I’m just curious…was their a footnote to the speech when Jesus gave it that said “the previous only applies to the following people and groups…”?This verse does not apply to society our governements. If you were carry out the application of this verse to its logical absurdity, as relating to government, then courts would punish no one, even with fines. Instead we would reward criminals, the enemies of society.
Do you use this verse to propose that no one is ever punished for crime? If not, then it is meaningless in the context of this discussion and amounts to proof-texting.
This is a misrepresentation of God. It is easy to use God as authority and say what he would think. It is not so easy to back it up.…the basic premise is that the death penalty is just as much an affront to the plan of the creator (the author of all life) as an abortion, or a ‘mercy’ killing
Yes, but we must realize that justice is an attribute we must imitate.Are we not called to imitate Christ?
No footnote is needed when we know the audience. He was speaking to disciples and those wanting to learn, not to a body of people. Your personal interpretation is inconsitant and hypocritical. You use it to exclude the death penalty but want to retain incarceration, which is not a form of forgiveness. That is a most unique slant.I’m just curious…was their a footnote to the speech when Jesus gave it that said “the previous only applies to the following people and groups…”?
Forgiveness means giving up our right to get even…which is exactly what the death penalty is…it’s a far cry from incarceration which is a form of forgiveness and rehabilitation.
We should not listen to any group other than the Church for moral guidance. However, the Catechism and everything since has always made the subject one of prudence. Indeed, since the Church has historically supported the right to the death penalty, looking at what has changed is the only way to no longer support it. At the heart of the debate for the Catholic is whether or not it is still needed to keep society safe. If you do not gather information from experts in the field, then there is no data on which to base an intellegent opinion.First off, why exactly are you letting the USBP guide you in moral principles and not the Church? Just because the USBP has certain beliefs regarding the death penalty, that doesn’t mean they’re taking the correct moral position.
And I can show you were Jesus stopped the death penalty from being carried out…This is a misrepresentation of God. It is easy to use God as authority and say what he would think. It is not so easy to back it up.
I can show you where God ordained a death penalty in the Old Testament. Can you show me where he approved of abortion? If not, don’t be so quick to say that it is just as much an affront to Him.
Lest I get another diatribe for using the Old Testamen, I would like to point out that it is still part of the Bible. Relying on the New Testament and excluding the Old is a heresy that has long been rejected. We must understand the nature of Jesus from His time on Earth and His time “in the beginning.”
FYI - You can also look in Revelation and see that God believes in justice and mercy together.
Peregeino said:Yes, but we must realize that justice is an attribute we must imitate.
I have no stones, nor do I believe that one should be put to death for adultery.Perhaps you should put your rocks down.
Ahhh…so mercy only applies to adulterers then…gotcha.I have no stones, nor do I believe that one should be put to death for adultery.
Calling Christ’s words a ***“Logical absurdity”. ***…This verse does not apply to society our governements. If you were carry out the application of this verse to its logical absurdity,
Not only the death penalty, if you break into someone’s house and try to assault them, then being shot in the head by the homeowner will not be considered illegal in the US or a sin by the Church. Yes, the right to life is contingent vis a vis our behavior.The death penalty makes it seem like the right to life is contingent
I did not call Christ words a logical absurdity. I specifically refered to the application of the gospel that was quoted to governents and society. Such an application is anarchy and I do not believe Christ was an anarchist. Everyone once to bring God/Jesus as a witness to their side of an arguement. I pointed out why I do not think the scripture used applies to the death penalty. Jesus was not talking about death. If anyone can point to why this passage is properly applied to the death penalty and not incarceration, fines of probation, I am open.Calling Christ’s words a ***“Logical absurdity”. ***…
it’s fresh, it’s insulting, it fits right in our twisted world.
What other sin di the woman commit? I am pretty sure that it was adultery that they were stoning her for.Ahhh…so mercy only applies to adulterers then…gotcha.
Ahh…but that’s a situation where there is indeed an ‘immediate’ threat…thus self-defense makes sense and applies.Not only the death penalty, if you break into someone’s house and try to assault them, then being shot in the head by the homeowner will not be considered illegal in the US or a sin by the Church. Yes, the right to life is contingent vis a vis our behavior.
The church isn’t a finished product…it’s not like we haven’t had our share of ‘oops’ moments in the past (you know…crusades…believing the sun revolved around the Earth)…would it be that bizzare to think that are beliefs about the death penalty have evolved a bit?What other sin di the woman commit? I am pretty sure that it was adultery that they were stoning her for.
What I am questioning is your interpretation that this incident represents a gospel injuction prohibiting the death penalty. If it does, the Church has been in error 2000 years.
Where do you find that requirement in Church teaching Frommi,The Gospel injunction is ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’…so, it’s not an explicit prohibition of the death penalty…but it does require you to find an immaculate person to flip the switch.
Excellent responxse and I give you high marks.Hurray for ticking time bomb questions, but whatev, I’ll play along.
Frommi,The church isn’t a finished product…it’s not like we haven’t had our share of ‘oops’ moments in the past (you know…crusades…believing the sun revolved around the Earth)…would it be that bizzare to think that are beliefs about the death penalty have evolved a bit?.
Not when the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Magisterium is invoked.Frommi,
Do you hold that the Church may teach error on a matter of Faith or Morals. Or that it has done so at any point in it’s past?
Yes or No?
Both the Ordinary and the ExtraOrdinary Magisterium?Not when the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Magisterium is invoked.
I enjoy how you say “even Cardinal Bernadin”…which might as well be code for “even a Cardinal I think was too liberal”…I don’t think it’s fair for you to quote people that you otherwise would try to discount…Where do you find that requirement in Church teaching Frommi,
Even Cardinal Bernadin said that he held to the traditional Church teaching (he used “Thomistic”) on the Death Penalty.
If anything, all Christ’s command would require to “flip the switch” is someone who has just been Absolved in the Sacrament of Confession.
Such a person, by definition, is without sin.
What exactly are you trying to set me up for here?Both the Ordinary and the ExtraOrdinary Magisterium?