I mean, people venerate images of the crucifixion, which is literally an execution.
Yes, but those doing the venerating are not venerating the execution or the crucifixion as such. They’re venerating the the image of the person they believe willingly offered himself as a sacrifice, who died, and who rose again. The one being worshipped through the veneration of the crucifix is explicitly understood to not be dead.
This is the first time I have ever considered the idea that the Christ hanging on crosses outside Roman Catholic churches is not depicted as being dead. It appears to fly in the face of the evidence: death being a necessary part of resurrection and Catholics venerating the act of dying and the death.
I mean, people venerate images of the crucifixion, which is literally an execution.
Yes, but those doing the venerating are not venerating the execution or the crucifixion as such. They’re venerating the the image of the person they believe willingly offered himself as a sacrifice, who died, and who rose again. The one being worshipped through the veneration of the crucifix is explicitly understood to not be dead.
This is the first time I have ever considered the idea that the Christ hanging on crosses outside Roman Catholic churches is not depicted as being dead. It appears to fly in the face of the evidence: death being a necessary part of resurrection and Catholics venerating the act of dying and the death.
This RC has never come across that idea either. In preaching I have always heard the crucifix described in terms of Christs self-sacrificial death.
However it reminds that I was taught that the dead Christ of Michelangelo's Pieta has raised veins as though still alive, a sign that his death was not the end of the story. There's a good close up of an arm here https://www.theyoungcatholicwoman.com/archivescollection/2018/3/6/pieta
The one being worshipped through the veneration of the crucifix is explicitly understood to not be dead.
This is the first time I have ever considered the idea that the Christ hanging on crosses outside Roman Catholic churches is not depicted as being dead. It appears to fly in the face of the evidence: death being a necessary part of resurrection and Catholics venerating the act of dying and the death.
This RC has never come across that idea either. In preaching I have always heard the crucifix described in terms of Christs self-sacrificial death.
There's a difference between "depicting someone as being dead" and "understanding the person so depicted as being dead" - Nick Tamen's point I take it is that the picture of the dead Christ is understood in the context of the belief that he's not dead now.
Catholics in my experience and understanding do not venerate the act of dying and death as such. There are several different things going on, but that isn't one of them.
The one being worshipped through the veneration of the crucifix is explicitly understood to not be dead.
This is the first time I have ever considered the idea that the Christ hanging on crosses outside Roman Catholic churches is not depicted as being dead. It appears to fly in the face of the evidence: death being a necessary part of resurrection and Catholics venerating the act of dying and the death.
This RC has never come across that idea either. In preaching I have always heard the crucifix described in terms of Christs self-sacrificial death.
There's a difference between "depicting someone as being dead" and "understanding the person so depicted as being dead" - Nick Tamen's point I take it is that the picture of the dead Christ is understood in the context of the belief that he's not dead now.
Catholics in my experience and understanding do not venerate the act of dying and death as such. There are several different things going on, but that isn't one of them.
In the context of religion it seems that words and ideas mean whatever you want them to mean. Here's a frequent image of a dead person: that's obviously not about death but life.
Here are body parts of dead saints, but that is not veneration of body parts of dead saints.
Here are images of multiple saints at the moment of their death, images of their bodies after death. Gory stories about them and what happened.
None of this is about the act of dying or dead bodies.
The bishop in charge of Roman Catholics in the US military has said they cannot participate in a public execution of Nasan.
Thats in line with the RCC teaching that capital punishment is wrong.
So do Catholic prison chaplains eg. refuse to pray with Catholic prisoners the night of their execution?
Why? The prisoner has no control over what is going to happen to him or her and no agency in the execution process. Whatever the history at the time of the offence, at this point, he or she is the victim.
Obviously if the person who is going to be executed needs to see a chaplain, asks to see a chaplain and asks for a chaplain to pray with them, then unless the prison authorities flatly refuse to facilitate this, the chaplain is bound to oblige.
The bishop in charge of Roman Catholics in the US military has said they cannot participate in a public execution of Nasan.
Thats in line with the RCC teaching that capital punishment is wrong.
So do Catholic prison chaplains eg. refuse to pray with Catholic prisoners the night of their execution?
Why? The prisoner has no control over what is going to happen to him or her and no agency in the execution process. Whatever the history at the time of the offence, at this point, he or she is the victim.
Obviously if the person who is going to be executed needs to see a chaplain, asks to see a chaplain and asks for a chaplain to pray with them, then unless the prison authorities flatly refuse to facilitate this, the chaplain is bound to oblige.
But @Alan29 seemed to suggest that the reason the Catholic chaplains wouldn't particpate in the execution of Nasan is the RCC's general opposition to capital punishment. If that's their reason, then they should logically refuse involvement with all executions.
Nick's point was that images of Christ are used and honored with the understanding that the real Christ has already risen from the dead (that is, he is alive at this present moment and will remain so forever). The whole reason for our ongoing interest in Christ is tied up very closely with his resurrection. If he had died and remained dead even today, we'd not bother making pictures or images of him at any stage in his existence, whether that is infancy, childhood, adulthood, suffering and death, or resurrected life. That's because if the real Christ died and continued dead forever, by definition he would not be the one he'd claimed to be--that is, the Son of God who lives forever and has the power to give life to those who trust in him.
Nick was not making a statement about whether the image itself depicts him during the three-day period he was in fact dead. For that, you'd have to look carefully at the particular image you're considering.
But isn't that like saying that priests should refuse to give absolution because the Church opposes sin?
Except that absolution absolves sin, whereas participating in an execution(or so the argument goes) validates sin, ie. the sin of capital punishment. So it would be more like saying a priest shouldn't bless the opening of a bookstore that sells pornography, because the church opposes pornography.
Which is fine, but then you would have to apply it to all stores that sell pornography. Which I'm sure most priests would be willing to do, so I'm wondering if their general opposition to capital punishment applies to all executions, in which case they should refuse to participate in all of them, not just that of Nasan.
I mean, people venerate images of the crucifixion, which is literally an execution.
Yes, but those doing the venerating are not venerating the execution or the crucifixion as such. They’re venerating the the image of the person they believe willingly offered himself as a sacrifice, who died, and who rose again. The one being worshipped through the veneration of the crucifix is explicitly understood to not be dead.
This is the first time I have ever considered the idea that the Christ hanging on crosses outside Roman Catholic churches is not depicted as being dead.
You still haven’t seen it, because it’s not what I said. @ and @Lamb Chopped read my post correctly. In what you quoted I said: “They’re venerating the the image of the person they believe willingly offered himself as a sacrifice, who died, and who rose again.”
This was in contrast to early statement about “a religion which has historically been all about dead people.” Catholics and other Christians most definitely believe that Jesus died, and (most) crucifixes and other images of the crucifixion acknowledge this. (Though I think it can fairly be asked whether the depiction on a crucifix is that of the dead Jesus or of the suffering Jesus.) But they do not believe he is dead now.
And I said “(most) crucifixes” just now. Crucifixes with an image of the risen, triumphant Christ rather than the suffering or dead Christ do exist.
The one being worshipped through the veneration of the crucifix is explicitly understood to not be dead.
This is the first time I have ever considered the idea that the Christ hanging on crosses outside Roman Catholic churches is not depicted as being dead. It appears to fly in the face of the evidence: death being a necessary part of resurrection and Catholics venerating the act of dying and the death.
This RC has never come across that idea either. In preaching I have always heard the crucifix described in terms of Christs self-sacrificial death.
There's a difference between "depicting someone as being dead" and "understanding the person so depicted as being dead" - Nick Tamen's point I take it is that the picture of the dead Christ is understood in the context of the belief that he's not dead now.
Catholics in my experience and understanding do not venerate the act of dying and death as such. There are several different things going on, but that isn't one of them.
In the context of religion it seems that words and ideas mean whatever you want them to mean. Here's a frequent image of a dead person: that's obviously not about death but life.
Or in this case, the words of other people must fit into your preconceptions. No one said it’s “not about death.” What was said was it’s not just about death; it’s about death in a larger context.
You’re confirming the impression I remarked on earlier, that your comments demonstrate a pretty shallow understanding of Christianity.
My host church has one of those crosses with the risen, living Christ superimposed on it, there are plenty of them out there. And I'm confirming that Christianity (including Catholicism!) is about much more than simply death.
As for the chaplain thing, there are more roles in an execution than serving as chaplain. I expect the directive meant that RC soldiers may not participate in any of those roles (ones that are counter to the wellbeing of the prisoner), not that an RC chaplain ought not do the ministry the prisoner needs! That a chaplain should go ahead and serve would be so obvious as not to need saying.
My host church has one of those crosses with the risen, living Christ superimposed on it, there are plenty of them out there. And I'm confirming that Christianity (including Catholicism!) is about much more than simply death.
As for the chaplain thing, there are more roles in an execution than serving as chaplain. I expect the directive meant that RC soldiers may not participate in any of those roles (ones that are counter to the wellbeing of the prisoner), not that an RC chaplain ought not do the ministry the prisoner needs! That a chaplain should go ahead and serve would be so obvious as not to need saying.
Ah, yes. @Alan29 did say "soldiers", not "chaplains". But the question still applies: does the church forbid its members from participating in all executions?
But isn't that like saying that priests should refuse to give absolution because the Church opposes sin?
Except that absolution absolves sin, whereas participating in an execution(or so the argument goes) validates sin, ie. the sin of capital punishment.
But it could be argued that the chaplain isn't participating in the execution. Rather, he is hearing the prisoner's confession and granting him absolution. He would do this regardless of whether the prisoner is about to be executed or simply serving a finite sentence, after which he will be released -- or even if he is serving a life sentence without parole.
As has been pointed out upthread, the prisoner's wish to be absolved from his sins, and thus from the punishment awaiting him in the afterlife, is not in any way connected with the punishment that awaits him in this life.
... As for the chaplain thing, there are more roles in an execution than serving as chaplain. I expect the directive meant that RC soldiers may not participate in any of those roles (ones that are counter to the wellbeing of the prisoner), not that an RC chaplain ought not do the ministry the prisoner needs! That a chaplain should go ahead and serve would be so obvious as not to need saying.
My host church has one of those crosses with the risen, living Christ superimposed on it, there are plenty of them out there. And I'm confirming that Christianity (including Catholicism!) is about much more than simply death.
As for the chaplain thing, there are more roles in an execution than serving as chaplain. I expect the directive meant that RC soldiers may not participate in any of those roles (ones that are counter to the wellbeing of the prisoner), not that an RC chaplain ought not do the ministry the prisoner needs! That a chaplain should go ahead and serve would be so obvious as not to need saying.
Ah, yes. @Alan29 did say "soldiers", not "chaplains". But the question still applies: does the church forbid its members from participating in all executions?
Ministering to someone who is about to be executed is about care for the prisoner, not hastening their death.
The movie Dead Man Walking centres on the work of Sister Helen Prejean, a nun who on one hand campaigns against the death penalty, but also ministers to those about to be killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Prejean
Comments
This is the first time I have ever considered the idea that the Christ hanging on crosses outside Roman Catholic churches is not depicted as being dead. It appears to fly in the face of the evidence: death being a necessary part of resurrection and Catholics venerating the act of dying and the death.
This RC has never come across that idea either. In preaching I have always heard the crucifix described in terms of Christs self-sacrificial death.
However it reminds that I was taught that the dead Christ of Michelangelo's Pieta has raised veins as though still alive, a sign that his death was not the end of the story. There's a good close up of an arm here
https://www.theyoungcatholicwoman.com/archivescollection/2018/3/6/pieta
Catholics in my experience and understanding do not venerate the act of dying and death as such. There are several different things going on, but that isn't one of them.
In the context of religion it seems that words and ideas mean whatever you want them to mean. Here's a frequent image of a dead person: that's obviously not about death but life.
Here are body parts of dead saints, but that is not veneration of body parts of dead saints.
Here are images of multiple saints at the moment of their death, images of their bodies after death. Gory stories about them and what happened.
None of this is about the act of dying or dead bodies.
So do Catholic prison chaplains eg. refuse to pray with Catholic prisoners the night of their execution?
Obviously if the person who is going to be executed needs to see a chaplain, asks to see a chaplain and asks for a chaplain to pray with them, then unless the prison authorities flatly refuse to facilitate this, the chaplain is bound to oblige.
But @Alan29 seemed to suggest that the reason the Catholic chaplains wouldn't particpate in the execution of Nasan is the RCC's general opposition to capital punishment. If that's their reason, then they should logically refuse involvement with all executions.
Nick was not making a statement about whether the image itself depicts him during the three-day period he was in fact dead. For that, you'd have to look carefully at the particular image you're considering.
Except that absolution absolves sin, whereas participating in an execution(or so the argument goes) validates sin, ie. the sin of capital punishment. So it would be more like saying a priest shouldn't bless the opening of a bookstore that sells pornography, because the church opposes pornography.
Which is fine, but then you would have to apply it to all stores that sell pornography. Which I'm sure most priests would be willing to do, so I'm wondering if their general opposition to capital punishment applies to all executions, in which case they should refuse to participate in all of them, not just that of Nasan.
This was in contrast to early statement about “a religion which has historically been all about dead people.” Catholics and other Christians most definitely believe that Jesus died, and (most) crucifixes and other images of the crucifixion acknowledge this. (Though I think it can fairly be asked whether the depiction on a crucifix is that of the dead Jesus or of the suffering Jesus.) But they do not believe he is dead now.
And I said “(most) crucifixes” just now. Crucifixes with an image of the risen, triumphant Christ rather than the suffering or dead Christ do exist.
Or in this case, the words of other people must fit into your preconceptions. No one said it’s “not about death.” What was said was it’s not just about death; it’s about death in a larger context.
You’re confirming the impression I remarked on earlier, that your comments demonstrate a pretty shallow understanding of Christianity.
As for the chaplain thing, there are more roles in an execution than serving as chaplain. I expect the directive meant that RC soldiers may not participate in any of those roles (ones that are counter to the wellbeing of the prisoner), not that an RC chaplain ought not do the ministry the prisoner needs! That a chaplain should go ahead and serve would be so obvious as not to need saying.
Ah, yes. @Alan29 did say "soldiers", not "chaplains". But the question still applies: does the church forbid its members from participating in all executions?
As has been pointed out upthread, the prisoner's wish to be absolved from his sins, and thus from the punishment awaiting him in the afterlife, is not in any way connected with the punishment that awaits him in this life.
Ministering to someone who is about to be executed is about care for the prisoner, not hastening their death.
The movie Dead Man Walking centres on the work of Sister Helen Prejean, a nun who on one hand campaigns against the death penalty, but also ministers to those about to be killed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Prejean