Jesus didn’t care for the poor? What about the corporeal works of mercy? You know, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, comforting the sick, visiting those in prison? And then there was the Jubilee year in OT law. Social justice is all over the Scriptures!
Mr. Pepsi, or Pepcis, or whatever is doing a wonderful job of exemplifying the lunacy of some of the more radical Protestant sects.
This would imply that the Church had no position on capital punishment prior to Evangelium Vitae. I will admit to this however, neither 2267 nor EV 56 are supported by anything the Church has ever said on the subject, they basically appeared fully formed without development from any prior teaching.
That is a very strained understanding of what is actually a very straightforward paragraph.
Yes, that’s the same part of the Catechism of Trent where they were unambiguously supportive of the command given in Gen 9:6. As it says, it is because of the sacredness of human life - because man is made in the image of God - that the penalty for murder is so severe. That’s why Trent called the use of capital punishment “paramount obedience” to the command forbidding murder.
I have a view of justice as shaped by the Scriptures, Church teaching and tradition, 2000 years of European history as enriched by Christianity, and over thirty years of experience living in high-crime communities.
Apples and oranges. The proponents of abortion wish to kill the unborn for convenience or a misguided notion of selfish “individual rights” (reproductive rights, rights to one’s own body, etc). Those who support euthanasia wish to execute those whose only crime is being too ill, whereas illness is hardly a dangerous threat to the innocent of society. Genocide is committed by those who wish to exterminate X racial or ethnic or religious group to gain advantage by that group’s death, which they can surely view as necessary, but then again, human decisions do not define moral behavior.
That doesn’t make us sacred or holy. I do not subscribe to the modernist notion of the “dignity of man”; if we were innately holy, we would not need a savior. The sacred has no need of being justified in the Lord’s eyes or any need to follow His laws.
From the perspective of the innocent, who must cough up tax money to pay for their upkeep, it most certainly is coddling.
), weights to lift (making them more physically fit to re-offend upon release), porn and other salacious entertainment (so much for the chance to repent), and a roof over their heads that they don’t have to pay for, it is like unto coddling, yes.Based on this comment I thought you might be interested in the information provided below (follow the *data *link to see the actual cases).
I found that very interesting, thanks
Who said anything about turning them loose? It sure wasn’t me.I found that very interesting, thanks
I didn’t find it surprising, though. I found it sadly accurate. The story of those who’ve had to suffer the violations of repeat offenders in Oregon is played out in New Jersey or anywhere else criminals are turned loose on their host societies.
But try telling that to a bleeding heart. Might as well tell it to a wall.
As far as tax monies go, it is more expensive to execute than keep them in prison for tthe rest of their days. You again are basing your misguided opinion on fear and paranoia, not facts and reason.I have a view of justice as shaped by the Scriptures, Church teaching and tradition, 2000 years of European history as enriched by Christianity, and over thirty years of experience living in high-crime communities.
If you wish to think that to be “misguided”, that’s your opinion.
Apples and oranges. The proponents of abortion wish to kill the unborn for convenience or a misguided notion of selfish “individual rights” (reproductive rights, rights to one’s own body, etc). Those who support euthanasia wish to execute those whose only crime is being too ill, whereas illness is hardly a dangerous threat to the innocent of society. Genocide is committed by those who wish to exterminate X racial or ethnic or religious group to gain advantage by that group’s death, which they can surely view as necessary, but then again, human decisions do not define moral behavior.
The victims of the above are not actual threats to the innocent. Rapists and murderers (to use them as examples of dangerous criminals) are. Having lived in several communities where they are lightly punished, if at all, and seeing the unjust burden the innocent must endure when they are turned loose on society, I can safely say that such scum (yes, they are *scum, *those who murder and rape and violate) must be dealt with, simply and permanently, or else innocents are in danger.
We have a grave duty to protect the innocent.
That doesn’t make us sacred or holy. I do not subscribe to the modernist notion of the “dignity of man”; if we were innately holy, we would not need a savior. The sacred has no need of being justified in the Lord’s eyes or any need to follow His laws.
We all begin life with the potential to be holy or profane. That potential does not mean we are holy or will choose the holier way. If we make bad choices, we must fess up for them, and if we present a danger to civilized society, we must be dealt with.
From the perspective of the innocent, who must cough up tax money to pay for their upkeep, it most certainly is coddling.
From the perspective of the criminal, who will not be executed and who will not be truly rehabilitated, and who gets three square meals a day (more than many innocent poor in the world get
Prisons, furthermore, are nothing more than gated criminal communities. Many gangs either get their start in prison or continue to thrive behind prison walls, and find lots of fresh recruits willing to join up with them, or having to join for protection. That gang mentality is rarely left behind when the convict is released, and America’s gang problem has only gotten worse despite more gang members running afoul of the law and landing in jail. It is insane to perform an action repeatedly and expect different results than what one routinely gets, and it is insane to simply temporarily lock up dangerous thugs and expect crime to disappear.
It is criminally unjust to force the innocent to harbor and support dangerous criminals. Plenty of innocent lives are born everyday to hear the Good News and fill our pews. We don’t need to coddle vipers to make converts.
I don’t think that answered my question. I asked if there is a situation when it is required to be executed from a religions perspective. Is there?akoso:
Yes, whenever, and wherever, it is codified.PEPCIS:
akoso:
When is it required from a religious perspective? (as state laws can always change)
The death penalty was instituted by God. There is nothing wrong or immoral with the death penalty. If there was, then you’d have to say that God is immoral, and He is clearly not.
If you think that life in prison is considered “mercy to the guilty”, because it’s a lesser sentence than the death penalty, then I assume you’re against any sentencing at all that is less than the maximum permitted, because it is “mercy to the guilty” (which is cruelty to the innocent).
This is off-topic… but police are never allowed to use their guns offensively. Drawing a gun during a raid is done as a defensive precaution… so that they are prepared should the situation [read: raid] get out of hand. This is not at all an offensive approach.
Are you suggesting then that everyone who commits a murder should be locked up without the possibility of parole? If they are not going to be locked up until they die then the only other alternative is to turn them loose. Which are you advocating?
And precisely* “… because man is made in the image of God” *,] “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed…” (2660) I still don’t understand how you can ignore the plain meaning of this statement.
I am ignoring nothing. I am adhering to the consistent teaching of Jesus Christ. He preached repentance, mercy, forgiveness. Does any of this sound familiar at all? When interpreting Scripture, one must look at the canonical context, or else you will come to a flawed interpretation. If you accept this part of the Noahic Covenant as being in full force, then other aspects must be taken into account. You cannot just take the pieces you like and discard the rest. It is intellectually dishonest. My question I put to you is this: Is eating a rare steak a sin?
The Mother Church teaches that the death penalty, in practice, is never justified today. I would prefer to omit the “in practice” term and firmly hold that the death penalty is never justified.
If you would read my posts, instead of preaching the gospel of death you would know.
It can be justified in certain rare cases, but these cases are very rare indeed.
No it doesn’t. It simply means that if one wants to understand Church teaching regarding capital punishment (something Genesis has no position on), one should refer first to the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae. Not Genesis.
You can admit that, but it’s still just an opinion. Or…are you saying that the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church developed without any prior teaching?
The Church did not stop teaching, learning, and being guided by the Holy Spirit at Trent. Just like the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea taught unambiguously that bishops are not to move between dioceses. Church teaching does not and did not stop with Nicaea, Trent, or Vatican II.
Dear CWBetts,
The Mother Church does **not **teach that it is never justified.
The point I was trying to make is that all of these things result in the devaluation of human life. I am appalled by the lack of compassion on this thread, even for the innocent.