Pope Francis: Death penalty is contrary to the Gospel

[irenaeus1]

Well, now you are assuming that someone knew what they were doing. Does anyone ever know what they are doing when they sin?

Isn’t that the proper understanding of what it means to commit sin; namely, willfully committing something that one knows to be wrong?

It doesn’t happen. Ever. I am using “know” in an all-inclusive sense. When people sin, there is something that they do not know.

Well, I’ll give you credit for innovation. You never cease to come up with something new. Now you claim that no one ever really knows what they do, at least in the all-inclusive sense (whatever that means) as if the only way to be fully culpable of sin, one must be omniscient. However, scripture clearly states that man can have sufficient knowledge to be guilty of sin and is therefore without excuse. However, you say we cannot really know what we are doing: “It doesn’t happen. Ever.” This discussion is tiresome because for every reasonable position put forth from scripture, you provide a novel linguistic work-around.

 

[irenaeus1]

Of course someone can eternally end relationship with God. It is the choice of every individual.

The point is that God always chooses us.

Well, again, if you have ears to hear what Jesus actually teaches in the parables, God invites all to the wedding feast. Just to be clear, God unconditionally invites all to come; however, if one is not properly disposed, that individual will be cast out into outer darkness. “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

By certain your other responses I suspected you might be a universalist, so there’s not really much else I can add since the Linns and others have thoroughly convinced you of this false notion that God does not require repentance to be forgiven, although scripture, apostolic tradition, and the magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches otherwise. I mean – what else could I possibly present to you? And it’s not about whether an image of [a] God works for you, but rather whether the image one has of God is even true in the first place.

Did you ever tell me the purpose of justice?

I thought I had mentioned what justice is, and you had problem with the definition. If we cannot agree on the definition, how could we possibly agree to understand the purpose? As noted before, justice is to render unto another that which is his due. Conversely, this means rendering reparation for injustices committed. So wouldn’t a purpose of justice be to seek to do what is right and just? For example, to withhold a just wage from one who has legitimately earned it is a grave injustice (i.e., it is failing to render to one what is his due). The virtue of justice seeks to do what is right and good, which is why serious sin is a grave injustice (or gravely against justice and love). You had asked why must the judge uphold the cause of uprightness as to what is right and good… well, because if he didn’t, he would not be a just judge.

 

[OneSheep]

Isn’t that the proper understanding of what it means to commit sin; namely, willfully committing something that one knows to be wrong?

Well, taking it back to the crucifixion, what the crowd and authorities did was a sin, correct? Yet, they did not know what they were doing.

However, scripture clearly states that man can have sufficient knowledge to be guilty of sin and is therefore without excuse.

An “excuse” is an attempt to escape penalty or consequence. When one is determining why people do evil, one has no real need for excuses, but the underlying reasons for behavior are what leads to understanding, and understanding is a gift of the Spirit. So in the endeavor of understanding (versus trying to stop someone from consequence), one has to ignore the voice that says “you’re making excuses”, as that is the voice of the compulsion to punish. It’s not so easy; it takes a very prayerful approach.

If sin is defined as alienation, a person could become inadvertently alienated. Indeed, I cannot think of a counterexample, can you? Can you give an example of a person who knows what he is doing when he sins? The scenario is impossible to construct. Try it! (er, not the sin, but coming up with an example)

 

[OneSheep]

So wouldn’t a purpose of justice be to seek to do what is right and just?

This is “the purpose of justice is justice”, which is circular. There is a purpose, and when the practice of justice defeats the purpose, for example the the story of the man with the withered hand, then the rulebook is modified or ignored. Why? Because there is a greater underlying purpose. The same can be said for the DP; the punishment itself defeats a greater underlying purpose, just as in the case of the man with the withered hand.

What is that greater underlying purpose?

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

When the priest at our parish addressed this recently, he gave the example of the parallels for preparing oneself for Eucharist, that the emphasis is on preparing ourselves to receive the Lord.

So as not to veer away from the underlying love and nurture of the Father, if some of us are indeed “cast out into the darkeness” then our omnipresent Father is there with us as we suffer our alienation. It takes two to have a relationship, as I have mentioned before. When we suffer long enough, we learn how and where to turn. Yes, we are that slow to gain such wisdom; we often have to suffer a long time to learn. I am definitely very slow to learn!

Please pray for me.

And perhaps you can show me my error by finding an example of a person who knows what he is doing when he sins.

Blessings to you!

 

[OneSheep]

Just thinking about the parable of the woman caught in adultery, her accusers said according to moses law she should be stoned to death, Jesus points out that none of them are free from sin, and does not agree that her penalty should be death.

Interesting too that when Jesus speaks to her, he doesn’t request that she repent of this sin before he tells her that he does not condemn her, but rather seems to forgive her first and then tell her go sin no more.

Yes, this is another example of what was considered justice defeating the purpose of justice itself.

Mark 2:27
New International Version
Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Justice itself is made for man, it serves humanity.

 

[irenaeus1]

If sin is defined as alienation, a person could become inadvertently alienated. Indeed, I cannot think of a counterexample, can you? Can you give an example of a person who knows what he is doing when he sins? The scenario is impossible to construct. Try it! (er, not the sin, but coming up with an example)

Sin, in its fullest sense, is any thought, word, or deed that involves grave matter and is willfully and knowingly committed. How can you say that a person doesn’t know what he is doing when he sins? You mean to tell me that an adulterer doesn’t know what he is doing and that what he is doing is wrong? Or that a child molester doesn’t know what he is doing and that what he is doing is wrong? Or a sex trafficker? Or a rapist? Or an embezzler? Really? The natural law is written upon the heart of man, so yes, a person knows when he sins. You need to read Rom 1:18-32 (especially the first three verses, 18-20)

You see why I was asking whether you were Catholic… because the evidence suggests otherwise?

Basing itself on sacred scripture and apostolic tradition, the Catholic Church teaches:
• God requires repentance unto the forgiveness of sins (i.e., a humble spirit and contrite heart is what God requires to obtain the forgiveness of sins) [not true since OneSheep says that God’s forgives unconditionally]
• Sacramental absolution is not valid if the person is not contrite of heart [not true since OneSheep says that God’s forgives unconditionally
• God punishes the evildoer – those who commit iniquity [not true since OneSheep says that God doesn’t punish; punishment is something self-imposed or merely a result of natural consequences]
• Sin, in its fullest sense, is any thought, word, or deed that involves grave matter and is willfully and knowingly committed [not true since OneSheep says that one who sins doesn’t really know what they are doing]
• God says that man can know from natural law what is right and wrong so that man is without excuse [not true since OneSheep says that an “excuse” is an attempt to escape penalty or consequence. When one is determining why people do evil, one has no real need for excuses… although I have no idea what OneSheep is saying]

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Irenaeus,

Sin, in its fullest sense, is any thought, word, or deed that involves grave matter and is willfully and knowingly committed

Well, if we go with the CCC definition:

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.

So you see, the words “knowingly and willingly” are not there.

The natural law is written upon the heart of man, so yes, a person knows when he sins.

This is a broad statement. People develop consciences over time, and sometimes the are formed very poorly.

• God requires repentance unto the forgiveness of sins (i.e., a humble spirit and contrite heart is what God requires to obtain the forgiveness of sins)

Since God always forgives, (If you click on my icon, you can find a great quote on this) the requirement has to do with reconciliation, relationship. It takes two to have a relationship.

• Sacramental absolution is not valid if the person is not contrite of heart

Yes, reconciliation does not occur if the person is not contrite. (there may be the odd case where he may not know that contrition is called for, but that would involve a conscience issue)

God punishes the evildoer – those who commit iniquity

Correction is not limited to natural consequences. I have no problem with the belief that God punishes, as long as the punishment is merciful and meant to help lead to conversion. I don’t believe in a God who coerces, though.

God says that man can know from natural law what is right and wrong so that man is without excuse

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

So you see, since the conscience involves education, it is not perfect when we are born. It can be said that it is perfect internally, but the education involves awareness of the internal.

Hmmm. I pinch myself. Yep, still Catholic!

OneSheep says that one who sins doesn’t really know what they are doing

This is an observation on my part. I would be happy to support this observation, but perhaps we could move that discussion over to the philosophy or spirituality forum, as we are already way off-topic here.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi again,

Back on the topic, what do you think of the application of Mark2:27 here?

New International Version
Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Scholars raise concerns over Pope Francis remarks on how doctrine develops Catholic News

On another thread on the topic, Simpleas brought up the Gospel story about the woman caught in adultery. “He who has no sin may cast the first stone”. Who knows how many centuries there was a law saying that adultery was a capital offence? Yet over the years people realized that the penalty defeated the purpose of justice itself. Let’s look at this very important verse on the topic: Mark 2:27 New International Version Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sa…

 

[irenaeus1]

Well, if we go with the CCC definition:

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.

So you see, the words “knowingly and willingly” are not there.

Keep reading and you’ll get there… knowledge and consent are mentioned further on in this section.

While you’re consulting the CCC, you’ll note that 982 states that God forgives sin provided one repents.

 

[irenaeus1]

The education of the conscience is a lifelong task.

I’m not saying that one’s conscience does not need to be well formed, informed or educated; however, there are many things that can be known from the natural law and from reason such that even nonbelievers know certain things that are right and wrong.

 

[irenaeus1]

Just thinking about the parable of the woman caught in adultery, her accusers said according to moses law she should be stoned to death, Jesus points out that none of them are free from sin, and does not agree that her penalty should be death.

Interesting too that when Jesus speaks to her, he doesn’t request that she repent of this sin before he tells her that he does not condemn her, but rather seems to forgive her first and then tell her go sin no more.

When evaluating this passage, one needs to be consistent in one’s exegesis to ensure proper interpretation. It is not clear that Jesus forgives the woman of her sin, and it is not clear that the woman repented of her sin either. She certainly could have repented, and Jesus certainly could have forgiven her – but that is not the crux of the encounter. It was the scribes and Pharisees who were zealous in their ‘supposed’ loyalty to the law of Moses, claiming that the law commands the stoning of such a woman. However, they were being hypocritical and unjust in that the law commands that both the man and the woman be condemned to death by stoning for adultery – so why here is only the woman being accused and exposed. The law of Moses also allowed for those accused to plead their cause and establish the facts by witnesses, so no due process – something else that the scribes and Pharisees seemed to conveniently overlook. That Jesus did not side with the scribes and Pharisees regarding whether she should be stoned is not that telling considering that stoning for adultery was not often carried out anyway. So again, this was more of a set up that they were using in an attempt to trap Jesus. Regardless, Jesus showed patience and mercy with the woman (something that God is so good at doing), admonished her to go and sin no more, and shamefully exposed the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees.

 

[simpleas]

So what are you saying?

If they had a trial where both woman and man were found guilty Jesus would have been ok with them being stoned to death?

I thought the parable was straight forward enough, showing how no-one was free from sin.

 

[Ender]

When evaluating this passage, one needs to be consistent in one’s exegesis to ensure proper interpretation. It is not clear that Jesus forgives the woman of her sin, and it is not clear that the woman repented of her sin either.

However one interprets this passage, it is not really relevant to the issue of capital punishment. There are only rare instances in the past where someone has tried to make that connection. There are instances in the Bible where sinners both are and are not killed for their transgressions, and this passage is not part of the church’s traditional explanation of her recognition of the validity of capital punishment.

 

[simpleas]

Where in the new testament does Jesus condemn any living human to death, I can’t think of a parable?
The old testament is another story especially certain parts.

Though the Ten Commandments do say it quite clearly…Thou shall not Kill.

 

[Ender]

Where in the new testament does Jesus condemn any living human to death, I can’t think of a parable?

Jesus used several parables where someone in authority punished with death those whose actions were wicked. More significantly, what the church teaches is not limited only to those incidents explicitly related in the gospels. That “Jesus didn’t do” something is not any kind of argument against it.

The old testament is another story especially certain parts.

The entire Old Testament did not get wholly abrogated by the New Testament. The position that we can ignore something simply because it is in the OT is not something the church has ever taught.

Though the Ten Commandments do say it quite clearly…Thou shall not Kill.

But the church has never interpreted this to mean that there are never instances when killing is justified. Quite the opposite: she has taught for 2000 years that killing may be legitimate in war, self defense, and …capital punishment.

 

[OneSheep]

If they had a trial where both woman and man were found guilty Jesus would have been ok with them being stoned to death?

I thought the parable was straight forward enough, showing how no-one was free from sin.

Jesus being “okay with it” (killing a couple) would have been contrary to the call to forgive, which is the bottom-line of the story. He is calling people to realize that none of us has cause to point fingers, as all of us are sinners.

As an aside, though, capital punishment for adultery was around for centuries, and then people finally figured out that the penalty actually made society less secure (the public killing degraded the value of life), that the penalty was unmerciful, and did not lead to conversion of the sinner.

And after more centuries, we are realizing that the same problem exists with CP today.

 

[OneSheep]

Keep reading and you’ll get there… knowledge and consent are mentioned further on in this section.

While you’re consulting the CCC, you’ll note that 982 states that God forgives sin provided one repents.

CCC 982:There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest. Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin.

As I mentioned before, one cannot realize God’s forgiveness until one forgives, as taught in our scripture course. And if one does not experience God’s forgiveness, one will proceed as if not forgiven. We have to remember that Jesus invites us to forgive others regardless of their state of repentance, for that is the holiness we are called to. If the Father’s forgiveness is less inclusive, then this lowers a standard of perfection. “After all, if God only forgives a select few, why should I?” No, Jesus invites us to be perfect, as the Father is perfect. It is a perfection of holiness, of mercy, of love.

What is missing from section 982 is the general movement of the Father in the incarnation:

The Truth Will Make You Free: Joseph Ratzinger Re-Thinks Anselm's Theology of Redemption

Section 982 gives the impression of a passive father, “well, if he changes his ways, I’ll forgive; if not, oh well”. Pope Benedict shows us the image of an active Father, one who comes and grasps humanity. The Father goes after the lost sheep, making him aware of his need for repentance. We are not talking about a God who ultimately looks at what a person has done and then says “see this, you weren’t sorry enough. Take the down elevator”

The incarnation is the movement of a Father, a Trinity, that has already forgiven.

 

[simpleas]

Yes he told parables, but I never thought of them as what Jesus would do.

The teaching of Jesus about love, mercy, forgiveness…the Gospel of life, always sounded different to me in the new testament compared to the sometimes vengeance of God in the old.

Yes, while in war it would be unavoidable to not kill the enemy and possibly in self defence, killing people for other crime doesn’t seem to help.

I’m pretty much a pacifist.

 

[irenaeus1]

And if one does not experience God’s forgiveness, one will proceed as if not forgiven.

More than that, one will proceed as not forgiven, not merely as if not forgiven. Also, then-Ratzinger’s writing assessing Anselm’s theology of redemption does not say anything about repentance or contrition no longer being needed.

Below is from the Council of Trent regarding the atonement:

Whence it came to pass, that the Heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1, 3), when that blessed fullness of the time was come (Galatians 4:4) sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son who had been, both before the Law and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God had proposed as a propitiator, through faith in His blood (Romans 3:25), for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world (I John ii, 2).

 

[irenaeus1]

If they had a trial where both woman and man were found guilty Jesus would have been ok with them being stoned to death?

I thought the parable was straight forward enough, showing how no-one was free from sin

Although the account of the woman caught in adultery is not a parable, but is recorded as an historical incident, there actually are quite a number of parables that appeal to death of the guilty as punishment. Now to your point, if both the man and woman were brought forward along with ample evidence for the accusation of adultery, whether Jesus would have said that their stoning would have been fitting is uncertain, although probably doubtful – notwithstanding that the Jews did not have the authority to impose the death penalty (which is why they turned Jesus over to the Roman authorities for crucifixion) and was part of the trap in the question by the scribes and Pharisees in the first place. But also note that Jesus is never shown to reject the authorities’ right of imposing the death penalty either. In this case, it could be that the couple would stand before Jesus, rightly accused, acknowledging their wrong, and requesting that Jesus remember them when he enters into his kingdom… to which Jesus may have replied that he assures them that they would be with him in paradise – similar to the fact that Jesus did not respond to correct the good thief’s admission of being deserving of death. Or as I noted earlier, the incident simply allowed for the opportunity for Jesus to point out the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees. That we often deserve death for our evil actions is not lost on Jesus, and in fact, he used an example of where good and decent people have died unjustly at the hands of others as well as those who have died from natural disasters, stating that these ‘innocent’ people are not worse sinners (their death was not necessarily related to anything they did), yet Jesus admonishes his listeners to repent or they would likewise perish. What?!.. did Jesus just say that unless we repent, we may suffer a similar or worse fate? Yes, he did. Recall that this same Jesus also said of the person who causes one to stray from the right path, that it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be cast into the sea. I don’t know about you, but if my being hurled into the sea while having a large stone tied around my neck is better than I deserve, I’m not sure what sort of punishment Jesus actually had in mind, but it can’t be good.