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
TACO, but on this occasion, at least, he's right to do so.
I think most of the times he TACOs it's the right thing to do, because it's usually on one of his harebrained economic schemes. Wish he'd TACO on Canadian tariffs, but I fear that's his big macho middle-finger to all the folks who mocked him for TACOing on previous occassions.
TACO, but on this occasion, at least, he's right to do so.
I think most of the times he TACOs it's the right thing to do, because it's usually on one of his harebrained economic schemes. Wish he'd TACO on Canadian tariffs, but I fear that's his big macho middle-finger to all the folks who mocked him for TACOing on previous occassions.
Fair comment.
The Guardian reports that the Orange Lord and his Chief Orc-of-War are 'completely aligned' on the decision not to livestream the execution.
Well, at the moment, anyway, but as @Stercus Tauri points out, that could change.
There may be a third impeachment coming, but it won't be for planning to have a military execution livestreamed. Then again, it would be enough, in the short term, just to have both halves of Congress returned to Democrat control.
What does 'TACO' mean, please? The only meaning I know of is a Mexican dish.
It is a relief that he has changed his mind on the streaming, though the execution is still going ahead. I am less persuaded than others that this is driven by any sudden dawning in a presidential mind that looks as though it is driven more by how things appear than by any fundamental sense of ethics or humanity that this might look barbaric and uncivilised. It strikes me as more likely that somebody has pointed out to him that going ahead would almost certainly provoke a legal challenge which will delay the execution.
I thought Miss Amanda was referring to Hegseth being impeached. Is such a course possible?
Yes, any federal official can be impeached. At least three members of the House of Representatives, including Thomas Massie (R–KY), have introduced articles of impeachment against Hegseth in the past year.
Trump has announced the execution will not be broadcast. This is in response to the overwhelming opposition to the idea of a public execution. It is reported 80% of Americans who were polled were against the public execution. (Earlier, I had claimed 95% were opposed--I think I may have conflated the report with those opposed to the war with Iran).
I once had a friend who was a chaplain at a death row wing in a state prison. The friend has since died so I cannot find out which prison that would have been at. He often said he found the men on the ward quite easy going. He would play chess or cards with them when he was on the ward. Don't know if he had to deal with any executions, though.
This may have been before 1972 when SCOTUS ruled that existing death penalty systems violated the eighth commandment. All death sentences in the US at the time were invalidated. Executions were stopped for four years. But the moratorium ended after states rewrote their capital punishment laws.
I think Gramps49 may have meant the 8th Amendment, anent the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Someone may have pointed out to trump that allowing a public execution plays into the hands of the jihadists, for whom public martyrdom would have been a victory to be celebrated. I somehow doubt that would have bothered Hegseth.
The most likely explanation at this point seems to me to be that Trump was worried that legal appeals to stop the livestream would delay the execution date. Granted, I can also imagine some swing voters who generally worry about stuff like harmful material on the internet, and this concern might've shown up in early polling as a vote-changer among some factions.
The most likely explanation at this point seems to me to be that Trump was worried that legal appeals to stop the livestream would delay the execution date.
I believe this theory has already been advanced by another shipmate here, but I'm not gonna scroll back right now to find out who it was.
Just read the first part of a paywalled Slate article about Trump's reversal. Apparently, the family of one of Nasan's victims said they considered the proposed livestreaming "a stab in the back". My guess is they think it violates their personsal "ownership" of the event, IYSWIM.
The main thesis of the article was how the livestream was a co-concoction of Christian Nationalists and Tech Bros, which seems plausible.
Just read the first part of a paywalled Slate article about Trump's reversal. Apparently, the family of one of Nasan's victims said they considered the proposed livestreaming "a stab in the back". My guess is they think it violates their personsal "ownership" of the event, IYSWIM.
Not that I think the families should get the last word on anything related to the punishment of the criminal, becsuse you could also have eg. families who DO like the idea of a televised execution(or whatever other forns of punitive brutality populist politicians might cook up), and consider the reversal a stab in the back. But survivors' opposition to the livestream is a bad PR turn for the proponents.
Yes, 8th Amendment. So much for watching the news and responding on a message board.
One thing that got to me was Trump was apparently not aware Nasan was paralyzed and in a wheelchair. It would seem to me if a president signed a death warrant, he should have reviewed the whole case study of the individual.
The Army had been preparing to execute him by lethal injection at the federal prison at Leavenworth, before Hegseth convinced Trump to use a firing squad at Ft Hood.
TACO, but on this occasion, at least, he's right to do so.
I think most of the times he TACOs it's the right thing to do, because it's usually on one of his harebrained economic schemes. Wish he'd TACO on Canadian tariffs, but I fear that's his big macho middle-finger to all the folks who mocked him for TACOing on previous occassions.
I love that TACO is now a verb - Mr Trump's legacy to the world.
One thing that got to me was Trump was apparently not aware Nasan was paralyzed and in a wheelchair.
That may have played a part on the decision not to broadcast. The visual image of a guy facing a firing squad, standing at the post, with a blindfold on and smoking a last cigarette, seems all very cinematic. A firing squad aiming at a cripple in a wheelchair? Not so much.
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
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/oct/15/trump-fort-hood-execution-livestream
TACO, but on this occasion, at least, he's right to do so.
It may have been the widespread likening of the US to such places as Iran and Afghanistan that put him off.
Earth, gape - swallow them all...
He won’t say anything publicly, but yes I wonder how he feels about it too
Plague, smite them.
I think most of the times he TACOs it's the right thing to do, because it's usually on one of his harebrained economic schemes. Wish he'd TACO on Canadian tariffs, but I fear that's his big macho middle-finger to all the folks who mocked him for TACOing on previous occassions.
Fair comment.
The Guardian reports that the Orange Lord and his Chief Orc-of-War are 'completely aligned' on the decision not to livestream the execution.
Well, at the moment, anyway, but as @Stercus Tauri points out, that could change.
There may be a third impeachment coming, but it won't be for planning to have a military execution livestreamed. Then again, it would be enough, in the short term, just to have both halves of Congress returned to Democrat control.
It is a relief that he has changed his mind on the streaming, though the execution is still going ahead. I am less persuaded than others that this is driven by any sudden dawning in a presidential mind that looks as though it is driven more by how things appear than by any fundamental sense of ethics or humanity that this might look barbaric and uncivilised. It strikes me as more likely that somebody has pointed out to him that going ahead would almost certainly provoke a legal challenge which will delay the execution.
Reportedly coined by Wall Street analysts skeptical of his long-term commitment to announced policies.
I once had a friend who was a chaplain at a death row wing in a state prison. The friend has since died so I cannot find out which prison that would have been at. He often said he found the men on the ward quite easy going. He would play chess or cards with them when he was on the ward. Don't know if he had to deal with any executions, though.
This may have been before 1972 when SCOTUS ruled that existing death penalty systems violated the eighth commandment. All death sentences in the US at the time were invalidated. Executions were stopped for four years. But the moratorium ended after states rewrote their capital punishment laws.
Someone may have pointed out to trump that allowing a public execution plays into the hands of the jihadists, for whom public martyrdom would have been a victory to be celebrated. I somehow doubt that would have bothered Hegseth.
Thanks for clarifying the poll numbers.
The most likely explanation at this point seems to me to be that Trump was worried that legal appeals to stop the livestream would delay the execution date. Granted, I can also imagine some swing voters who generally worry about stuff like harmful material on the internet, and this concern might've shown up in early polling as a vote-changer among some factions.
I believe this theory has already been advanced by another shipmate here, but I'm not gonna scroll back right now to find out who it was.
The main thesis of the article was how the livestream was a co-concoction of Christian Nationalists and Tech Bros, which seems plausible.
Not that I think the families should get the last word on anything related to the punishment of the criminal, becsuse you could also have eg. families who DO like the idea of a televised execution(or whatever other forns of punitive brutality populist politicians might cook up), and consider the reversal a stab in the back. But survivors' opposition to the livestream is a bad PR turn for the proponents.
One thing that got to me was Trump was apparently not aware Nasan was paralyzed and in a wheelchair. It would seem to me if a president signed a death warrant, he should have reviewed the whole case study of the individual.
The Army had been preparing to execute him by lethal injection at the federal prison at Leavenworth, before Hegseth convinced Trump to use a firing squad at Ft Hood.
I love that TACO is now a verb - Mr Trump's legacy to the world.
I may have glossed the thread too lightly. Apologies.
Thanks. I think I might've been responsible for that snafu.