition. God is loving and forgiving, full of mercy and compassion; slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. So we agree here. God loves us unconditionally, and demonstrates this love in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Again, I assume we agree on this. However, God’s forgiveness is not necessarily unconditional. Perhaps it could be said that He continues unconditionally to offer forgiveness, but the efficacy of that forgiveness is absolutely conditional; it is conditioned upon repentance. My sins are not forgiven unless I repent. Unless I approach God with a humble spirit and contrite heart, recognizing the iniquity of my sin and having a godly sorrow that leads to repentance, my sins will not be forgiven. That does not mean that God does not stand patiently waiting to forgive me, offering mercy, but His pardon is not efficacious unless I return to Him in humble repentance. And as noted above, God will not extend his mercy to me, if I am not merciful to my neighbor who has trespassed against me. This is not my opinion, but rather, what God has revealed to us in his Word.

The image of God that you have appears to be derived from a priori assumptions about the nature and character of God. Allow me to explain: you make the assertion that God is loving and forgives unconditionally, but I’m not sure upon what basis. You seem to have this image of God without examination of evidence, THEN you search the scripture for evidence to support your position, and whatever does not support your position (i.e., a contradiction), you presume to be miscopied, amiss, or in error. So instead of allowing the evidence to lead you to a conclusion, you assert a position, seek evidential support but dismiss whatever does not fit into your preconceived image of God. At least this seems to be the case based on your above explanations as well as your dismissal of any scripture passage that does not comport with your a priori position.

I do appreciate your invitation to forgive others, and while I have been hurt or betrayed on occasion in the past, I do not harbor a grudge against anyone and have forgiven or stand ready to forgive those who have done me harm.

 

[Inisfallen]

Would I be violating the Gospel by serving on a jury and declaring “guilty” if a crime was so proved? I don’t think so. But some might get the idea that Catholics can’t serve on such juries now … or must declare “not guilty” in contradiction to the facts … if the case were a capital one.

When the prosecution and defense are selecting a jury in a capital case, potential jurors are questioned about their beliefs regarding the death penalty. Those who do not believe in imposing death are not seated on the jury. So a Catholic (or anyone else) who does not believe in the death penalty will never have to vote “not guilty” in contradiction of the facts so as to avoid the death penalty.

So the jury is “death-qualified,” as they say.

The problem with this is that it turns out, not surprisingly, that a death-qualified jury tends to be a pro-prosecution jury. Many observers have said that the result is a biased jury.

 

[OneSheep]

The image of God that I have come to know derives from what God has revealed Himself through sacred scripture and apostolic tradition. God is loving and forgiving, full of mercy and compassion; slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. So we agree here. God loves us unconditionally, and demonstrates this love in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

However, God’s forgiveness is not necessarily unconditional. Perhaps it could be said that He continues unconditionally to offer forgiveness, but the efficacy of that forgiveness is absolutely conditional; it is conditioned upon repentance

Hmmm. Sounds pretty close to my image. I would substitute the word “reconciliation” for the second time you used the word “forgiveness” there. Forgiveness takes one. Reconciliation takes two.

My sins are not forgiven unless I repent. Unless I approach God with a humble spirit and contrite heart, recognizing the iniquity of my sin and having a godly sorrow that leads to repentance, my sins will not be forgiven.

This runs contrary to several scriptures. First of all, Jesus did not wait for repentance when He forgave the crowd who hung Him. Secondly we have “If you only love those who love you…” , the spirit of which is that love and forgiveness are not an “earned” thing. Also, we have the sermon on the mount, the call to love, to give, be merciful, etc. Forgiveness is an act of mercy for oneself. We don’t believe in a “do as I say but not as I do” god, God is perfect, a loving perfect.

That said, reconciliation, a unification with our God within, Who we know through our prayer relationship, is compromised when we are not sorrowful and repenting.

His pardon is not efficacious unless I return to Him in humble repentance.

I agree with this. His pardon is always there, but in order for it to be efficacious, that is, to have real meaning in my relationship with Him, I must have a humble repentance.

God will not extend his mercy to me, if I am not merciful to my neighbor who has trespassed against me.

Well, see, this again can be supported in the Gospel (as everything you have said), but it is not the only way of looking at the Gospel. The problem is, if God’s mercy is perfect, and we are called to such perfection, then we would not be encouraged to be merciful to those who are sinful to others. Such conditional mercy is not the Kingdom Jesus is talking about, a Kingdom where we are freed from our inhibiting nature. Of course, it is very natural to love and forgive repentant “nice” people, that is exactly the way our nature works. Jesus calls us to transcend and move beyond our nature, which he demonstrated from the cross.

Be aware of the underlying fear: “If I forgive my neighbor without his repentance, then he may get away with murder and take advantage”. We can move beyond this fear.

 

[irenaeus1]

Well, see, this again can be supported in the Gospel (as everything you have said), but it is not the only way of looking at the Gospel. The problem is, if God’s mercy is perfect, and we are called to such perfection, then we would not be encouraged to be merciful to those who are sinful to others. Such conditional mercy is not the Kingdom Jesus is talking about, a Kingdom where we are freed from our inhibiting nature. Of course, it is very natural to love and forgive repentant “nice” people, that is exactly the way our nature works. Jesus calls us to transcend and move beyond our nature, which he demonstrated from the cross.

That forgiveness is conditioned upon repentance is absolutely what Jesus is talking about. Most of these parables about the kingdom are otherwise pointless. The unforgiving servant being thrown into prison, the weeds being collected for burning where Christ actually explains the meaning to indicate that those who are evil will be separated from the righteous and thrown into the fiery furnace, the wicked being thrown into the eternal fire, those who do evil will be cast into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, Lazarus’ suffering torment in the flames, warnings to be diligent in avoiding sin rather than to be thrown into fiery Gehenna, the one who knows the will of the master and does not do it will be beaten severely, the one who beats and abuses his fellow servant will be cut in two and assigned a place with the unfaithful, depart from me for I never knew you, etc. You mean to tell me that these are all “treatment” plans that merely serve as a divine time-out in the naughty chair for sinful disobedience? Really?

 

[irenaeus1]

Of course, it is very natural to love and forgive repentant “nice” people, that is exactly the way our nature works. Jesus calls us to transcend and move beyond our nature, which he demonstrated from the cross.

Wait… What? It’s very natural to love and forgive repentant “nice” people? There is nothing natural about it, especially for grave issues, no matter how repentant they are.