Pope Francis tells Congress ‘every life is sacred,’ says the death penalty should be abolished

[Ender]

We can’t fully know the mind of God but we can understand in some measure why He gave us this capacity to choose Him but also to reject Him. Why wouldn’t He just make us all obey automatically? Isn’t that what He really wants? Everybodies obedience?

In that way you can understand why God would prefer that someone follows an erroneous conscience in acting, than to mindlessly obey rules out of fear or obligation. I mean the Church is here to help us grow in conscience at the end of the day… not to make us mindlessly submit to rules.

*“God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion. God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom.” (Dignitatis Humanae 11)

“There can be no morality without freedom…God willed to leave man “in the power of his own counsel”, so that he would seek his Creator of his own accord and would freely arrive at full and blessed perfection by cleaving to God.” (Veritatis Splendor 34)

“Christ reveals, first and foremost, that the frank and open acceptance of truth is the condition for authentic freedom…perfect freedom [is] in total obedience to the will of God.” (VS 87)

“It is not just that freedom is part of the act of faith: it is absolutely required.” (Fides et Ratio 13)
*That we may freely choose our actions is what makes us morally responsible for them.

Ender

 

[Suudy]

But when we think about our own desire for love and search for that marital love, we know how inferior is the love of someone who we’ve obliged or somehow conned into relationship. And we also know the magnificence of the love of someone who has grown to know us intimately, all the good and bad, and still chooses to love us. We would rather be alone than have the obedience of automaton type human. In that way you can understand why God would prefer that someone follows an erroneous conscience in acting, than to mindlessly obey rules out of fear or obligation. I mean the Church is here to help us grow in conscience at the end of the day… not to make us mindlessly submit to rules.

Which is why the image of God the Father is that much more apt. Our relationship to God isn’t one of “marital love” but as a child to a father. Our obedience to God isn’t (or shouldn’t be) grounded in fear. Nor should our obedience require understanding. Just as a child doesn’t always understand the reasons for a parent’s direction, the child nonetheless obeys out of love.

But unlike our own relationships with our parents where we eventually mature to become adults like our parents, we will never mature to become like God. So even as we grow in our knowledge of God and our relationship with him, we will still remain like a child. And I think this is the kind of faith Christ refers to in Matthew 18:3 when He tells the disciples they must “become as little children.” God isn’t asking us to be automatons, but to be as children, loving and accepting of His instruction through His bride here on earth: the Church.

 

[Thomas_White]

If we know, for example, a particular truth that has been revealed to us, under what circumstances does Dei Verbum allow for that truth to be declared as being false?

There is absolute truth and there is revelation. Is a revealed truth absolute truth, a declaration that is absolutely true? Or is it a truth about which more is revealed during the continuous process of revelation in the temporal world of change? Is the wanton slaughter by ISIS of Christian prisoners justified, and is the execution of a prisoner strapped to a gurney in a U.S. prison similarly justified? Or is there more to consider concerning the absolute necessity of an execution? The execution of prisoners in every instance is surely not justified by an absolute truth. IMHO, moral discernment is necessary.

One should, I believe, consider Original Sin and free will. This concerns man’s ability to make moral judgments and was the sin of Adam, and man must consequently rely on grace. I don’t see that Dei Verbum even raises the question of whether a doctrine is true or false. It says that revelation is a continuous process until the end of time and that man’s understanding of Apostolic teaching is likewise a continuous process. This is difficult for many to accept. There is a wish for a solid ground, for perhaps a doctrine that provides a definite and final answer. I believe that as a result of Original Sin man’s plight is not so easy and a person must make moral choices.

Ephesus, for example, declared Mary to the Mother of God (as opposed to just being the Mother of the human nature of the Second Person of the Trinity). Could the continued revelation that Dei Verbum refers to allow the Church to declare that Mary was NOT the Mother of the one personhood of Christ, both Human and Divine Natures. Assuming of course, that some future circumstance changed.

I most certainly think not, but, again, I surely do not know the fullness of divine revelation either. However, this would be an either/or declaration, and as I understand Dei Verbum this is not what it concerns. In that sense, such a declaration seems impossible.

Could continued revelation mentioned in Dei Verbum change what a Council had determined to be true in a matter of Faith and Morals to such an extent that the opposite hold true?

This again would be an either/or choice, and in my opinion a mistaken way to view it. It was Apostolic preaching itself that spoke of the fullness of revelation as not being revealed until the end of time and the Last Judgment. I don’t know how this could evolve, and to assume one does know seems questionable in that it presumes to know what only Christ knows.

 

[pnewton]

Willie Horton, life without the possibility of parole is released on prison furlough program by Democrat Governor Dukakis. While on his furlough he is the one that raped a woman repeatedly while tying up her husband and making him watch it.

I forgot all about him. He was the poster child for never letting a good tragedy go to waste, although I think that is a better argument against furloughs than the death penalty.

Nonetheless, I will concede the point, but I also see its opposite member as true. On one hand, the death penalty might eventually result in someone being put to death that could go on and orchestrate another death. On the other, the state could put an innocent man to death. Both possibilities exist. I used to think that the execution of the innocent was an unfortunate but necessary byproduct of a needed justice system. Now, I am convinced that our society needs respect for life more that an extra measure of justice, so I will concede that the murder behind bars is an unfortunate by necessary byproduct of civilized society. However, I also think this latter can be mitigated to the theoretical if we allow for more severe imprisonment of the dangerous convict.

 

[graciew]

Well, the quote from Ratziner begins this way: “Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”

The way I understand this it does not involve a defiance of the pope at all, particularly not when it was said by Ratzinger, himself a future pope. He says the dictates of conscience must be obeyed–this is not defiance. He elaborates by later saying that “it is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at–in fact once must do so.” This is not a new teaching. Aquinas wrote that a person who does not follow the dictates of his or her conscience “is certainly condemned.”

What does it mean then when Ratzinger says it could very well in instances have been wrong “to have come to such askew convictions in the first place”? Why one must nevertheless follow those askew convictions is not clear. I don’t know the answer except one had better be right in their convictions, and this would result from an informed conscience.

With respect to capital punishment, we see on the thread that there are those who strongly believe Church teaching permits it. My conscience dictates that it would be wrong for me to do so. This is not the result from studying doctrine but rather a sense or feeling where I just know it would be wrong of me to participate in this. This does not even violate Church teaching, let alone defy the pope. My sense of it is that U.S. society is now sufficiently advanced to the extent it is no longer absolutely necessary to execute a prisoner, but also that this might not be the case everywhere and always. So the question becomes would participating in an execution be wrong? My conscience tell me it would be wrong for me. This again does not defy the pope or violate Church teaching, and here conscience does not speak of any other person. It is a question I cannot answer that way.

Concerning the dictates of conscience, I do not believe conscience should be rendered null by the circular logic that conscience must always conform to Church teaching. What then is conscience? And I do not believe this is Church teaching either. Why might this be the case? Perhaps it is because each person must in the end stand alone for judgment. That the Church would insist its teaching must always be followed, when what is at stake is a person’s eternal salvation, would seem very problematic. Who could say a person might not sense or grasp something very meaningful?

We agree on our dear " jet plane " Ratzinger. I feel like following him with my bike.
What I thought askew was St Augustine s good and Good.But it may not be so.

We had long threads about DP.
When reading about it ,it was clear to me it was an exception , a concession so rare while the commandment is Thou shall not kill. You said so too.
In practical terms , and in a view to restoring with God s help and if possible ,a person to his human family ,big and small ,and to God , we could participate more accompanying persons in prison as a Church. It does already ,yet we could do more.
Also practical , are measures to ensure they would render no harm in facilities.
We had dialogues with Ender who explained retribution.
And I was more on prudential judgement over moral authority to condemn in other religions what we fail to address ourselves.
The Church moves slowly and points the way.

When talking about conscience ,formed and informed within our Church , I was not saying that a person has to follow Church teaching as non catholic obviously but that we do have to toil and pray that our eyes and ears be open to hear the Word and be sent as messengers and little lights of Good News.

Same as you , I learnt our faith by inmersion , and as Longing Soul said contemplatingbthe Gospels and it is hard more often than not ,to tell when or how we learnt it. It has sort of blended in us. Church teaching was everything either written ,oral ,basically living it and not without getting mud all over .Want to learn to swim ? Then let s swim ! Sort of thing…

We all learn differently. And that is normal.

 

[Brendan]

There is absolute truth and there is revelation. Is a revealed truth absolute truth, a declaration that is absolutely true?

Can God deceive?

Or is it a truth about which more is revealed during the continuous process of revelation in the temporal world of change?

But can what is revealed as being true be later false? Can you think of an example where this is so, a declaration of moral truth by a Council, supported by Doctors of the Church, has been declared to be a falsehood?

I most certainly think not, but, again, I surely do not know the fullness of divine revelation either. However, this would be an either/or declaration, and as I understand Dei Verbum this is not what it concerns. In that sense, such a declaration seems impossible.

So if an truth is an either\or, then Dei Verbum does not apply. Such as when Trent says “The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder”. It would seem that it either is, or is not an act of paramount obedience to the 5th Commandment.

So you would presume that this could not be changed?

 

[LongingSoul]

Which is why the image of God the Father is that much more apt. Our relationship to God isn’t one of “marital love” but as a child to a father. Our obedience to God isn’t (or shouldn’t be) grounded in fear. Nor should our obedience require understanding. Just as a child doesn’t always understand the reasons for a parent’s direction, the child nonetheless obeys out of love.

But unlike our own relationships with our parents where we eventually mature to become adults like our parents, we will never mature to become like God. So even as we grow in our knowledge of God and our relationship with him, we will still remain like a child. And I think this is the kind of faith Christ refers to in Matthew 18:3 when He tells the disciples they must “become as little children.” God isn’t asking us to be automatons, but to be as children, loving and accepting of His instruction through His bride here on earth: the Church.

That sounds fine in theory but the reality is that we can’t have a relationship with God outside of our relationship with others including our relationship with the living Christ. How do we know God directly otherwise? Fundamentalists do think that we can read the bible and know Gods will directly but Catholics don’t accept that.

For example, this death penalty thing. The fundamentalist approach is that ‘God said’ that the death penalty is appropriate to punish sin in Genesis 9:6. However the Catholic Church says that the death penalty should be abolished because it is a cruel and unnecessary punishment. The point of difference is the use of conscience to understand Gods will for us. The Church through the use of conscience which it calls the ‘aboriginal Vicar of Christ’… ie the Pope being the Vicar of Christ is a manifestation of conscience… reveals Gods will.

 

[Suudy]

That sounds fine in theory but the reality is that we can’t have a relationship with God outside of our relationship with others including our relationship with the living Christ. How do we know God directly otherwise? Fundamentalists do think that we can read the bible and know Gods will directly but Catholics don’t accept that.

I’m not suggesting Bible only obedience. I do think the Church, which represents Christ here on earth, speaks with the authority of God with regard to faith and morals. And it is through the Church that we can come to know God. And I’m not speaking only of papal encyclicals, but also through her saints.

For example, this death penalty thing. The fundamentalist approach is that ‘God said’ that the death penalty is appropriate to punish sin in Genesis 9:6. However the Catholic Church says that the death penalty should be abolished because it is a cruel and unnecessary punishment.

But that statement about the use of capital punishment needs to be reconciled with everything taught before. This is Ender’s point. And unlike what it seems Thomas White is saying, I do not think advancements in understanding invalidate previous teachings. The issue is how to reconcile the entirety of Church teaching. And rejecting capital punishment out of hand as immoral is, in my opinion, a rejection of previous teaching.

The point of difference is the use of conscience to understand Gods will for us. The Church through the use of conscience which it calls the ‘aboriginal Vicar of Christ’… ie the Pope being the Vicar of Christ is a manifestation of conscience… reveals Gods will.

But conscience does not operate in a vacuum. That’s the key difference between the teaching of the Catholic church and some fundamentalist, bible-only church.

 

[sallybutler]

PS: I miss Brother Jay especially in this sort of discussions. He would come in and state a few points and that would be it to have it very clear.
In any case he would always remind us : ." …because it is the loving thing to do" .

Sometimes, when reading through the posts on these threads, I feel like loving is not allowed, or at least seriously suspicious.

 

[graciew]

Sometimes, when reading through the posts on these threads, I feel like loving is not allowed, or at least seriously suspicious.

If ever you have time and do not know Brother Jay , his poster 's name is JReducation.
Loving and a walking library ! He is a Franciscan for Life and is ill now…

 

[sallybutler]

If ever you have time and do not know Brother Jay , his poster 's name is JReducation.
Loving and a walking library ! He is a Franciscan for Life and is ill now…

I will pray for him.

 

[LongingSoul]

I do not think advancements in understanding invalidate previous teachings. The issue is how to reconcile the entirety of Church teaching. And rejecting capital punishment out of hand as immoral is, in my opinion, a rejection of previous teaching.

There is nothing wrong with saying that capital punishment is no longer moral in this day and age. In fact that is the position of the rest of the world countries who’ve abolished the death penalty from general law. It isn’t a rejection of previous teaching. It is a recognition of natural development. Just because it isn’t intrinsically evil, doesn’t mean it can never be an immoral act. It’s a thing that needs to be subjected to moral scrutiny just like other acts.

 

[Thomas_White]

Can God deceive?

I am resisting replying, “How would I know?” Are you asking me to judge God? Or to understand God intellectually? Though wrong to attempt to answer this since it seems a value judgment, I don’t believe such judgments would even apply to God. God does as God does and ‘to deceive’ is a concept of human reason. God is above right and wrong and good and evil.

But can what is revealed as being true be later false? Can you think of an example where this is so, a declaration of moral truth by a Council, supported by Doctors of the Church, has been declared to be a falsehood?

This is odd in that It seems as though you are asking me to justify Catholic dogma. All I can provide is a layman’s understanding. Yes, I can think of an example, but asking the question entirely misses the point. It is the temporal world and not Absolute Truth that is a Becoming. Catholic teaching, as I understand Dei Verbum, is that the truth of Apolistic preaching is more fully understood through the ages and that this process will continue until the end of time. It is not that absolute truth or Apostolic teaching would change but that man’s understanding of it could change and evolve in the temporal world of change.

I believe that doctrine does not necessarily provide a certain path, always and in every instance, to eternal salvation. I have explained why. What I don’t think is that Dei Verbum concerns either/or questions but does concern continuing revelation and the understanding of it but not that there are no either/or questions. It would not seem the process described is given to providing simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers at some point in time, though that is not to say it could not or has not occurred with respect to doctrine. It is possible.

So if an truth is an either\or, then Dei Verbum does not apply. Such as when Trent says “The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder”. It would seem that it either is, or is not an act of paramount obedience to the 5th Commandment.

So you would presume that this could not be changed?

To fully undstand this, the question cannot even be framed that way. Absolute truth is not an either/or question even though it seems it is in human understanding. What I believe is that absolute truth transcends all dualities and that this understanding is not even open to the limits of human understanding and reason. And, as though this isn’t complex enough, I would suggest this understanding is perhaps open to conscience.

The Fifth Commandment is a moral imperative given * to man* prohibiting unjust killing. There is then ever the question of when is it just to take the life of another person. Do you see? Doctrine itself does not necessarily supply an answer since what would be just differs in different eras, places and circumstances. It is thus not an either/or question where it either is or is not always just to take the life of another person. It is why I would say that doctrine from a century ago would not necessarily provide an answer in a particular situation today, and that a person might need to make a moral choice.

 

[sallybutler]

The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia and China have executions makes me against it. Very visceral reaction.

 

[graciew]

I will pray for him.

Thank you , Sally.

 

[LongingSoul]

So if an truth is an either\or, then Dei Verbum does not apply. Such as when Trent says “The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder”. It would seem that it either is, or is not an act of paramount obedience to the 5th Commandment.

So you would presume that this could not be changed?

When the prohibition against murder (the 5th commandment) is understood as a reflection of the dignity of human beings rather than a mindless command of the Creator… then it’s easy to see how the culture of the time, might influence whether the death penalty serves that end or not.

The reality is, and this is believed by lots of modern countries… that the death penalty is an exercise of human power and is not an act that affirms the dignity of man. That means that it actually violates the 5th commandment.

 

[Brendan]

I
This is odd in that It seems as though you are asking me to justify Catholic dogma. All I can provide is a layman’s understanding. Yes, I can think of an example, but asking the question entirely misses the point. It is the temporal world and not Absolute Truth that is a Becoming. Catholic teaching, as I understand Dei Verbum, is that the truth of Apolistic preaching is more fully understood through the ages and that this process will continue until the end of time. It is not that absolute truth or Apostolic teaching would change but that man’s understanding of it could change and evolve in the temporal world of change.

To fully undstand this, the question cannot even be framed that way. Absolute truth is not an either/or question even though it seems it is in human understanding. What I believe is that absolute truth transcends all dualities and that this understanding is not even open to the limits of human understanding and reason. And, as though this isn’t complex enough, I would suggest this understanding is perhaps open to conscience.

So when Ephesus stated that Christ was both God and Man, you are saying that the understand could ‘evolve’ in such a way that Christ would be known as just being God, just being Man, just being partialy man, or partially God or being neither?

And such lack of understanding of the Absolute Truth would be function of our temporal world.

The Fifth Commandment is a moral imperative given * to man* prohibiting unjust killing. There is then ever the question of when is it just to take the life of another person. Do you see? Doctrine itself does not necessarily supply an answer since what would be just differs in different eras, places and circumstances. It is thus not an either/or question where it either is or is not always just to take the life of another person. It is why I would say that doctrine from a century ago would not necessarily provide an answer in a particular situation today, and that a person might need to make a moral choice.

So if we have no doctrine that can supply an answer, at that the matter should, it seems, rest with personal moral choice, what grounds would you have to make a criticism of a judge who sentences someone to death, or one who commits the execution.

It would be a matter of their personal conscience.

As far as doctrines from 100 years ago not being a valid guide for a moral decision, why then should a Gospel from 2000 years ago be any more of a guide?

 

[Brendan]

When the prohibition against murder (the 5th commandment) is understood as a reflection of the dignity of human beings rather than a mindless command of the Creator…

Why would anyone consider the commands of the Creator to be mindless.

Are you claiming that Trent did so? That it is possible for an Ecumenical Council to act without God.

If so, how can we trust any Council?

 

[Suudy]

The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia and China have executions makes me against it. Very visceral reaction.

As I posted elsewhere recently:

taly stands proud with many nations in barring gay marriage. Such as: China, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, North Korea, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan.

Do you have the same visceral reaction against Italy?

Really, these kinds of comparisons are meaningless.

 

[graciew]

The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia and China have executions makes me against it. Very visceral reaction.

I have just read an old interview to an leading executioner in Saudi.Arabia . In fact ,I read it right after reading lethal injection.
I d say a.simple man.

He understands ,and so do the people that he carries out God’s will when certain crimes demand capital punishment.
Skipping details we may all know.about , he sounded a devout man in his religion and worried to carry it out without inflicting pain .
But listen to this which called.my attention in a different light: he said that before execution, he visits the victim s family and prays for this last chance the person has. If the family of the victim forgives the one who will be executed ,then the execution is not carried out. He says he always keeps this hope alive.