You Shall NOT Kill!

[donsnow]

Good morning everyone,

First please let me thank everyone for their help in trying to understand this more deeply. My sincerest thanks are to Chaunceygardner, donsnow, and ByzCath.

I have been searching and searching and then searching some more at the Holy See web site to try and understand this more clearly.
I would like to share with all of you something I found and would like to get your feedback on it.

This is taken from the Evangelium vitae, Ioannes Paulus PP. II,

The bolded part is what I believe is what I am begining to understand. My question is are we called to follow Jesus Christ to this extent or not?

I have attached the link to this Chapter III titled “You Shall Not Kill.”
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM

Or am I reading this incorrectly?

Always praying and pondering

Good morning, simple soul -

Regarding heroic love renouncing one’s life to abstain from self-defense. I think that’s a matter regarding freedom of choice. If one’s love is deep enough, and it’s not a suicidal death wish, then that is a noble thing. Also, loving oneself and others as oneself, it’s freedom of choice whether or not to kill a killer before he can kill another or oneself. We have freedom of choice and freedom to accept the consequences of our choices. I have learned, through a fortunate accident (I was being beaten by one of three people in my cab, and sure I would die. I drew my pistol, put it in the face of the aggressor and pulled the trigger. “Click”. His eyes were wide, mouth open and he ran away. So did the other two. Which surprised me, because when pistol misfired, I was sure they would kill me.
Later, in another cab (the cab of the beating had been totalled) I was enveloped by a wonderous joy, that I had won, I was not dead. Then, that teenager’s face, eyes wide and mouth open, came to mind. I realized, if my pistol had not misfired, I would be forever remembering his face much differently…mutilated by the gunshot. Then, wonder of wonders, I was filled with divine joy, that I had not killed him. I was glad he was alive. I realized then, I am not put on this planet to kill people, but to help them. I quit carrying a firearm from '81 to 2002. Then, in time of war, I decided to carry again. Until 2006, when the lesson again moved me to disarm myself. I now have no firearm. All this is personal.)

I included the personal story to explain that each of us have different experiences. I don’t judge those who kill in self-defense, that’s their choice. I don’t judge those who kill in battle, that’s their duty. When I was in 'Corps and again in USNR, I had no choice to refrain from killing. But, the grace of God kept me from combat. Neither do I judge those criminals who kill for the love of it or to gain money; because, there for the grace of God go I.
There for the grace of God goes everybody, because I submit that everybody is capable of killing, depending on the motive.

 

[simple_soul]

Good morning, simple soul -

Regarding heroic love renouncing one’s life to abstain from self-defense. I think that’s a matter regarding freedom of choice. If one’s love is deep enough, and it’s not a suicidal death wish, then that is a noble thing. Also, loving oneself and others as oneself, it’s freedom of choice whether or not to kill a killer before he can kill another or oneself. We have freedom of choice and freedom to accept the consequences of our choices. I have learned, through a fortunate accident (I was being beaten by one of three people in my cab, and sure I would die. I drew my pistol, put it in the face of the aggressor and pulled the trigger. “Click”. His eyes were wide, mouth open and he ran away. So did the other two. Which surprised me, because when pistol misfired, I was sure they would kill me.
Later, in another cab (the cab of the beating had been totalled) I was enveloped by a wonderous joy, that I had won, I was not dead. Then, that teenager’s face, eyes wide and mouth open, came to mind. I realized, if my pistol had not misfired, I would be forever remembering his face much differently…mutilated by the gunshot. Then, wonder of wonders, I was filled with divine joy, that I had not killed him. I was glad he was alive. I realized then, I am not put on this planet to kill people, but to help them. I quit carrying a firearm from '81 to 2002. Then, in time of war, I decided to carry again. Until 2006, when the lesson again moved me to disarm myself. I now have no firearm. All this is personal.)

I included the personal story to explain that each of us have different experiences. I don’t judge those who kill in self-defense, that’s their choice. I don’t judge those who kill in battle, that’s their duty. When I was in 'Corps and again in USNR, I had no choice to refrain from killing. But, the grace of God kept me from combat. Neither do I judge those criminals who kill for the love of it or to gain money; because, there for the grace of God go I.
There for the grace of God goes everybody, because I submit that everybody is capable of killing, depending on the motive.

Dear Don,

Thank you for sharing.
I believe I needed to hear this. It helps a lot with some fears that I have been fighting with.

 

[catholicsuffer]

Exodus 20: 13
You shall not kill

And then as you continue reading it mentions reasons to stone people to death!!

 

[Ender]

My response was to “how we know what Jesus taught”? First, on this topic, very little interpretation is needed as he gave us the answer clearly, completely and often.

I believe we know what Jesus taught by knowing what the Church teaches. My objective in asking the question was to point out that your position on this topic, while it may be what you believe Jesus taught, is clearly not what the Church teaches.

As to clarifying my position, it is simply to follow the commandments of Jesus. And on this one, I can not see room for much dispute.

My position is to follow the teaching of the Church. That you and I disagree seems to be pretty sure evidence that your position is not that of the Church (assuming that my understanding of her teaching is correct).

One cannot interpret the fifth commandment as prohibiting killing" - Ender

“**Cannot”? **That statement is exactly what I was pointing out earlier regarding how imperfect humans redefine or reinterpret clear and concise scripture to fit their own shortcomings.

And your statement is exactly what I am pointing out: that your position disagrees with what the Church teaches since it is the Church who defines three specific cases where killing is not prohibited. The Church interprets the fifth commandment as prohibiting murder or unjustifiable killing … not all killing.

We WANT to be able to kill others, so we say that the fifth commandment and Jesus do not say what they clearly say. Thanks again for proving my thesis. In my OVERALL reading of scripture, as cited in an earlier post, and of the CURRENT teaching of the Church as evidenced by the Catechism, YOUR statement cannot be supported. We are not talking about only murder; we are talking about taking a human life.

Even if you excluded capital punishment (which I dispute), the Church in the current catechism still allows killing in self defense and just wars. The Church does not today and never has taught that the fifth commandment was a complete prohibition against all killing.

Yet you want to backtrack and say that Jesus did not really say what He obviously did say about obeying the fifth commandment, much less what He said about taking it to a higher Christian level. **WHY? **You really need to ask yourself **why you need to think that way? **

I think that way because that’s what the Church teaches.

Ender

 

[chaunceygardner]

I believe we know what Jesus taught by knowing what the Church teaches. My objective in asking the question was to point out that your position on this topic, while it may be what you believe Jesus taught, is clearly not what the Church teaches.

So, if I am correct in understanding what Jesus taught, then Church doctrine is in error.

My position is to follow the teaching of the Church. That you and I disagree seems to be pretty sure evidence that your position is not that of the Church (assuming that my understanding of her teaching is correct).

Ditto what I wrote above. And I think your parenthetical comment is the key, that your position may not be that of the Church.

And your statement is exactly what I am pointing out: that your position disagrees with what the Church teaches since it is the Church who defines three specific cases where killing is not prohibited. The Church interprets the fifth commandment as prohibiting murder or unjustifiable killing … not all killing.
Even if you excluded capital punishment (which I dispute), the Church in the current catechism still allows killing in self defense and just wars. The Church does not today and never has taught that the fifth commandment was a complete prohibition against all killing.
I think that way because that’s what the Church teaches.

Ender

This is perplexing. If given a choice between what Jesus teaches and what the Catholic Church (or any church) teaches, then I would go with what Jesus says. And what He says, as has been demonstrated in prior posts, seems clear and unequivocal.

Yet, when I read what the Church’s Catechism says, as stated earlier, I see it saying substantially repeating the words of Jesus. Here as a refresher is part of what the Church teaches, from #53 in Chapter III:

Human life is thus given a sacred and inviolable character, which reflects the inviolability of the Creator himself. Precisely for this reason God will severely judge every violation of the commandment “You shall not kill”, the commandment which is at the basis of all life together in society.

And there are several other statements like this one, as has been noted.

So, you continue to prove my thesis, not that the Church is in disagreement with what Jesus taught, but that PEOPLE (like you) are in disagreeement with both Jesus and the Church. People are unwilling to accept and live by the clear commandments of God (a very risky proposition, according to the quote above), which are further backed up by Catholic teaching.

It is an obvious human weakness, that we are so blind to what should be so obvious. And sadly, if we HAD followed that clear commandment, millions and millions of people would not have died violently at the hands of their fellow human beings, many of whom unaccountably called themselves Christian.

 

[Ender]

So, if I am correct in understanding what Jesus taught, then Church doctrine is in error.

Yes. Or, as I think more likely, the other way around.

Ditto what I wrote above. And I think your parenthetical comment is the key, that your position may not be that of the Church.

This is where the debate should focus: what does the Church teach?

This is perplexing. If given a choice between what Jesus teaches and what the Catholic Church (or any church) teaches, then I would go with what Jesus says.

I don’t think you recognize the significance of a claim that the Church misunderstands what Christ taught. If that is true then there is literally no reason to believe anything the Church teaches. She claims that by divine mandate she is the sole interpreter of God’s word; your contention that she teaches something directly counter to what Christ taught demolishes that claim and all of her other claims along with it.

Yet, when I read what the Church’s Catechism says, as stated earlier, I see it saying substantially repeating the words of Jesus. *Precisely for this reason God will severely judge every violation of the commandment *“You shall not kill”, the commandment which is at the basis of all life together in society. (CCC 53)

This only shows the seriousness of violating this commandment; it says nothing at all about what the Church believes the commandment to be saying. There is a very clear explanation, by the way, in the Catechism of Trent:

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 Church does not now and never has taught that a lawful execution by a State was a violation of the fifth commandment.

So, you continue to prove my thesis, not that the Church is in disagreement with what Jesus taught, but that PEOPLE (like you) are in disagreeement with both Jesus and the Church.

Your opinion is contrary to what the Church teaches; she does not intepret Christ’s teaching the way you do.

Ender

 

[catholicsuffer]

So, if I am correct in understanding what Jesus taught, then Church doctrine is in error.
This is perplexing. If given a choice between what Jesus teaches and what the Catholic Church (or any church) teaches, then I would go with what Jesus says. And what He says, as has been demonstrated in prior posts, seems clear and unequivocal.

When I read You Shall Not Kill and then I read what it says afterwards about stoning people to death, I do not say that the bible contradicts itself and therefore is not true.
No, I say I am missing something and do not have an understanding. When the Catholic Church teaches something I do not understand, I know her to be True, The Bride of Christ, and I pray that the Holy Spirit will teach me the TRUTH, so that my mind can be straight(that is have higher thoughts–best way to describe it is to say it is beauty). This is call seeking wisdom and if ever given you would know exactly why the Prophets in the Old Convenant use very descriptive writing to describe wisdom.
.

, when I read what the Church’s Catechism says, as stated earlier, I see it saying substantially repeating the words of Jesus. Here as a refresher is part of what the Church teaches, from #53 in Chapter III: And there are several other statements like this one, as has been noted.

So, you continue to prove my thesis, not that the Church is in disagreement with what Jesus taught, but that PEOPLE (like you) are in disagreeement with both Jesus and the Church. People are unwilling to accept and live by the clear commandments of God (a very risky proposition, according to the quote above), which are further backed up by Catholic teaching.

Could it be you who are misinterpreting the Church stance:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

Source: va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Sorry if I’ve been pretty behind this thread, I haven’t had a lot of time on my hands you see.

Mass murderers, Hitler, were all Hell bound. That’s terrible. We might feel sorry that they didn’t take time to repent and turn from their wicked ways, but went to perdition. That’s in the first place.

While it does seem more compassionate to feel sorry for their rejection, what is wrong if one were to celebrate their demise as a triumph of God’s justice? What is so wrong in celebrating the death of a villain who has received the righteous consequence of his unrepentance? Won’t it prove that God’s laws are not flawed compared to man’s?

We don’t know, in the second place, about mass murderers, if they turned from their wicked ways in prison and started doing good works in prison with remorse and Christian charity. It’s really best not to judge.
And, of course, there’s always Purgatory.

I’m simply presenting a what-if scenario of people who have no intent on asking for pardon and repenting for their crimes and would have no intent to do so for the remainder of their reprobate lives.

I’ve already conceded that such people are near impossible to find these days but… what if?

I think we should feel remorse for any life that is taken, as well as for the circumstances (as you describe) that result in that life being taken. Does taking one more life offset any of the lives already lost? Jesus tells us no.

It would certainly avenge them and, if you believe in restless spirits, finally put them at ease. Speaking of avenging the unjustly slaughtered, this reminds me of Revelations 6:10

They cried out in a loud voice, “How long will it be, holy and true master, before you sit in judgment and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?”

I don’t think the problem is understanding “to what extent we limit acts” as much as it is applying what we know in our hearts to be the Way. Exceptions to the commandments of Christ, and our arguing about them, spotlight our human weakness, our desire to apply flawed human rules to dilute God’s rules.

Or could it be that both our hearts and minds are flawed compared to God’s and we cannot see the true logic and morality behind His rules. On one hand we can be too legalistic, making too much use of “cold” logic, and hasty in judging others. On the other hand though, we can be pitifully naive which does nothing but make us weak and easy prey for both our enemies and for those who seek advantage over us.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Could it be you who are misinterpreting the Church stance?

Lost Wanderer:

could it be that both our hearts and minds are flawed compared to God’s?

It seems to come down to how we interpret the Church’s stance on the fifth commandment. The applicable paragraphs from the Catechism have been quoted several times here and in other threads, and used to support different positions. I do not argue with what the Church teaches, ONLY with how WE as flawed humans apply it. My response to the second quote above is “YES”.

The sections on “legitimate defense” are used to support killing others. The possibility of killing someone in self defense, if that is the “last resort” and not the initial intent, and not the result of excessive force, is acceptable. And the death penalty is acceptable if it is the "only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor."

Fair enough.

But to be honest before God, we must ask ourselves how often do we go BEYOND this teaching? How many times do we find reasons and excuses for NOT living up to what the Church teaches, and even less what Jesus teaches? How many people die violent deaths who are not being killed in self defense, or to defend and protect other human lives? How many innocent people do we kill to try to exterminate one truly evil person?

**“Lost Wanderer” **says vengence is good! Jesus explicitly said the opposite! I will stand with Him on this one.

I don’t see anywhere in the Church’s teaching or in the words of Jeus that it is okay to kill, harm or hate others because of their skin color, their ethnicity, their religion, their beliefs, for revenge, or because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet that is what has happened throughout human history, even in today’s supposedly enlightened times, and we act like God doesn’t care.

Well, I for one think God DOES care, which is why He sent Jesus to emphasize to us how He expects us to live. We didn’t have it right then, and we STILL don’t. The Church’s understanding of what God expects has certainly increased (through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, perhaps?), but those who purport to follow its teachings are still in the Dark Ages of understanding. Why?

As I read through these threads, I am amazed that so many people worry that God will condemn them for some of the most inconsequential and unimportant reasons, but will easily forgive them for not following His most important commandments. And even publically advocate breaking them! A very strange theology.

 

[Ender]

**“Lost Wanderer” **says vengence is good! Jesus explicitly said the opposite! I will stand with Him on this one.

Vengeance is denied to the individual but (properly understood) is the obligation of the State.

• Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty *to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)

He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Aquinas ST II/II 108, 1 ad 1)

As I read through these threads, I am amazed that so many people worry that God will condemn them for some of the most inconsequential and unimportant reasons, but will easily forgive them for not following His most important commandments. And even publically advocate breaking them! A very strange theology.

The Church could hardly be more explicit in explaining her position: the execution of a criminal by the State after a fair trial is not a violation of the commandment that Thou Shalt Not Murder. That you don’t accept this doesn’t make it any the less true.

"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." (Catechism of Trent)

Ender

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Vengeance is denied to the individual but (properly understood) is the obligation of the State.

• Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty ***to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)

He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Aquinas ST II/II 108, 1 ad 1)
The Church could hardly be more explicit in explaining her position: the execution of a criminal by the State after a fair trial is not a violation of the commandment that Thou Shalt Not Murder. That you don’t accept this doesn’t make it any the less true.

"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." (Catechism of Trent)

Ender

It seems that chaunceygardner holds the view that God’s Church can teach error, this is something we went at earlier in this thread but I learned it was a lost cause and gave up.

When one raises themselves above God’s Church in authority anything is possible for them.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

But to be honest before God, we must ask ourselves how often do we go BEYOND this teaching? How many times do we find reasons and excuses for NOT living up to what the Church teaches, and even less what Jesus teaches? How many people die violent deaths who are not being killed in self defense, or to defend and protect other human lives? How many innocent people do we kill to try to exterminate one truly evil person?

You assume that just because there’s a chance of collateral damage, we would not care? Think again. I myself, should I ever give in to a more murderous desire for revenge, would still ensure that nobody else gets involved. “It’s just between me and him.” is what they say. Pacifists are always misguided when they present those who retaliate as mindless killers who don’t care about sacrificing others for their revenge. Has it ever occurred to you that one can just focus on the sole offender? If a man loses his loved ones to a killer, it actually makes more sense to kill the killer instead of the killer’s own loved ones you know. The loved ones have not done anything but the killer has done everything to deserve his demise.

**“Lost Wanderer” **says vengence is good! Jesus explicitly said the opposite! I will stand with Him on this one.

I don’t see anywhere in the Church’s teaching or in the words of Jeus that it is okay to kill, harm or hate others because of their skin color, their ethnicity, their religion, their beliefs, for revenge, or because they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet that is what has happened throughout human history, even in today’s supposedly enlightened times, and we act like God doesn’t care.

I would like to thank Ender for answering this skewed interpretation of what I said. He is right chaunce. The days that God directly intervened by raining His wrath upon the wicked are over. However, that does not mean He won’t use people as His new instruments of justice. That’s why we have police and judges… and perhaps normal people as well if there are circumstances that allow it.

If only such systems of man weren’t so easily corrupted…

 

[chaunceygardner]

You assume that just because there’s a chance of collateral damage, we would not care? Think again. I myself, should I ever give in to a more murderous desire for revenge, would still ensure that nobody else gets involved. “It’s just between me and him.” is what they say. Pacifists are always misguided when they present those who retaliate as mindless killers who don’t care about sacrificing others for their revenge. Has it ever occurred to you that one can just focus on the sole offender? If a man loses his loved ones to a killer, it actually makes more sense to kill the killer instead of the killer’s own loved ones you know. The loved ones have not done anything but the killer has done everything to deserve his demise.

Retaliate is a good choice of words. I think that is where we read things differently. I don’t see where personal retaliation is an acceptable response, according to what Jesus clearly tells us. Perhaps you do.

Almost every day we can read or hear news stories of people who have “retaliated” against others for real or imagined offenses, and who often take innocent lives in the process. We can’t all be “Harry Callahans” and mete out justice fairly to those we determine to be in the wrong. That kind of attitude and behavior just does not equate with the clear commands of Jesus.

ByzCath:

It seems that chaunceygardner holds the view that God’s Church can teach error, this is something we went at earlier in this thread but I learned it was a lost cause and gave up.

When one raises themselves above God’s Church in authority anything is possible for them.

No, I think the Church’s teaching is in line with what Jesus commanded us to do, as I clearly stated in my last post. I think people (including many Catholics) don’t FOLLOW those teachings or commandments. I am not raising myself above God or the Church, I am wondering why people can’t bring themselves UP to the level of what Jesus clearly expects of us and the Church teaches? Some people are “dumbing down” or “watering down” these teachings to fit their OWN notions of morality.

I would like people who are truly open to learning and accepting God’s commands to see that we are still wedded to our human weaknesses and failures, to realize that we have not lived up to the teachings of Jesus and the Church; then to remove the blinders that block understanding of God’s expectations, and finally to lift themselves up to that higher morality that Jesus AND the Church asks us to live by.

After all, it was 2,000 years ago that Jesus told us what He expected of us, and we are still far from really accepting it and achieving it, as Christians and as a human society. How much longer will He give us?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, I think the Church’s teaching is in line with what Jesus commanded us to do, as I clearly stated in my last post. I think people (including many Catholics) don’t FOLLOW those teachings or commandments. I am not raising myself above God or the Church, I am wondering why people can’t bring themselves UP to the level of what Jesus clearly expects of us and the Church teaches? Some people are “dumbing down” or “watering down” these teachings to fit their OWN notions of morality.

Let me understand then.

Do you believe that Capital Punishment goes against what Jesus commanded?

 

[chaunceygardner]

I said this:
"chaunceygardner:

As I read through these threads, I am amazed that so many people worry that God will condemn them for some of the most inconsequential and unimportant reasons, but will easily forgive them for not following His most important commandments. And even publically advocate breaking them! A very strange theology.

This was the response to the above comment:

The Church could hardly be more explicit in explaining her position: the execution of a criminal by the State after a fair trial is not a violation of the commandment that Thou Shalt Not Murder. That you don’t accept this doesn’t make it any the less true.

Note that I said nothing in my statement about the Church’s teaching being wrong; in fact, earlier in that post I AGREED with it. Note that I said nothing about the death penalty here, but did ACCEPT the Church’s position on it at the beginning of my post.

I was referring not to the Church being wrong but to our systemic inability to understand and follow God’s most important commandments (as Jesus clearly reiterated) AND the Church’s teaching about the same. In other words, we are sinners. Surprise!

I am NOT arguing that Jesus was wrong (I totally agree with Him) nor that the Church is wrong (I think the Catechism and other recent Papal statements about the integrity and sacredness of human life are right on target). I am responding to the OP by stating this, and I am not sure why others don’t understand my point (or is it perhaps they don’t WANT to understand because it threatens them?):

We…don’t…live up to…God’s Law…or the instructions of Jesus…or the teaching of the Church…in our obedience to the 5th Commandment…and…we rationalize our disobedience to God…and invent excuses for our failures to comply with His commandment.

And WHY do we do this? My belief is that it is easier to surrender to our human weaknesses than to admit we have failed to understand and obey a clear commandment of God and to realize what the consequences of doing so may be.

And at this point, I am not even looking for someone to agree with me, but just to acknowledge they undersand what I am saying. Or am I to be like the Baptist, “A voice of one crying out in the desert”?

 

[donsnow]

Sorry if I’ve been pretty behind this thread, I haven’t had a lot of time on my hands you see.

While it does seem more compassionate to feel sorry for their rejection, what is wrong if one were to celebrate their demise as a triumph of God’s justice? What is so wrong in celebrating the death of a villain who has received the righteous consequence of his unrepentance? Won’t it prove that God’s laws are not flawed compared to man’s?

I’m simply presenting a what-if scenario of people who have no intent on asking for pardon and repenting for their crimes and would have no intent to do so for the remainder of their reprobate lives.

I’ve already conceded that such people are near impossible to find these days but… what if?

Hi, Lost Wanderer -

I’m sorry I can’t remember chapter and verse, nor exact wording to look it up in my “…Exhaustive Concordance…”. But, in the OT we are told not to rejoice in the fall of our enemies.

Oh, Lost Wanderer, I don’t want to be the one to judge whether or not a soul has become unredeemable. Let me turn away from your second paragraph, to me.

 

[Ender]

I am not even looking for someone to agree with me, but just to acknowledge they understand what I am saying.

I’m afraid I’m not someone who understands the point you are trying to make.

We…don’t…live up to…God’s Law…or the instructions of Jesus…or the teaching of the Church…in our obedience to the 5th Commandment…and…we rationalize our disobedience to God…and invent excuses for our failures to comply with His commandment.

This is too general. The fifth commandment, as the Church teaches, allows for killing in self defense, just war, and capital punishment. I can only assume, since you said you accept the Church’s teaching, that you also accept these three exceptions. Is this true?

What specifically do you see as a failure to comply with that commandment? I recognize that you disagree with my position, but since my position is based entirely on what the Church teaches, I do not understand you when you say we aren’t living up to Church teaching.

Ender

 

[chaunceygardner]

Let me understand then.

Do you believe that Capital Punishment goes against what Jesus commanded?

It sounds like you are trying to entrap me regarding the Church’s teaching on this, but that’s okay. To begin my response, let’s take a look at what Jesus did say, with all quotes taken from Matthew Ch 5:

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. (Mt 5:7)

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. (Mt 5:9)

You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, “You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.”
But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment. (Mt 5:21-22)

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. (Mt 5:38-39)

The Old Testament commandment was meant to moderate vengeance; the punishment should not exceed the injury done. Jesus forbids even this proportionate retaliation. (NAB notes to Mt 5:38-39; underlining mine)

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your heavenly Father. (Mt 5:43-45)

And, as provided in an earlier post, there are many other places in EVERY Gospel where Jesus CONSISTENTLY gives us very similar instruction on various aspects of this commandment.

So then, we ask, does Capital Punishment go against what Jesus commands?

Of course, if we answer this truthfully, we run up against the possbility that the Church’s teaching does not square 100% with the teaching of Jesus. Here is my take on that:

I think the Church has made great strides in recent decades in developing a deeper, stronger, and more consistent doctrine on this commandment that more closely matches what Jesus taught us. If one reads all the applicable parts of the Catechism and other recent statemens, it almost achieves the “ideal” that Jesus demanded of us. It is certainly an improvement over doctrinal statements and practices from earlier times, and harks back to the early decades of Christianity, when the commandments generally appear to have been taken literally and totally. The Church’s current position is not in opposition to what Jesus taught and commanded, but is not quite in total agreement either, not yet.

As stated earlier, I CAN accept the Church’s current position on the Death Penalty and its other positions regarding the 5th Commandment, and I pray that it will continue to progress under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to where it is totally in synch with what Jesus taught.

 

[CWBetts]

It sounds like you are trying to entrap me regarding the Church’s teaching on this, but that’s okay. To begin my response, let’s take a look at what Jesus did say, with all quotes taken from Matthew Ch 5:

And, as provided in an earlier post, there are many other places in EVERY Gospel where Jesus CONSISTENTLY gives us very similar instruction on various aspects of this commandment.

So then, we ask, does Capital Punishment go against what Jesus commands?

Of course, if we answer this truthfully, we run up against the possbility that the Church’s teaching does not square 100% with the teaching of Jesus. Here is my take on that:

I think the Church has made great strides in recent decades in developing a deeper, stronger, and more consistent doctrine on this commandment that more closely matches what Jesus taught us. If one reads all the applicable parts of the Catechism and other recent statemens, it almost achieves the “ideal” that Jesus demanded of us. It is certainly an improvement over doctrinal statements and practices from earlier times, and harks back to the early decades of Christianity, when the commandments generally appear to have been taken literally and totally. The Church’s current position is not in opposition to what Jesus taught and commanded, but is not quite in total agreement either, not yet.

As stated earlier, I CAN accept the Church’s current position on the Death Penalty and its other positions regarding the 5th Commandment, and I pray that it will continue to progress under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to where it is totally in synch with what Jesus taught.

I agree with you brother, but I fear that those you are debating with will not change. They believe themselves to be righteous judges, able to pass judgement on all who do not measure up to their impeccable moral character

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It sounds like you are trying to entrap me regarding the Church’s teaching on this, but that’s okay.

I am not trying to trap you, I am trying to find out what you believe.

As stated earlier, I CAN accept the Church’s current position on the Death Penalty and its other positions regarding the 5th Commandment, and I pray that it will continue to progress under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to where it is totally in synch with what Jesus taught.

With this statement you say that the Church is teaching error but you can live with it as you hope the Church will eventually get it right.

This goes against the Church’s Teachings that it can not Teach error.

Thank you for that insight into your belief that the Church can be defective in its Teachings.