When or is the death penalty alright?

[Ender]

I am adhering to the consistent teaching of Jesus Christ. He preached repentance, mercy, forgiveness. Does any of this sound familiar at all?

Did Christ teach anything about charity and rash judgment? Do you realize how often you respond to my arguments with insults?

When interpreting Scripture, one must look at the canonical context, or else you will come to a flawed interpretation.

I don’t interpret scripture; I leave that to the Church. What I have been doing is quoting the Church’s interpretations, not inventing my own.

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.

I agree with that.

My question I put to you is this: Is eating a rare steak a sin?

No. What is forbidden in Gen 9:4 is not eating meat (bloody or otherwise) but eating blood.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

If one wants to understand the Church’s teaching I think it would be important to study everything she has taught. The Catechism is not the origin of Church doctrine, it is simply a summary of doctrines that have originated elsewhere. Nor do I cite Genesis: I cite the Church citing Genesis. It is not my opinion of Genesis I present, I’m simply identifying the Church’s interpretation.

Ender:

diggerdomer:

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.

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?

My statement is not opinion; it is fact which you could determine for yourself if you searched through Church documents. And surely you know I am not saying that “the Catechism” developed without any prior teaching; that comment was directed specifically at section 2267.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

Did Christ teach anything about charity and rash judgment? Do you realize how often you respond to my arguments with insults?
I don’t interpret scripture; I leave that to the Church. What I have been doing is quoting the Church’s interpretations, not inventing my own.
I agree with that.
No. What is forbidden in Gen 9:4 is not eating meat (bloody or otherwise) but eating blood.

Ender

If the meat is bloody, your are eating blood. reading the passage in question in its context, you will see that these verses are not actually part of the Noahic Covenant. The Noahic Covenant is a renewal of the Adamic Covenant which come later. This means that Genesis 9:6 was abrogated by the subsequent Covenants. The Mosaic was abrogated by the New Covenant. Therefore this particular section is no longer in full force, but the take away is (which is what 2260 of the CCC actually states) that life is absolutely sacred. Thus lafe should not be taken unless absolutely necessary, which is what is put forth in 2267. Now perhaps the contortions and verbal gymnastics can stop to try to defend this barbaric practice.

 

[diggerdomer]

If one wants to understand the Church’s teaching I think it would be important to study everything she has taught. The Catechism is not the origin of Church doctrine, it is simply a summary of doctrines that have originated elsewhere. Nor do I cite Genesis: I cite the Church citing Genesis. It is not my opinion of Genesis I present, I’m simply identifying the Church’s interpretation.
My statement is not opinion; it is fact which you could determine for yourself if you searched through Church documents. And surely you know I am not saying that “the Catechism” developed without any prior teaching; that comment was directed specifically at section 2267.

Ender

Well if 2267 developed without any prior teaching, whose to say other parts didn’t as well?

 

[Lycorth]

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.

You are being lied to. Do not believe everything you hear.

Simple common sense dictates that a noose or a bullet costs orders of magnitude less than providing food, clothes, sanitation, and entertainment for hundreds of thousands of violent, dangerous thugs at the expense of the innocent of society, who are oftentimes poor and get no such support or help in their lives.

For any who try to argue that life is not sacred: The Catholic Church definitively teaches that all human life is sacred. If you deny the sanctity of life, you have yourself embraced the culture of death, rather thin fight against it. I implore you to study and learn the Faith. By denying the sanctity of life you will lead people astray from the true teachings of the Church. If you want evidence from a magesterial document, I present you with the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

Every life is sacred. Although actions may be profane, the life itself is inherently good by virtue of the goodness of God.

Life has the potential to be good. It is not automatically holy. This is not the consistent teaching of the Church throughout its history but a non-dogmatic Vatican II novelty. The Church didn’t begin at Vatican II.

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent (emphasis mine):

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

Case closed.

 

[Ender]

This means that Genesis 9:6 was abrogated by the subsequent Covenants.

This would mean that the Council of Trent was wrong and the Church taught error for (at least) the 300+ years when the Catechism of Trent was taught. The Church, however, has never held that Gen 9:6 has been negated.

Therefore this particular section is no longer in full force, but the take away is (which is what 2260 of the CCC actually states) that life is absolutely sacred.

And why is life sacred? Because man is made in the image of God. And which scripture verse tells us that: Gen 9:6.

Now perhaps the contortions and verbal gymnastics can stop to try to defend this barbaric practice.

If the practice is barbaric then the Church has been barbaric for 2000 years. You keep objecting to my “verbal gymnastics” without acknowledging that all of my comments are citations of Church teachings. It is not my position you reject but the Church’s. Nor are the gymnastics being employed of my making: you may believe that Gen 9:6 has been abrogated but you can’t point to anything the Church has said to support your position, nor is there anything to support your contention that only half of 2260 is valid and the Church doesn’t really mean what she says in the other half.

Ender

 

[portarica]

A couple of things, the church has recognized that the OT is a more developed text than the OT.

While saying that means the NT is different from the OT, it means that it is not really different.

Sort of like appropriateness of timing. We don’t worry about trichinosis now so it now longer applys, same for shrimp.

But the church still has to hang onto the things that have been developed because the church has also said that everything is still the word of God, so in an attempt to have the things that are now false to still be true they are conditiotionalized.

The church has painted itself into some corners in the past and this is one example of how the church has installed some doors instead of acknowledging the obvious.

Peace

 

[diggerdomer]

Life has the potential to be good. It is not automatically holy. .

Hmm. I am not sure the Catholic Church agrees with you.

CCC 299:

Because God creates through wisdom, his creation is ordered: “You have arranged all things by measure and number and weight.” The universe, created in and by the eternal Word, the “image of the invisible God”, is destined for and addressed to man, himself created in the “image of God” and called to a personal relationship with God. Our human understanding, which shares in the light of the divine intellect, can understand what God tells us by means of his creation, though not without great effort and only in a spirit of humility and respect before the Creator and his work. Because creation comes forth from God’s goodness, it shares in that goodness - “And God saw that it was good. . . very good”- for God willed creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him. On many occasions the Church has had to defend the goodness of creation, including that of the physical world.

CCC 1930-1931:

Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that “everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as ‘another self,’ above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity.” No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a “neighbor,” a brother.

CCC 2258:

“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

 

[Ender]

CCC 2258: God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an **innocent **human being."

No one disputes this … but it is the Church herself which makes the distinction between the rights of the innocent and the rights of the guilty. As Pius XII said (1944):

“God is the sole lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty.”

Ender

 

[Lycorth]

Hmm. I am not sure the Catholic Church agrees with you.

CCC 299:

CCC 1930-1931:

CCC 2258:

It is not the Church’s job to agree with me, but rather I with it.

Did you not read my previous post?

 

[CWBetts]

This would mean that the Council of Trent was wrong and the Church taught error for (at least) the 300+ years when the Catechism of Trent was taught. The Church, however, has never held that Gen 9:6 has been negated.
And why is life sacred? Because man is made in the image of God. And which scripture verse tells us that: Gen 9:6.
If the practice is barbaric then the Church has been barbaric for 2000 years. You keep objecting to my “verbal gymnastics” without acknowledging that all of my comments are citations of Church teachings. It is not my position you reject but the Church’s. Nor are the gymnastics being employed of my making: you may believe that Gen 9:6 has been abrogated but you can’t point to anything the Church has said to support your position, nor is there anything to support your contention that only half of 2260 is valid and the Church doesn’t really mean what she says in the other half.

Ender

It was abrogated my Mosaic Law. Study the Scriptures. The key to theology is meditation on the Sacred Page. The Church teaches the the death penalty is to be discouraged in 2267 of the Catechism, which you seemed to have crossed out with a marker, because you don’t agree with it. What else have you rejected? The cafeteria is closed.

 

[Lycorth]

It was abrogated my Mosaic Law. Study the Scriptures. The key to theology is meditation on the Sacred Page. The Church teaches the the death penalty is to be discouraged in 2267 of the Catechism, which you seemed to have crossed out with a marker, because you don’t agree with it. What else have you rejected? The cafeteria is closed.

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent (emphasis mine):

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

Case closed.

The only things that are being rejected are Vatican II novelties that do not jive with prior established Church teaching.

 

[diggerdomer]

It is not the Church’s job to agree with me, but rather I with it.

Did you not read my previous post?

Yes, I did.

Did you read the Catechism passages?

 

[diggerdomer]

The only things that are being rejected are Vatican II novelties that do not jive with prior established Church teaching.

Vatican II is Church teaching whether or not you consider it novel.

 

[portarica]

The timing of Trent was concurrent with the inquisition. The church needed some sort of spiritual authority to allow for the death penalty for heretics.

Now we certainly ( i hope) think killing people for what they believe is absurd and unChristlike.

Peace

 

[Ender]

It was abrogated my Mosaic Law.

Do you seriously believe that Moses abrogated the covenant God made with Noah? Besides, given that Mosaic law specified the death penalty for a good many sins other than murder it should be obvious that it did not abolish that method of punishment.

Study the Scriptures. The key to theology is meditation on the Sacred Page.

For me, the key is to study what the Church teaches. While I try to understand scripture I am very careful not to interject my own interpretations.

The Church teaches the the death penalty is to be discouraged in 2267 of the Catechism, which you seemed to have crossed out with a marker, because you don’t agree with it.

It is true that I don’t agree with it. However, since 2267 is not doctrine but rather the personal opinion of JPII, we have no obligation to accept it.

Ener

 

[Lycorth]

Yes, I did.

Did you read the Catechism passages?

Yes, I read them. They contradict the Catechism of Trent, which is also Church teaching, and I find that disturbing.

Vatican II is Church teaching whether or not you consider it novel.

I question that in light of the 1960+ years that came before.

All of a sudden, the death penalty is “rarely justifiable”, after over nineteen centuries of teaching that it does have a place? Right.

 

[CWBetts]

Do you seriously believe that Moses abrogated the covenant God made with Noah? Besides, given that Mosaic law specified the death penalty for a good many sins other than murder it should be obvious that it did not abolish that method of punishment.
For me, the key is to study what the Church teaches. While I try to understand scripture I am very careful not to interject my own interpretations.
It is true that I don’t agree with it. However, since 2267 is not doctrine but rather the personal opinion of JPII, we have no obligation to accept it.

Ener

The “meditation on the sacred page” line is not my own. Rather, it caomes from St. Thomas Aquinas, I believe.
Yo do have the obligation to give your assent to the teachings by the Church, even if those teachings are not part of the infallible magesterium. In other words, you cannot simply choose to ignore the statement that the death penalty is to be discouraged, because such statement does not fit your warped sense of justice. The reason that the Church waited to discourage the death penalty was because technology had not sufficiently progressed to protect the society. The simple fact is that life in prison without parole satisfies all the criteria of justice, and the death penalty is in violation of the United States Constitution.

 

[Lycorth]

The “meditation on the sacred page” line is not my own. Rather, it caomes from St. Thomas Aquinas, I believe.
Yo do have the obligation to give your assent to the teachings by the Church, even if those teachings are not part of the infallible magesterium.

If a teaching is not infallibly proclaimed, and if it contradicts past teachings (which were issued infallibly), then I question whether or not we have to obey it at all.

In other words, you cannot simply choose to ignore the statement that the death penalty is to be discouraged, because such statement does not fit your warped sense of justice.

It is not warped. It is traditional, logical, and infinitely more charitable as regards the safety of the society the criminal has violated.

The reason that the Church waited to discourage the death penalty was because technology had not sufficiently progressed to protect the society.

We cannot rely on technology to save us from ourselves.

As far as social protection is concerned, it has been achieved much more through proper application of the death penalty rather than its abrogation. Life in any community where the death penalty is not applied where it ought to be is proof enough of this.

The simple fact is that life in prison without parole satisfies all the criteria of justice, and the death penalty is in violation of the United States Constitution.

Neither are remotely true, and the US Constitution is not a teaching of the Church.

 

[d97c]

The death penalty has been Constitutional in the US since 1976. It was un-Constitutional from 72 to 76. Then the states changed their process and the USSC said it was ok in
Gregg v Georgia, 1976.
law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gregg.html