That does not apply to the state. You are taking that Scripture out of context. St. Paul clearly says that the state has the power of the sword to execute the Lord’s vengeance on wrongdoers. In this passage, St. Peter is saying that, as individual Christians, we are not to personally retaliate against people, but to bear wrongs patiently.
Why does Christ always accuse the Pharisees of being broods of vipers and hypocrits, but when He speaks with Roman centurians and legionaries, who carry out the “dastardly” deeds of the pagan Roman Empire, He doesn’t say a word? When a Roman Centurian ask for Christ to heal his child, Christ never says: “you hypocrite! You take life needlessly out of your own blood thirsty lust, but then ask for it to be restored to one of your own?”
This is the point that has been mostly overlooked in this discussion, nor was it addressed either in the Catechism or the USCCB letter and it is a great weakness in both those documents. “There is no contradiction between forgiveness and justice, for forgiveness neither eliminates nor lessens the need for reparation which justice requires” (JPII)
When in the past have societies been stable enough to keep prisoners in there for life? One of the reasons Christ instituted a Church with a leadership structure was so that it could address issues as they arise.
The main reason Christ instituted the Church was to save souls. The idea that the death penalty is no longer needed because we can lock up prisoners for life has no basis in Scripture, the Tradition, Natural Law, or common sense.
How can the Church save souls if a person is condemned? Are you saying the Church’s current teaching isn’t common sense? So, what was the point of Christ instituting a church if her teachings weren’t ‘going to make sense’.
What seems to be the current general position of most Bishops in the Church is wrong, I think. I am free to think that since this position is not actual Church teaching; but merely the prudential judgment of individuals who happen to be Bishops. And, condemnation to death can actually be a motivator to repentance. If you know your time is up, you’ve got to think about meeting your maker. If you have life in prison, you can put that off indefinitely.
marxlco said:
Irrelevant. Look at the context of the story of the woman caught in adultery and you will see it has nothing to do with the death penalty as such.
marxlco said:
marxlco said:
It’s in the catechism. I’m pretty sure that that constitutes Church teaching. While it may not be infallible in and of itself, it still represents the teaching, and I am pretty sure that it is clear throughout the New Testament and Sacred Tradition (leave it that a few popes have murdered people, but popes are sinners as well). Pick and choose what you will out of the Catechism.
marxlco said:
Show me, in Scripture and Tradition, where the death penalty for grave crimes is wrong. Or, if you like, show me where the same kind of reasoning found in the current statement of the Catechism is used in Scripture or tradition. The fact is that the Church’s current opposition to the death penalty is a modern innovation. It can’t be authoritative teaching; otherwise, the Church would fall into heresy.
The Church cannot fall into heresy. It’s not a “modern innovation” either, because as I said before, show me a time in the past where societies have been stable enough as they are now to keep prisoners locked up for life? Unless you can prove in the Gospel where Jesus would have killed someone for their crimes, then I’ll agree with you. Jesus is about forgiveness, and redemption. The culture of death, which includes capital punishment, is not.
I’m not going to argue about this. There have been plenty of death penalty threads and nothing is accomplished by this. I’m done with this thread. Now that Tookie is executed, there is really nothing more to discuss anyway.