Test the validity of your prolife position on capital punishment

[pnewton]

ricatholic:

How stupid of me to think that the clarity of what Jesus said was just an illusion, despite how it blatantly contradicted the laws and appropriate responses laid down in lev about adultery.

What Jesus told the crowd was for the one without sin to throw the first stone. He did not teach against the death penalty in general. Jim orr and myself are not watering down what Jesus said, but neither are we embelishing the facts presented to make them say more than they do. This is a prime example of why we need an authoritative interpreter of scriputure.

Secondly, revenge should be jetisoned by followers of Jesus. Capital punishment must never be based on the need to exact revenge, but on the protection of society.

Finally, I will grant that I do not always live up to the standard of being like Christ in all things, but I am working on it.

 

[jim_orr]

Fortiterinre:

I am very impressed with the sophisticated, theological debate of this thread–THIS is what I look for on these forums! .
Some would argue that based on the current condition of American prisons, where it seems easy for those incarcerated in maximum security to continue violent offenses, capital punishment should right now be far from non-existent.

Properly concluded. As such, at this time and age, capital punishment is a prolife issue in that the execution of such criminals saves innocent human life and protects society from their further harm.

 

[jim_orr]

ricatholic:

Oh thats right, I forgot that the binding of loosing of sins applied to what Jesus taught. The non -sinlessness of the crowd with rocks in their hands was changed by the wisdom of the church to sinlessness.

On what authority, then, do you determine that capital punishment is wrong?

ricatholic:

Unfortunately for us, Jesus standards are so high that we constantly water them down to suit our purposes.

I think the only “standard” here is one that you want to create.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The reason there is confusion now is that the Catechism, which many of the faithful turn to as a guide in faith and morals, contains a prudential decision without labeling it as such. As I’m only 21, I grew up to sermons telling me that capital punishment was wrong. Not that it was acceptable but to be avoided in the modern world, rather simply that it was wrong. Imagine my surprise to learn the real teaching of the Church, then to see the clear support of the death penalty throughout the Church Fathers. Both Christ and Paul attest in Scripture that the state has the authority from God to put them to death. While I’m not up to crossing JPII on his doctrinal developments, he even excludes the expiatory nature of capital punishment, along with its use to spur repentance, which have been extolled by our most respected Doctors and Fathers. I accept his development, but disagree with his prudential judgment that we have managed to eliminate the threat from incarcerated criminals.

 

[ricatholic]

jim orr:

On what authority, then, do you determine that capital punishment is wrong?

I think the only “standard” here is one that you want to create.

Jim, first I do not claim any authority, why would I do that? Second my faith is not based on any authority either.I am a Christian because I believe sincerely in the message of Jesus. I am catholic because I was baptised and though I do not believe everything I am “supposed” to believe in, Jesus is enough for me at this juncture.

So I probably do not arrive at conclusions the same way you do.

I would still follow what Jesus taught if somebody proved to me tommorrow that He was not God.

So I am not coming from someplace ,where “who” says it, is critical, unless that somebody happens to be Jesus.

So just because some pope who thought it was OK to burn people at the stake thougfht capital punishment was OK, doesn’t contribute to my understanding of the cast no stone precepts of Jesus.

There are few concepts about which Jesus was abundantly clear. One is about capital punishment.

The ironic thing about the issue is that the church says it doesn’t answer to the secular authorities, but the church abdicates its belief in the words of Jesus to rationalize the killing of others by catholics.

This is not about the law or caesar. It is about picking up a rock and bashing in somebodies head so that “society” feels justice has been done.

Why do you think Jesus framed His response in such a way as He did? It is the perfect catch 22!!!

But I guess what Jesus didn’t plan on was that the church would pre-absolve the sin of those who would pick up the rock, flick the switch or send the poison to the veins of somebody who could be Jesus in the guise of the least.

Peace

 

[jim_orr]

ricatholic:

Jim, first I do not claim any authority, why would I do that? Second my faith is not based on any authority either.I am a Christian because I believe sincerely in the message of Jesus. I am catholic because I was baptised and though I do not believe everything I am “supposed” to believe in, Jesus is enough for me at this juncture.

I appreciate your honest response. This is going to be a two part rely.

Part 1. The intent of this thread was to attempt to bring light to an issue that is discussed in the Catholic faith under the heading of “prolife.” As such, many carrying and sincere Catholics have accepted capital punishment on its face as an act that is not “prolife.” It has been accepted by many simply because it is being taught that way by the clergy without examination.
This in-depth news article on Pelican Bay Prison provides evidence that the “qualifying condition” in the Church’s teaching on capital punishment is not obtainable. In other words, the clergy, as well as the pope, have made an assumption, and based on that assumption are teaching that capital punishment is not necessary because of the ability of modern prisons to protect society from such individuals. That assumption is wrong.

The Church does not allow for any exceptions in its teaching on abortion and euthanasia. No matter how heart wrenching a story may be, she teaches that there is no justification for the intentional killing of innocent human life. If she wants to be consistent in that message, and I think she does, then working to abolish capital punishment on the belief that it is unnecessary today for society’s protection is in violation of that consistent message.

Therefore, the current teaching and lobbying effort by the Church to bring political pressure on the state to end capital punishment is, itself, a non-prolife act. As such, thoughtful, prolife Catholics opposed to capital punishment need to understand that their efforts to abolish it will only lead to even more death and harm to innocent human life.

Furthermore, some use their opposition to capital punishment as evidence of their being “prolife” and use it as a basis for justifying who they vote for. Several Catholics on the “Politics” message board use capital punishment as a political weapon against President Bush in an attempt to discredit his prolife label. It is important for such Catholics to know the truth so that when they make their decision on whom to support, that it is based on a properly formed conscience.

 

[jim_orr]

ricatholic, continued…

Part 2.

Now, in your case, you are not opposed to capital punishment because of the current Church teaching, but because of your interpretation of the Gospel story of the Adulterous Woman. I do not agree with your interpretation. In fact, I think your interpretation, if carried out to its logical conclusion, would mean we could never judge another’s behavior nor punish a person for it. That would produce anarchy, and I don’t think that is what Jesus’ intention was.

Simply put, He knew the Jews had no way for their sins to be forgiven and they all knew it, too. By saying “he without sin cast the first stone” he was not challenging the law, which is the reason they brought her to Him in the first place, to try and trick him into going against the teachings of Moses, but He was putting a “qualifying condition” on it that, in effect, denied its legitimacy. No one dared attempt to throw their stone because they would have exposed themselves as a blasphemer, a very serious offence. And so the crowd dissipated, and Jesus taught the woman the grateful joy of forgiveness. But He didn’t stop there, He charged her to go and sin no more. Did she? We’ll never know.

I’ve always wondered why the women in that part of the world are held responsible and punished for adultery, but not the men. Muslims continue that judgment and punishment in most of those countries, today. I take from Jesus’ handling of the situation in this story that He was saying adultery is not a capital offense; and most of the world, now, agrees with Him. But I don’t think it can be argued that he was condemning capital punishment itself.

 

[ricatholic]

Other than Jesus being able to forgive the sins of the people at the stoning, you might have been right.

So why didn’t He do so?

As for thinking the interpretation is wrong, the method of Jesus used was so wise and the message itself so congruent with what He taught, that to find otherwise requires a stretch of logic.

The trouble I think people have with taking Jesus to heart on this issue is that it so difficult to imagine forgiving the criminal enough to not kill s/he. Then we have to care for them and protect society from them as well?

Why that just doesn’t make economic sense does it? And what gratification do we get , what closure comes if that criminal is still alive while our friends and loved ones have suffered and died?

One final point, from an interpretation standpoint, the church has found ambiguous and totally symbolic phrases to apply to many types of situations. When the message is so clear as in this instance, why isn’t it applied in a like manner?

Peace

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ricatholic:

One final point, from an interpretation standpoint, the church has found ambiguous and totally symbolic phrases to apply to many types of situations. When the message is so clear as in this instance, why isn’t it applied in a like manner?

For those of us only skimming this thread can you please spell out what the message is you are talking about here?

Becuase if you are talking about the part of Scripture where Jesus says for those without sin to cast the first stone, I think the message you are getting is different from the one I read as far a capitial punishment goes.

 

[ricatholic]

ByzCath:

For those of us only skimming this thread can you please spell out what the message is you are talking about here?

Becuase if you are talking about the part of Scripture where Jesus says for those without sin to cast the first stone, I think the message you are getting is different from the one I read as far a capitial punishment goes.

What do you think that means?

Peace

 

[pnewton]

ricatholic:

One final point, from an interpretation standpoint, the church has found ambiguous and totally symbolic phrases to apply to many types of situations. When the message is so clear as in this instance, why isn’t it applied in a like manner?

The very fact that throughout the vast majority of history the church has not interpreted this passage to mean that capital punishment is always wrong indicates that the message is not “so clear in this instance.”

Arguing from scripture that capital punishment is always wrong is difficult, since God once mandated it. Applying cultural relevance is necessary for any scriptural arguement in favor of abolishing the death penalty. Whereas I can read the scripture and see the “plain message.” Jesus did not condemn this women accused of adultery. An larger application is just that, an application and subject to opinion.

I am so glad I am Catholic and have the help of the Church in figuring this stuff out.

 

[jim_orr]

ricatholic:

Other than Jesus being able to forgive the sins of the people at the stoning, you might have been right.

I am not sure what you mean. Could you rephrase what you were trying to say?

 

[ricatholic]

jim orr:

I am not sure what you mean. Could you rephrase what you were trying to say?

I was responding to your post where you suggested that the people at the stoning were incapable of being sinless. But Jesus could forgive their sins.

As to the further development that society couldn’t respond in a way that didn’t include capital punishment or judgement of any sort, why is that so?

The great thing about Jesus’ message is that it is about possibilities. Can we contain and minimize crime by acting as better Christians? Think of the possibilities if we put Jesus’ message to work everyday.

Peace

For reference: Jim’s post:
Now, in your case, you are not opposed to capital punishment because of the current Church teaching, but because of your interpretation of the Gospel story of the Adulterous Woman. I do not agree with your interpretation. In fact, I think your interpretation, if carried out to its logical conclusion, would mean we could never judge another’s behavior nor punish a person for it. That would produce anarchy, and I don’t think that is what Jesus’ intention was.

Simply put, He knew the Jews had no way for their sins to be forgiven and they all knew it, too. By saying “he without sin cast the first stone” he was not challenging the law, which is the reason they brought her to Him in the first place, to try and trick him into going against the teachings of Moses, but He was putting a “qualifying condition” on it that, in effect, denied its legitimacy. No one dared attempt to throw their stone because they would have exposed themselves as a blasphemer, a very serious offence. And so the crowd dissipated, and Jesus taught the woman the grateful joy of forgiveness. But He didn’t stop there, He charged her to go and sin no more. Did she? We’ll never know.

 

[jim_orr]

ricatholic:

I was responding to your post where you suggested that the people at the stoning were incapable of being sinless. But Jesus could forgive their sins.

Jesus had to be crucified before sins could be forgiven. Up until that time, it was blasphemous to say ones sins were forgiven. That was Jewish teaching. That is why Jesus expressed it the way he did.

ricatholic:

As to the further development that society couldn’t respond in a way that didn’t include capital punishment or judgement of any sort, why is that so?

If I understand your question, the reason is that there are circumstances that Our Lord understood necessitated capital punishment.

ricatholic:

The great thing about Jesus’ message is that it is about possibilities. Can we contain and minimize crime by acting as better Christians? Think of the possibilities if we put Jesus’ message to work everyday.

I think it can be done on a case-by-case basis, but not as a policy because each individual has to accept the Holy Spirit’s intervention

 

[ricatholic]

jim orr:

Jesus had to be crucified before sins could be forgiven. Up until that time, it was blasphemous to say ones sins were forgiven. That was Jewish teaching. That is why Jesus expressed it the way he did.

Why do you limit Jesus? he couldn’t forgive sins until he was crusified? Where does that come from?

If I understand your question, the reason is that there are circumstances that Our Lord understood necessitated capital punishment.

No you don’t understand my question, I said Jesus was against all capital punishment.

I think it can be done on a case-by-case basis, but not as a policy because each individual has to accept the Holy Spirit’s intervention

Why does another individual have to accept the holy spirit’s intervention for us to live as Jesus taught?

 

[pnewton]

ricatholic,

I think it is best to avoid the “live as Jesus taught” thinking. For most of us, that is our goal. This line of reasoning is begging the question. Has never been directly taught from the Gospels

 

[Steven_Merten]

jim orr:

All associated with the procurement of an abortion, although legal at this time, commit grave sin, i.e., mortal sin, and if any are a Catholic they are automatically** excommunicated according to our Church.**

I don’t know how more plain to make it.

As I understand it, anyone who dies in a state of unrepented Church excommunication is Spritually put to eternal death by Jesus. As I understand it Church leaders who put in force and retain in force automatic excommunication, which punishes people with Spiritual eternal death, are not without sin. It seems that the Church punishment of Spiritual capital punishment is the reason Church leaders do not totally condemn state physical capital punishment which is far less deadly.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
Throwing Stones www.geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/stones.html

 

[jim_orr]

Steven Merten:

As I understand it, anyone who dies in a state of unrepented Church excommunication is Spritually put to eternal death by Jesus. As I understand it Church leaders who put in force and retain in force automatic excommunication, which punishes people with Spiritual eternal death, are not without sin. It seems that the Church punishment of Spiritual capital punishment is the reason Church leaders do not totally condemn state physical capital punishment which is far less deadly.

That is an interesting observation that dovetails with my argument that opposing capital punishment is not prolife. It is not prolife because the qualifing condition created by Pope John Paul II and included in the CCC teaching on Capital Punishment can not be obtained. It is not obtainable as evidenced by the article linked at the beginning of this topic, even though the teaching is predicated on an assumption that makes it sound as true, but, in fact, is false. For the Church, and specifically the bishops, to work to adopt the abolition of capital punihsment knowing or unknowing that its adoption will result in the death and harm to innocent human beings may be spiritual negligence that may very well be a serious sin. The fact that it will result in the death and harm to innocent people is the reason it can not be considered “prolife” because by the Church’s very definition of “prolife,” the innocent must be protected at all times.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Jim,

I want you to know that I agree with you.

Jesus tells His Church that if Her hand is Her undoing, She is to ‘cut it off’ and throw it into Gehenna. If Her foot is Her undoing She is to ‘cut it off’ and throw it into Gehenna. Better for the body of His Church to enter the Kingdom of God missing a foot or a hand than to have the whole body cast into Gehenna.

The web site Throwing Stones www.geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/stones.html can show you 90 biblical refferences where God’s term ‘cut off’ means put to death physically or spiritually a portion of the body of people to protect the body of people.

Jesus swears to St. Peter that any one whom St. Peter holds bound to their sins on earth, He, Jesus, will hold bound to their sins in heaven. We know that there is no salvation to those who Jesus refuses to forgive and judgement day and those people will be cast into Gehenna.

Church leaders are commanded by Christ to draw the Sword of Christ’s mouth (the power to hold sins bound) and wield it upon the foe. Church leaders are commanded by Christ to stand and defend Christ’s Bride (the Church) on earth. “Holding sins bound” is the Christ given Spiritual capital punishment weapon that Jesus entrusted with Church leaders to accomplish this task.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[ricatholic]

Steven Merten:

Hello Jim,

I want you to know that I agree with you.

Jesus tells His Church that if Her hand is Her undoing, She is to ‘cut it off’ and throw it into Gehenna. If Her foot is Her undoing She is to ‘cut it off’ and throw it into Gehenna. Better for the body of His Church to enter the Kingdom of God missing a foot or a hand than to have the whole body cast into Gehenna.

The web site Throwing Stones www.geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/stones.html can show you 90 biblical refferences where God’s term ‘cut off’ means put to death physically or spiritually a portion of the body of people to protect the body of people.

Jesus swears to St. Peter that any one whom St. Peter holds bound to their sins on earth, He, Jesus, will hold bound to their sins in heaven. We know that there is no salvation to those who Jesus refuses to forgive and judgement day and those people will be cast into Gehenna.

Church leaders are commanded by Christ to draw the Sword of Christ’s mouth (the power to hold sins bound) and wield it upon the foe. Church leaders are commanded by Christ to stand and defend Christ’s Bride (the Church) on earth. “Holding sins bound” is the Christ given Spiritual capital punishment weapon that Jesus entrusted with Church leaders to accomplish this task.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

Lets look at how you interpreted those words of Jesus. He was not talking about punishment, He was telling people not to act badly in the first place. His words were the modern day equivalent of a person saying something was a much fun as a sharp stick in the eye.

Regarding the binding,reread the binding verses and check the tense, was Jesus abdicating his future decision making ability to the humans or was He telling them they could bind what was bound in heaven? Also keep in perspective that a few verses later Jesus was calling Peter Satan, which could be taken in the meanings used by Matt. in the temptation or being the most generous to Peter, Jesus was calling Peter a hindrance and an obstacle to Jesus.

As far as the reference to cutting off, I can also find a number of references to killing people for adultery or the spiritual dangers of eating shrimp, am I am likely to find them in close proximity to your cutting references.

We work hard to twist the things that Jesus said or the OT had as law to promote violence and vengence and revenge. But in the end you don’t fry the least if you believe the least could be jesus in the guise of that poor bugger you want to see suffer so we can get closure.

Peace