Where is the justice?

[Voco_proTatiano]

You said: ‘Forgiveness does not cancel our punishment.’

JPII disagrees with you. "At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing”.

Then either JPII is in error, or he is misunderstood.
There is a common error, in both Latin, and English, to confuse punishment with atonement. The two are not the same, atonement comes from the offendor, punishment comes from the offendee. Sometimes it is considered meaningful to use punishment to encourage atonement, but these are the methods of men.

You said: ‘we will receive undeserved mercy and forgiveness from God as well as deserved punishment for our sins.’

I said: ‘That too is nonsense.’

Paul VI disagrees with this. “That punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequently do even after the remission of guilt is clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory.”

Again, there is the appearance of error here. It is probably the same error, in that punishment and atonement are being confused.

I suggested: ‘Start by reading the Gospels. If they confuse you, try the harmonized Gospel St Victor found, which you can find on my site.’

You responded: ‘I try to conform my understanding of the Gospels to the teaching of the Church; perhaps you should try that approach.’

I consider this to be a grave error. Church teaching should conform to the Gospels, not v.v.

Ender

Some of the nonsense quoted, or more often misquoted, make me proud to be a heretic.
I remember though Our Lord was called a heretic, even a blasphemer.
I do not find myself in poor company.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Ender]

Then either JPII is in error, or he is misunderstood.

His comments seemed pretty straightforward; I don’t think misunderstanding them is the problem.

Church teaching should conform to the Gospels, not v.v.

Which came first, the Church or the Gospels? Shouldn’t whatever came second be considered a part of whatever came first?

Some of the nonsense quoted, or more often misquoted, make me proud to be a heretic.

Since you appear to claim the right to a personal interpretation of the bible, perhaps heretic is too strong a word … I think Protestant is the appropriate term. At least now I understand why you have been so indifferent to the Church documents I have referenced.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I said: ‘Then either JPII is in error, or he is misunderstood.’

In charity, perhaps we both see, or understand, what we expect to see or understand.
In charity, if I read nonsense, then I assume, not that the writer is a fool, but that the writer is using concepts which are foreign to me, or that in translation, a hydraulic ram has become a water goat.

I said: ‘Church teaching should conform to the Gospels, not v.v.’

You said: ‘Which came first, the Church or the Gospels? Shouldn’t whatever came second be considered a part of whatever came first?’

I have no doubt that some of the writings that became the Gospel(s), were written on the road, by a trained scribe, specially enrolled for the purpose.
Much of the Gospel(s) was the common currency of story tellers before the Church had crystalized.
No. I do not accept the primacy of the Church over the Gospel(s), any more than Our Lord accepted the primacy of Pharisaic tradition over the books of Moses.
Our Lord’s condemnation of ‘Tradition’ should be a warning to ALL.

I said: ‘Some of the nonsense quoted, or more often misquoted, make me proud to be a heretic.’

You said: ‘Since you appear to claim the right to a personal interpretation of the bible, perhaps heretic is too strong a word … I think Protestant is the appropriate term. At least now I understand why you have been so indifferent to the Church documents I have referenced.’

Ender

The term ‘protestant’ I find as offensive as does an Afro-American find the word ni****.
I do not consider the Pope to be evil or satanic, but a good man, seeking the Truth, and teaching it as seems proper to him, and yes, I do believe he is guided by the Holy Spirit.
However, inerrancy, and infallibility, to me conflict with free-will, and the inbuilt uncertainty of this universe. Even G_d cannot see tomorrow without breaking the crystal.
So call me heretic, not protestant.
Basicly, I am catholic, and more sympathetic to Rome than to Canterbury.

 

[Ender]

I do not accept the primacy of the Church over the Gospel(s)

I do not consider the Pope to be evil or satanic, but a good man, seeking the Truth, and teaching it as seems proper to him, and yes, I do believe he is guided by the Holy Spirit.
However, inerrancy, and infallibility, to me conflict with free-will, and the inbuilt uncertainty of this universe.

OK, let’s leave it at this: my arguments are based on what I believe the Church teaches. If you disagree with me because you think I have misinterpreted what the Church teaches then we can have a reasonable discussion but if you think the Church (or a pope) has erred then say so because we can have no rational debate at that point and there is really no sense in continuing.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

OK, let’s leave it at this: my arguments are based on what I believe the Church teaches. If you disagree with me because you think I have misinterpreted what the Church teaches then we can have a reasonable discussion but if you think the Church (or a pope) has erred then say so because we can have no rational debate at that point and there is really no sense in continuing.

Ender

Dear Friend,
I believe, that such problems as we really have are based on different interpretations of words, according to context.

This string, entitled: ‘Where is the justice’, incorrectly uses the word ‘justice’. What the poster is really asking is: Where is there proper judgement.

I do understand that in the context of LAW, ‘justice’ and ‘proper judgement’ mean similar things, but we should be talking of things better than the Law.

When Our Lord talks of Justice, he is using the sense of the Latin word ‘iustitia’, which means, as well as justice, uprightness and fairness, qualities expected of His followers, qualities we call Christian, and He told us not to stand in judgement, but to be compasionate, forgiving and merciful. Thus in a Christian context, ‘justice’ means all of these things.

We have a similar problem with ‘punishment’. This word is commonly misused as to exact due payment for sin, or debt. Punishment is even called the price if sin, as if it, in itself were some kind of currency. This may be the modern meaning due to misuse, but its original meaning was simply to apply pressure, either by incarceration, or by physical torment, or execution.
When the Church inflicts a punishment, it is to the purpose of causing the offendor to repent, and make repairation, or expiation: that is atonement. In this context, the Church seems to be doing what she believes G_d would do, to likewise guide the offendor to atonement. Punishment in this context would be better described as ‘stern guidance’. Punishment under Law is virtually identical with retribution. Indeed retribution derives from Latin ‘retribuere’, to restore, or repay. That is, to give back (evil), for that (evil) done. That is vengeance. The confusion here is between retribution and expiation. Retribution is from the offendee, expiation is from the offendor. Retribution is vengeance, expiation is atonement, or the road thereto.

Misuse of words is quite common. How many times have you heard ‘infer’ used, when the speaker meant ‘imply’.
You infer an idea from an implication, not vv.

How many people accuse Arabs of antisemitism, forgetting that Arabs too are Semites?

Yes, I am picky with words, but it is too easy to misuse a word, and turn the world on its head.

 

[RobHom]

Comparing Wisconsin with Texas is comparing apples to oranges.
How does WI compare to ND, SD, or MN? There you have more adequate comparisons. Why…look at the demographics. Simply put…the widwestern northern states have more “homogenous” populations, and believe it or not…the winters up there forestall most criminal activities.

Capital Punishment is not supposed to be a deterrent. It is quite simply the final removal of society’s least desirables permanently. It is essentially the same as the destruction of a rabid dog or a pit-bull that has mauled children.

I support Capital Punishment… as it is the final prevention of a murderer ever being released into society to murder again.

I do, however, have the expectation that the Law Enforcement and Judicial branches of our government have a most solemn duty to be 100% certain that the correct person is charged and 100% that the evidence proves 100% that the person or persons are guilty as charged. Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient for sentencing to the death penalty.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Comparing Wisconsin with Texas is comparing apples to oranges.
How does WI compare to ND, SD, or MN? There you have more adequate comparisons. Why…look at the demographics. Simply put…the widwestern northern states have more “homogenous” populations, and believe it or not…the winters up there forestall most criminal activities.

Capital Punishment is not supposed to be a deterrent. It is quite simply the final removal of society’s least desirables permanently. It is essentially the same as the destruction of a rabid dog or a pit-bull that has mauled children.

I support Capital Punishment… as it is the final prevention of a murderer ever being released into society to murder again.

I do, however, have the expectation that the Law Enforcement and Judicial branches of our government have a most solemn duty to be 100% certain that the correct person is charged and 100% that the evidence proves 100% that the person or persons are guilty as charged. Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient for sentencing to the death penalty.

Since you see this as neither deterrant not reformative, then you are in effect calling for euthanasia, referencing the rabid dog or dangerous pit-bull.
We know the Church’s attitude to euthanasia.

I still believe that separation until there is no further measurable risk is the bottom line, and that atonement should be offered by the performance of works involving real risk of death, such as minefield clearance, or mine or mountain rescue.

After some years doing such humanitarian work, if they should survive, they may become better persons, to the benefit of themselves, and to humanity.

 

[dessert]

I don’t mean to drag out this old thread but since I started it and it isn’t closed I would like to update it for anyone who is interested in the outcome.

Today’s paper 01-11-08
headlines ;** Charged**
www.GazetteXtra.com

He was charged this morning and so now the trial will begin ? and there may be some closure to this and since it has been a year who knows how long it will take.

Thanks for all listening and discussing the law and such, you have all been objective.
If you would like I can continue to update or it may get all on the TV maybe U-Tube. It is pretty sad what is happening today yet I think I am better able to handle it now. thanks to discussing this all on the forum and your prayers and support that went out immediately I felt it especially on the the prayer intentions, that thread opened up a lot of help to me as when I felt the most desolate I also went to pray for others. After that funeral I couldn’t attend a nother for a year and I just recently went to a couple and cried and I know I was getting over what had happened so now I go to funerals because someone has to be praying for those who are lost and hopefully this man will get some direction and prayer before his life ends. Sorry I am just going on. Thanks again!
Blessings in Christ. Peace