You Shall NOT Kill!

[CWBetts]

I agree too (but don’t thing replacing is going to be easy either, especially since you don’t live in a Third World Country and your family struggling to keep their business afloat).

My point is when you take something from someone who has honestly earned it, you are being unfair when you have done nothing to deserve it. Such a thing is wrong and thieves should know its wrong by suffering the consequences of their actions. The best teaching consequences though will always be that the person they stole from takes back what’s his, the hard way.

Never said it wasn’t wrong or unfair. BTW don’t think that poverty is not a problem in the USA

 

[simple_soul]

The same can be said of the other side.

There is no way that 2267 can be read as a definitive exclusion of the use of the death penalty.

It states, “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.”

Now while it does also say, "If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. "

And that today it is the belief of the author of the Catechism that such is almost always the case one can argue against that.

We must remember that others who are in prision have a right to be protected and there are numerous cases where one person in prision preys upon others in prision as well as the staff there. There are numerous cases were a person convicted of a violent crime (murder) commits the same crime against those who are jailed with them or against staff members.

So one could successfully argue that there are not “non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor” according to our legal system as locking someone up with 100% no contact with anyone is not possible.

***Having said that the Catechism is not just a list of doctrines that must be adhered to, it is more than and less than that.

This is something that we are free to have different opinions on. The non-negotiable are the dogmas of the Church***.

Dear Br. David,

I was wondering if you could clarify for me how this works. I bolded the parts I am refereing to. You say this now but earlier you said this to me:

I see you say that your Catholic. So who is the authority? You or the Church. The Church teaches that self defense is acceptable and not murder

.
I pray you can see my confusion. First you seem to challenge my asking about my understanding of the Church’s teachings and how I should not question it and now you seem to be saying that not only can I question it but I can have a different opinion on it.

 

[simple_soul]

To everyone who skipped over this and to those who never saw it when I posted it earlier I ask the same question to this:

1. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes. 43 There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense. The demanding commandment of love of neighbor, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defense out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself

This is taken from the Evangelium vitae Ioannes Paulus PP. II
Chapter III - You Shall Not Kill.

The link to it is here vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM

The bold part is mine.
My question was and still is are we called to follow Jesus Christ to this extent or not?
Or maybe a better question is:
Is the Church teaching us that we can find a love for God that is so great that we are willing to follow Jesus Christ to the extent that we actually and literally join Him in the act of self-offering ourselves to God through His example even unto death?

 

[Ender]

Is the Church teaching us that we can find a love for God that is so great that we are willing to follow Jesus Christ to the extent that we actually and literally join Him in the act of self-offering ourselves to God through His example even unto death?

The answer to that question might well be yes but it’s not clear how relevant it is to the use of the death penalty. The rights and obligations of the State are different from the rights and obligations of the individual so whether or not the individual should renounce self defense says nothing about whether the State should. It is one thing for us to meekly submit ourselves to undeserved punishment and death but quite another to allow it to happen to others without attempting to prevent it.

Not to resist evil may be understood in two ways. First, in the sense of forgiving the wrong done to oneself, and thus it may pertain to perfection, when it is expedient to act thus for the spiritual welfare of others. Secondly, in the sense of tolerating patiently the wrongs done to others: and this pertains to imperfection, or even to vice, if one be able to resist the wrongdoer in a becoming manner. (Aquinas ST II/II 188, 3 ad 1)

Regarding punishment, we know that the individual is forbidden to take vengeance for crimes committed against him while at the same time the State has the obligation to punish. I don’t think the issue you raised implies that the State should renounce capital punishment since the obligations of the State in regard to punishment and defense are clearly different than those of the individual.

Ender

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dear Br. David,

I was wondering if you could clarify for me how this works. I bolded the parts I am refereing to. You say this now but earlier you said this to me:

.
I pray you can see my confusion. First you seem to challenge my asking about my understanding of the Church’s teachings and how I should not question it and now you seem to be saying that not only can I question it but I can have a different opinion on it.

The Catechism is not a list of dogmas; it is not a list of what must be believed to be Catholic.

Look at paragraph 2434; this speaks of a just wage. What is a just wage? We are free to disagree on what a just wage is yet we are still holding to what the Catholic Church Teaches.

I do not see how one can read 2267 and see a definitive prohibition against the death penalty as it does not say that anywhere. It leaves for discussing and argument as to when and if there are sufficient means to defend and protest the safety of people from the aggressor. This last part that says there is, is obviously an opinion which we are free to disagree with because with out that freedom then it would place a definitive prohibition against the death penalty which the first part of the paragraph clearly states that there is no such thing.

 

[simple_soul]

The answer to that question might well be yes but it’s not clear how relevant it is to the use of the death penalty. The rights and obligations of the State are different from the rights and obligations of the individual so whether or not the individual should renounce self defense says nothing about whether the State should. It is one thing for us to meekly submit ourselves to undeserved punishment and death but quite another to allow it to happen to others without attempting to prevent it.

Not to resist evil may be understood in two ways. First, in the sense of forgiving the wrong done to oneself, and thus it may pertain to perfection, when it is expedient to act thus for the spiritual welfare of others. Secondly, in the sense of tolerating patiently the wrongs done to others: and this pertains to imperfection, or even to vice, if one be able to resist the wrongdoer in a becoming manner. (Aquinas ST II/II 188, 3 ad 1)

Regarding punishment, we know that the individual is forbidden to take vengeance for crimes committed against him while at the same time the State has the obligation to punish. I don’t think the issue you raised implies that the State should renounce capital punishment since the obligations of the State in regard to punishment and defense are clearly different than those of the individual.

Ender

Dear Edner,

Thank you for taking the time to reflect about this and I appreciate most sincerely any help you can give me in understanding this more clearly.

After reading what you have said here it leads me to another question that maybe you could help me with. Who makes the laws that gives the State it’s rights and obligations?

 

[CWBetts]

The Catechism is not a list of dogmas; it is not a list of what must be believed to be Catholic.

Look at paragraph 2434; this speaks of a just wage. What is a just wage? We are free to disagree on what a just wage is yet we are still holding to what the Catholic Church Teaches.

I do not see how one can read 2267 and see a definitive prohibition against the death penalty as it does not say that anywhere. It leaves for discussing and argument as to when and if there are sufficient means to defend and protest the safety of people from the aggressor. This last part that says there is, is obviously an opinion which we are free to disagree with because with out that freedom then it would place a definitive prohibition against the death penalty which the first part of the paragraph clearly states that there is no such thing.

I guess you don’t follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You follow the Catechism of YOUR Church, wherein paragraph 2267 carries no weight, and actually why dont you just take a marker and cross it out. You don’t agree with it, so you feel like you don’t have to pay any attention to it. 2267 clearly states that as long as non-lethal means exist to punish the guilty, those non-lethal means must be used. The state has access to the death penalty only in those extreme circumstances where human lives cannot be protected.

 

[simple_soul]

The Catechism is not a list of dogmas; it is not a list of what must be believed to be Catholic.

Look at paragraph 2434; this speaks of a just wage. What is a just wage? We are free to disagree on what a just wage is yet we are still holding to what the Catholic Church Teaches.

I do not see how one can read 2267 and see a definitive prohibition against the death penalty as it does not say that anywhere. It leaves for discussing and argument as to when and if there are sufficient means to defend and protest the safety of people from the aggressor. This last part that says there is, is obviously an opinion which we are free to disagree with because with out that freedom then it would place a definitive prohibition against the death penalty which the first part of the paragraph clearly states that there is no such thing.

Dear Br. David,

I do not believe 2267 to be a prohibition of the death penalty. I understand it to be encouraging us to find other means and ways to keep from having to use the death penalty. I have two questions about this:

1. Is this indeed what the church is trying to teach us?
   and
2. If the answer to the first is yes, then why is the Church trying to teach us this?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I guess you don’t follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You follow the Catechism of YOUR Church, wherein paragraph 2267 carries no weight, and actually why dont you just take a marker and cross it out. You don’t agree with it, so you feel like you don’t have to pay any attention to it. 2267 clearly states that as long as non-lethal means exist to punish the guilty, those non-lethal means must be used. The state has access to the death penalty only in those extreme circumstances where human lives cannot be protected.

I did not say that, you are putting words into my mouth and attempting to force the Catechism of YOUR Church down my throat.

It is open to discussion as to whether or not non-lethal means exist.

For the record, I am agasint the way the death penalty is applied in every jurisdiction (except for maybe one or two) where it is used in the United States.

That does not change the fact that the Catholic Church allows for it.

You say that non-lethal means exist within our system, I say look at all those who are victimized in our prision system, even murdered, by other prisioners. Those who are locked up still deserve protection as well as the staff. There are numerous cases of staff, guards and others, who are murdered in prision as well as those who are convicted of crimes being murdered while in what some may call a “non-lethal” means of incarceration.

One can not read just part of a paragraph of the Catechism and ignore the rest as you seem to wish to do.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dear Br. David,

I do not believe 2267 to be a prohibition of the death penalty. I understand it to be encouraging us to find other means and ways to keep from having to use the death penalty. I have two questions about this:

1. Is this indeed what the church is trying to teach us?
   and
2. If the answer to the first is yes, then why is the Church trying to teach us this?

Yes I do believe that the Church is trying to teach us this and it is doing so because it is the ideal and the death penalty is only to be used as a last resort, but there are crimes, IMHO, that call out for its use but those are very few.

 

[Cosmian]

Our understanding of capitol punishment is something which seems to be evolving. It wasn’t so long ago that people were put to death in some very unsavory ways just for not believing the right way, being accused of witchcraft, etc.

I’m horribly wishy-washy on this subject. On one hand I understand the logic and sentiments of death penalty opponents, there are many good arguments against capitol punishment. On the other hand it would seem that an innocent life is not valued when the life of the perpetrator is not also demanded in retribution

 

[CWBetts]

I did not say that, you are putting words into my mouth and attempting to force the Catechism of YOUR Church down my throat.

It is open to discussion as to whether or not non-lethal means exist.

For the record, I am agasint the way the death penalty is applied in every jurisdiction (except for maybe one or two) where it is used in the United States.

That does not change the fact that the Catholic Church allows for it.

You say that non-lethal means exist within our system, I say look at all those who are victimized in our prision system, even murdered, by other prisioners. Those who are locked up still deserve protection as well as the staff. There are numerous cases of staff, guards and others, who are murdered in prision as well as those who are convicted of crimes being murdered while in what some may call a “non-lethal” means of incarceration.

One can not read just part of a paragraph of the Catechism and ignore the rest as you seem to wish to do.

The death penalty, as applied in the united states is inherently unjust. It is racist. It is sexist. It is classist. It is only applied to a crimes that are oddly enough, not intrinsically evil, while other intrinsic evils do not carry the death penalty. The death penalty is contrary to the common good and the dignity of the human person. While it should remain legal for the extreme cases you mention, it at the very least needs serious reform, and should be suspended until such reforms are in place. I am tired of proponents presenting exceptions as commonplace.

 

[Cosmian]

The death penalty, as applied in the united states is inherently unjust. It is racist. It is sexist. It is classist. It is only applied to a crimes that are oddly enough, not intrinsically evil, while other intrinsic evils do not carry the death penalty. The death penalty is contrary to the common good and the dignity of the human person. While it should remain legal for the extreme cases you mention, it at the very least needs serious reform, and should be suspended until such reforms are in place. I am tired of proponents presenting exceptions as commonplace.

I’ll probably kick myself for asking but when is the death penalty applied to crimes which are not intrinsically evil?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The death penalty, as applied in the united states is inherently unjust. It is racist. It is sexist. It is classist. It is only applied to a crimes that are oddly enough, not intrinsically evil, while other intrinsic evils do not carry the death penalty. The death penalty is contrary to the common good and the dignity of the human person. While it should remain legal for the extreme cases you mention, it at the very least needs serious reform, and should be suspended until such reforms are in place.

This is something I think we can agree on.

I am tired of proponents presenting exceptions as commonplace.

I have done no such thing.

The only cases that I think the death penalty should be an option are on the federal level and then they are very few.

Just to understand me a bit better, when I am discussing Church Teaching I divorce the actually application something by the government and what the Church Teaches.

The Church Teaches that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil and can have its uses.

The application of the death penalty by the government is a totally different discussion. Just because the Church Teaches that something can be used does not necessarily mean that it should be used.

Again, I bring up the just wage. The Church Teaches that a just wage must be paid to workers. It is the government/society that determines what a just wage is and that does not always mean that when the employer and employee agree to a wage that it is a just wage.

We can argue what a just wage actually is, just as we can argue the proper use of the death penalty, what we can not argue is that the Church Teaches against a just wage or against the use of the death penalty.

 

[simple_soul]

Yes I do believe that the Church is trying to teach us this and it is doing so because it is the ideal and the death penalty is only to be used as a last resort, but there are crimes, IMHO, that call out for its use but those are very few.

Dear Br. David,

Please bear with me as I try to understand this better.
In what you said here I would just like to understand more deeply what the ideal is.
Do you mind explaining for me what you believe it to be?

By the way, I hope you do not laugh, but what does IMHO stand for?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dear Br. David,

Please bear with me as I try to understand this better.
In what you said here I would just like to understand more deeply what the ideal is.
Do you mind explaining for me what you believe it to be?

By the way, I hope you do not laugh, but what does IMHO stand for?

IMHO is internet slang for In My Humble Opinion.

The ideal is what we are striving for; for how it will be after the Second Coming.

The ideal is that there would be no need for the application of the death penalty because there would be no crime at all, let alone a crime whose punishment could include the death penalty.

 

[simple_soul]

IMHO is internet slang for In My Humble Opinion.

The ideal is what we are striving for; for how it will be after the Second Coming.

The ideal is that there would be no need for the application of the death penalty because there would be no crime at all, let alone a crime whose punishment could include the death penalty.

Dear Br David,

Does God still love us even though we fall so short of what we are striving for?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dear Br David,

Does God still love us even though we fall so short of what we are striving for?

I believe that you are trying to lay a trap for me to get me to “agree” with you.

I will answer your question with a question.

Does God still love us even though we are fallen beings?

 

[prodigal-sun]

“Turn the other cheek”
“Do not resist an evil man”
“Give to him anything else he might need”

Philosophically speaking, it is not a “black or white” issue. Even exchanging the word “kill” with the word “murder” does not take away the lack of clarity.

Exactly what defines a “murder”?
Is overpopulation a threat to one’s life, thus justifying abortions? verpopoulation is never a direct threat to ones life. Not to mention that the taking of an innocent life is “MURDER”
Could you have done less harm and still survived?Maybe, maybe not!
Even if convicted in man’s court of being a killer, how is killing him really self defense? As the church teaches is that if there is no other way to keep people safe then capital punishment is acceptable. I don’t really believe that is the case nowadays so capital punishment really isn’t neccessary.

Without clear understanding of the root construct and rationale of the moral, it will always be cloudy and thus always be used by evil to do evil.

 

[simple_soul]

I believe that you are trying to lay a trap for me to get me to “agree” with you.

I will answer your question with a question.

Does God still love us even though we are fallen beings?

Dear Br. David,

Please, please, please I beg you not to think this way. I am not trying to lay any trap. I just want to understand if what I understand in my heart is Truth or not. That is all!

Back to your question. I do not know. What is the difference if we are fallen or if we are falling, does God still love us?