D
diggerdomer
Guest
Many of Jesus’ teachings were received by his contemporaries as contrary to Scripture. The Church interprets Scripture.
- Status
D
d97c
Guest
Interesting dig, …you fail to realize that the same Church and church Popes and fathers and catachisms that once taught, for over one thousand years, that the state had the right, duty and scriptural basis to execute a murderer is the same Church (but different Pope) who decided to change WHEN it can be used, but then again NOT change the morality of it (see Evangelium Vitae.) So, thats why as a Catholic, and even according to the new Pope (see below), I may differ on the current take on death penalty.
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
As stated before, former Pope JP 2 and liberals in the Bishops’ conferences have brought forth a real problem child in terms of consistency. So what do you say about the Popes BEFORE JP 2 who taught that the death penalty was moral, proportional, and a duty…do we deal with that big problem by saying-----“OOOOOOOPPPPS, sorry about that . Have a nice day!”
You apparently think so.
Maybe a different thread will give you a chence to explain that one.
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
As stated before, former Pope JP 2 and liberals in the Bishops’ conferences have brought forth a real problem child in terms of consistency. So what do you say about the Popes BEFORE JP 2 who taught that the death penalty was moral, proportional, and a duty…do we deal with that big problem by saying-----“OOOOOOOPPPPS, sorry about that . Have a nice day!”
You apparently think so.
Maybe a different thread will give you a chence to explain that one.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I don’t fail to realize it. You can follow the Church (all of her, not just the parts you agree with) or not. Church teaching on this issue is pretty clear.
D
d97c
Guest
I think I’ll follow Cardinal Dulles when he wrote the following in SUPPORT of the death penalty
Read it !!
firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21
Read it !!
firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21
E
Ender
Guest
Do you think it means something other than what it says? I really don’t understand how you are interpreting it.
The Church has always recognized that the execution of the guilty by the state was an exception to the commandment that one should not kill and since what the Church teaches is not her own opinion but her understanding of God’s word it is quite clear she believes that the use of capital punishment is divinely taught.
Ender
4
4elise
Guest
I always felt that John Paul II spoke from the heart. He called it as it was and not what people wanted it to be or interpreted to be. I find peace in his words **The death penalty is unworthy of Gods love **and as I said before is primative in nature and in deed. I don’t see it clearly as others and do not believe God delegated his children to killing each other in his name. The message to us humans: leave the vengence department to the lord. .
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Saying capital punishment is a morally acceptable alternative (though not required) under some circumstances is vastly different than saying its divinely taught. As you note, it’s an exception not a rule.
Withholding the truth can be a morally acceptable alternative. That does not mean lying is divinely taught.
4
4elise
Guest
And some chose to go so far as to say that the current Catechism of the Catholic Church is wrong… that it is not possible for the Church to reflect the teaching of Christ to our current ability to ‘defend and protect people from an aggressor’ - that in fact it is that duty of the state to take a life for a life… however I don’t think we get to pick and chose what part of the Catechism we will agree with… IMHO - so in the west, where we have the ability to hold someone with a REAL life sentence this is more in keeping with the teaching of our Church.
D
d97c
Guest
This whole argument boils down to this, in my humble opinion: What makes the proclamation of the Pope and the Catachism that was written after Evan Vitae (Pope JP 2)any more “correct” “inspired” “authentic” 'infallible" than what the Church taught for 1,975 years about the death penality in numerous Papal statements, catachisms, or supported laws??? I think JP 2 expressed an opinion about the death penalty that is his and I really read his writings to the effect that he is SAYING it is his opnion on when the state ought to USE it. His specific support of the morality of the death penalty in Evan Vitae and the subsequent statement of Pppe Benedict make me darn sure Im right.
tldm.org/news7/Ratzinger.htm
“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
That ends it. I support the death penalty, and thats a “legitimate diversity.”
tldm.org/news7/Ratzinger.htm
“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
That ends it. I support the death penalty, and thats a “legitimate diversity.”
E
Ender
Guest
First of all, the Catechism does not contain the entire “teaching of the Church”; it is not the only document to consider if you want to understand what the Church teaches. Secondly, as far as picking and choosing goes, that is exactly what you are doing: you have chosen 2267 over everything else the Church teaches, including other passages in the same Catechism. I have said numerous times that 2267 conflicts with other teachings so all of us are in fact obliged to choose between them.
It is divinely taught that capital punishment is, like killing in self defense or war, an exception to the prohibition that one may not kill.
The rule - the commandment - is Thou shall not kill. That rule does not apply to executions. The rule for executions is that the State may employ them and I still have heard no explanation for why the command (rule) given in Gen 9:6 should not be followed.
Ender
F
fish90
Guest
Great Point.
To reiterate the point about legitimate diversity regarding capital punishment, please read:lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112709.html
You will not be denied communion should you disagree about capital punishment.
C
Cup_o_Joe
Guest
My opinion is paragraph 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I believe this is the reason for Canada to have abolished the death penalty in 1968, enough Catholics took a stand against it. I believe we can do the same with Euthanasia and Abortion.
4
4elise
Guest
I also think that the position of 2267 adds strength to our (the Church’s) position to be ALWAYS against Euthanasia and Abortion. I know others believe the exact opposite - because those who commit a capitol crime have taken a life - but WE can act collectively to speak for the value of life by speaking against capitol punishment when society can be protected - even the life of a killer is life, given the time to live out their natural life away from society may give them the time for repentance and salvation - something I believe we should also advocate for -
C
Cup_o_Joe
Guest
What I meant is that Catholics took a stand against the death penalty because we don’t need it. I think that we can someday do the same (take a stand together) to make laws to outlaw abortion assisted suicide and Euthenasia according to paragraphs 2270 to 2283.
4
4elise
Guest
I agree - sorry if that wasn’t clear - Catholics should lead to end Abortion, assisted suicide, euthenasia - and in the US I believe we should also lead to end the death penalty too!
Blessings
O
Onyx88
Guest
Code:
louise
D
d97c
Guest
“You will not be denied communion should you disagree about capital punishment.”
Welll…fishie, there is a reason you wont. You are of course alluding to the Kennedy who is a big pro abortionist (as are all the Kennedys) and was told by his Bishop not yo receive communion. Being pro abortion is alltogether different from being supportive of the death penalty. I keep citing what the Pope said about the difference and I will quote it again and site the link. You can as a catholic support the death penalty,you cant support abortion. Its that simple.
tldm.org/news7/Ratzinger.htm
Read paragraph 3…
and yes the death penalty is “needed.” If we had caught Hitler after WW2, yes it was “needed” that he be executed for his millions killed. It was needed because any other response, like keeping him in jail for the rest of his life, would have been a sham punishment that cried out for justice from the state.
Welll…fishie, there is a reason you wont. You are of course alluding to the Kennedy who is a big pro abortionist (as are all the Kennedys) and was told by his Bishop not yo receive communion. Being pro abortion is alltogether different from being supportive of the death penalty. I keep citing what the Pope said about the difference and I will quote it again and site the link. You can as a catholic support the death penalty,you cant support abortion. Its that simple.
tldm.org/news7/Ratzinger.htm
Read paragraph 3…
and yes the death penalty is “needed.” If we had caught Hitler after WW2, yes it was “needed” that he be executed for his millions killed. It was needed because any other response, like keeping him in jail for the rest of his life, would have been a sham punishment that cried out for justice from the state.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
It is a morally acceptable alternative, under certain circumstances, according to Catholic moral teaching. This in no way denies those who maintain that the death penalty (as well as self defense or any other means of taking human life) are contrary to the Christian faith. The Catholic faith supports both those who reject any/all violence and taking of human life as well as those who believe that under certain specific and limited circumstances the taking of human life may be morally acceptable.
This does not mean capital punishment is good in and of itself, nor does it mean that God approves of it as a good thing. Unless you can show us otherwise from Catholic teaching?
S
Shin
Guest
"The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.
They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”
". . . Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
. . . Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill.
Thus, we read: “I will kill and I will make to live.” It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.” And again: “For if thou dost that which is evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain. Because he is God’s minister.”
To Moses also it was said: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.” And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority."
St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church
St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Bible at the Council of Trent.
St. Thomas is echoed by the other doctors of the Church on this matter. St. Alphonsus, St. Augustine, St. Robert Bellarmine, etc. . .
The teaching of the Church has always been that the death penalty is acceptable, and for a variety of reasons, including for the sake of punishment, rather than alone for the protection of society.
A pope may inject his personal opinions into official declarations as to what is suitable for the times, but the timeless teaching of the Church does not change based upon these opinions. Also, whoever is the more recent and most modern Pope expressing an opinion does not mean simply because of the timing that it is a superior opinion to that of past popes, especially in the light of the majority’s teachings.
The doctrine of the Church does not change.
To reject the death penalty entirely at all times and places, and that it can be delegated to authorities in the government is in fact to reject the teachings of the Church.
They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”
". . . Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
. . . Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill.
Thus, we read: “I will kill and I will make to live.” It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.” And again: “For if thou dost that which is evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain. Because he is God’s minister.”
To Moses also it was said: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.” And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority."
St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church
St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Bible at the Council of Trent.
St. Thomas is echoed by the other doctors of the Church on this matter. St. Alphonsus, St. Augustine, St. Robert Bellarmine, etc. . .
The teaching of the Church has always been that the death penalty is acceptable, and for a variety of reasons, including for the sake of punishment, rather than alone for the protection of society.
A pope may inject his personal opinions into official declarations as to what is suitable for the times, but the timeless teaching of the Church does not change based upon these opinions. Also, whoever is the more recent and most modern Pope expressing an opinion does not mean simply because of the timing that it is a superior opinion to that of past popes, especially in the light of the majority’s teachings.
The doctrine of the Church does not change.
To reject the death penalty entirely at all times and places, and that it can be delegated to authorities in the government is in fact to reject the teachings of the Church.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Nonsense.
Depending, of course, on how one defines or understands “doctrine.”
Plenty of doctrines change. That’s just a fact.
- Status