What happened?
Certainly the good cardinal is not a layman but neither is a cardinal-priest magisterial.
Yes, punishment aims to redress the disorder. And, of course, retribution (vindication) is one of the purposes of punishment. What you have not provided is a magisterial source teaching that retribution is the primary purpose of punishment.
Just a dozen? Theologians are advisors; not teachers. Theologians often disagree. Of the over 5,000 bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome (including your bishop) in the world, how many hold to your view? None. Rather, acting alone or in collectives, the bishops embrace the teaching.
Why do you ignore the magisterial citations already given that provide the answer. Could it be because the magisterial answer does not support your position?
It appears we have a case of itchy ear syndrome:
I. While one concedes there seems to be (as of yet) no explicit declaration addressed to that specific point from the ecclesiastical magisterium, the crux of contention is the binary decision which of the aforementioned alternatives - (A.) or (B.) - [submitted in Post #306] correctly interprets principally enumerating and optionally prioritizing the various ends of punishment. Ender’s posts have graciously given additional excerpts from the national and supplementary state episcopal conferences overwhelmingly validating Alternative (A.) vis-à-vis the Depositum Fidei.o_mlly:
No, the word primary is not even relevant to what I was addressing.
I was demonstrating solely that “retribution” is synonymous with “redress the disorder” as the church uses, and has used, those terms.
That is what all of my citations show. There are probably a dozen lay authors who explicitly say the same thing, yet you reject them because they are not “magisterial”, as if the ability to understand basic concepts is somehow not available to the lay mind no matter how educated.
Besides excerpts – problematically understood perhaps? – from authoritative pronouncements, what non-authoritative sources [from the schola theologorum] have even been submitted to present corroborating evidence categorically substantiating the inverse proposition of Alternative (B.)?
It would fail indeed . . . except for the fact Pope Pius XII’s Allocution [of 13 September 1952] to the Participants at the First International Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System Ce Premier Congres examines man’s personal dignity, not his rational nature.
It would seem that that is precisely how the Church, in the person of Pope John Paul II, justified capital punishment:
(Evangelium Vitae n. 56, emphasis added)
Two points:
Thank you for these citations; I was unfamiliar with several of them. Regarding the one from E. Christian Brugger, it is significant to note that he is one of the strongest supporters of the idea that JPII was “laying a theoretical foundation for a change (not “development” precisely understood)” to the teaching on capital punishment. That said, he clearly recognizes what is being changed is not just capital punishment, but to some extent punishment itself.
The church has always proclaimed that reason and faith are not contradictory, but reinforcing. There is therefore no need to find where a pope or council has expressly proclaimed something before we are justified in believing it. It is justified by reason. I want to be very careful here to distinguish between mere conviction based on personal interpretation, and conclusions that logic forces us to accept.
Yes, this is Brugger’s position, but it doesn’t seem reasonable to me primarily because it is simply implied in 2267, and contradicts the explicit position laid out in 2266. 2266 is the traditional teaching of the church, goes to the nature of punishment itself, and (I believe) is derived from natural law which is itself “immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history.” (CCC 1958)Ender:
It would seem that that is precisely how the Church, in the person of Pope John Paul II, justified capital punishment:
Hardly “minor” given the extraordinary amount of time expended on its correct interpretation . . .SanctusPeccator:
Two points:
- Absent a specific magisterial declaration on this minor issue, one can dismiss or accept the commentary of others.
While " . . . one must acknowledge that the notion of retribution as primary is not supported" explicitly, rather significant NO sources have been presented explicitly supporting your individual interpretation either . . .
Likely so if read synchronically and subsequently interpreted in a reductionist manner [à la the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”] . . .
Where is this denied otherwise?
Actually, the citation in question is from Pope Pius XII’s Discourse [of 19 October 1953] to the Sixteenth Congress of the International Office of Documentation for Military Medicine Arrivés au terme, §24 referenced in Note #5 of his subsequent Discourse [of 30 September 1954] to the Eighth Assembly of the World Medical Association Nous sommes heureux.
I just made this point to SanctusPeccator: we do not in fact need to find explicit magisterial pronouncements saying A=C to nonetheless know it is true. If they say A=B, and B=C then logic not only allows us to believe A=C, but forces us to accept it.
Section 2266 applies to all punishment. There may be other comments that apply solely to capital punishment, but specific comments about capital punishment do not alter the general comments that apply to all punishment. Retribution is the primary objective of punishment, of all punishment, and that is true because it is a matter of justice which applies equally to all crimes.
As I have pointed out before, Francis’ comments in particular are not magisterial; the magisterium has not in fact spoken, which should hardly be surprising given that the US bishops at least don’t understand what has been said and so could hardly be thought to concur with it.
Again, 2266 has remained unchanged, and does not support this vague, generic claim. The objectives of punishment are distinct, and not covered by an overarching concept of “disorder”.
SanctusPeccator:
Minor in that those few who spend the extraordinary amount of time are the advisors whose advice is rejected. The deciders (bishops) have now for 40 years confirmed the teaching regarding the death penalty.
I have no interpretation in need of support.
You are correct. I cited the source of Note 5 incorrectly. However, what the pope wrote is more important than where he wrote it. The argument stands.
Do you have magisterial sources that support A=B and B=C? Please define A, B and C and cite the source(s). I think this is a trivial point.
This is a good point. Is capital punishment just another degree of punishment? Or is it different in kind? In EV, JPII’s teaching tends to support the latter:
No, the id est follows “redressing the disorder” and lists its three primary objectives. Grammatically, one could drop the dependent phrase and the quote would read:
Curious as to what evidence has been presented explicitly rejecting Alternative (A.) as persuasively advocated by the seven aformentioned sources?SanctusPeccator:
Minor in that those few who spend the extraordinary amount of time are the advisors whose advice is rejected. The deciders (bishops) have now for 40 years confirmed the teaching regarding the death penalty.
Possibly so when self-authentication entails circular reasoning?SanctusPeccator:
I have no interpretation in need of support.
Quoting out of context [and time] perhaps? So, how can Pope Pius XII’s Discourse Ce Premier Congres discuss man’s rational nature when it’s never mentioned - either explicitly or implicitly - within the actual text?SanctusPeccator:
You are correct. I cited the source of Note 5 incorrectly. However, what the pope wrote is more important than where he wrote it. The argument stands.
“Unicorns exist. Prove me wrong.” One can hardly infer a conclusion from a lack of evidence, so to the claimant belongs the burden of proof. And we have seen no evidence that any bishop or collection of bishops supports “retribution” as synonymous with “redressing the disorder”.
When one fails in facts, one often turns to argue process.
Is not your particularly novel interpretation merely an indirect application of this exact standard? While unicorns are non-existent, horses most certainly do exist by the [negatively] iterative process of elimination. A competent equine veterinarian does not rely solely on the authoritative Horseman’s Veterinary Encyclopedia to diagnose new variants of Potomac Horse Fever; they also judiciously consult the secondary sources [of other certified colleagues] to devise and refine the appropriate course of treatment . . .SanctusPeccator:
“Unicorns exist. Prove me wrong.” One can hardly infer a conclusion from a lack of evidence, so to the claimant belongs the burden of proof. And we have seen no evidence that any bishop or collection of bishops supports “retribution” as synonymous with “redressing the disorder”.
Highly untenable assertion given only Alternative (A.) has been properly demonstrated - aside from the aforecited supplementary sources - via lexical categories, i. e., grammatical formatives; distinctive features; morphological composition; and concomitant syntactic construction, punctuation units, and conceptual meaning of the pertinent text . . .
Ipse dixit perhaps?SanctusPeccator:
When one fails in facts, one often turns to argue process.