Capital punishment debate: Dr. Feser and Msgr. Swetland

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wampa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
I suspect you are far to advanced in years to be held to that. 😉
Click to expand...
Damn right, but I will be chuckling from heaven…though you likely find it hard to believe I will get there except via slow, painful blowtorching.
 
JimG said:
Notwithstanding all the verbiage on this thread, I don’t think that the Catholic Church can reverse its teaching on capital punishment. A doctrinal reversal is not, I think, in the cards.

Why the Church Cannot Reverse Past Teaching on Capital Punishment.
Click to expand...
Yet we did it with non circumcised Christians, slavery and usury.
You just weren’t around…and those who were there to object are long dead now and the historians won ;).

Communion for some active irregulars is next.
It has always been so.
 
IWantGod said:
One could say his death on the cross at the hands of the roman state is a silent jab at the cruelty of Capital Punishment.
Click to expand...
I think this points to the difficulty of supporting the contention that Christ opposed capital punishment: the evidence goes the other way. Beyond that, if Christ really did oppose it, what does this say about the church that she could have been so wrong on this subject for so long? After 2000 years are we just coming to this understanding now?

What is more reasonable: that Christ did not oppose capital punishment or that the church failed to recognize his opposition for two millennia?*And as the things which the Holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been wrongly explained by some, We, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. (First Vatican Council)
*The unanimous consent of the Fathers (excepting Tertullian and Lantanctius) was that capital punishment was permitted. I am aware of no Doctor of the Church who opposed it. Regarding what the Holy Synod of Trent taught, they were clear on this point:*Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death…
*Ender
 
In his article, “The Population of Hell” Avery Cardinal Dulles opines that Balthasar’s theology of an empty hell in his book, Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved?” is orthodox. To arrive at his opinion, Dulles grants that “the statements of Jesus on hell [must be] taken as minatory rather than predictive.”

With this line of thought in mind, a parallel may exist in the theology of hell (spiritual death) and capital punishment (temporal death). The Church teaches that hell does exist and the state has a right to kill. That teaching cannot change.

The Church does not teach that anyone is in hell nor that any one ought be executed. Could it be that capital punishment, like hell (in Balthasar’s theology) are both only meant to be minatory?
 
Ender said:
I think this points to the difficulty of supporting the contention that Christ opposed capital punishment: the evidence goes the other way. Beyond that, if Christ really did oppose it, what does this say about the church that she could have been so wrong on this subject for so long? After 2000 years are we just coming to this understanding now?

What is more reasonable: that Christ did not oppose capital punishment or that the church failed to recognize his opposition for two millennia?And as the things which the Holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been wrongly explained by some, We, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. (First Vatican Council)*
*The unanimous consent of the Fathers (excepting Tertullian and Lantanctius) was that capital punishment was permitted. I am aware of no Doctor of the Church who opposed it. Regarding what the Holy Synod of Trent taught, they were clear on this point:*Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death…
*Ender
Click to expand...
If ever anybody’s own life and death pointed to the limitations and inherent danger and contradictions of CP for bettering the world surely if is that of what happened to God at our hands 🤷.
How could any Christian hold that CP is normative or would ever rightly exist in Eden, or even Gods City on earth (ie within the Church). It is not a neutral expression of love but a sad necessity to avoid an even greater evil, the collapse of public good/order in a Fallen world. Just as God treated divorce in the OT. Divorce was an unfortunate necessity not a thing good initself and not what God intended when He said go forth and multiply. Likewise CP.
 
o_mlly said:
In his article, “The Population of Hell” Avery Cardinal Dulles opines that Balthasar’s theology of an empty hell in his book, Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved?” is orthodox. To arrive at his opinion, Dulles grants that “the statements of Jesus on hell [must be] taken as minatory rather than predictive.”

With this line of thought in mind, a parallel may exist in the theology of hell (spiritual death) and capital punishment (temporal death). The Church teaches that hell does exist and the state has a right to kill. That teaching cannot change.

The Church does not teach that anyone is in hell nor that any one ought be executed. Could it be that capital punishment, like hell (in Balthasar’s theology) are both only meant to be minatory?
Click to expand...
Dont say that. C Dulles is Enders supreme authority on CP.
If he got hell wrong where will Ender go now that his authority has crumbled due to that heresy.
Or we could say that in theory CP may be just but in fact it is so radioactive and dangerous in its use that there are in fact few if any situations in which it is just because equivalent means are now available which would therefore mean to still choose CP is in fact immoral.
 
Go for it.
Dig out the original meaning and understanding of Usury from the OT or even Aquinas.

Then tell me that Christians under pressure from capitalist desires didnt reinterpret it to allow for the very practice that had been officially denied for centuries.
And for which, amongst other things, Christians officially persecuted Jews for the evil money lenders they were.

Your turn…
 
Anybody can cherry pick an article to their liking and other the reverse 🤷.
BTW that link is about Noonan’s book, nothing to do with C Dulles other than that he reviewed it.

Just briefly argue your own case here or give it up thanks.
You do realise we stopped persecuting Jews charging usury in the Middle Ages only because Christian merchants “lobbied” the change (sorry, you call it “a better nuanced understanding of usury” so we could do it to).
Sad that we couldn’t accept there was nothing wrong with Jews doing this 9 centuries earlier before we started persecuting them :(.
If what you say is true, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has been overcome by the gates of hell. That can’t happen.
Click to expand...
Or the more humble view that you do not understand how Church teaching precisions and clarifies over time so only appears to develop and change there is actually nothing that is “overcome” other than ignorance and less than stellar theological education.
 
o_mlly said:
In his article, “The Population of Hell” Avery Cardinal Dulles opines that Balthasar’s theology of an empty hell in his book, Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved?” is orthodox. To arrive at his opinion, Dulles grants that “the statements of Jesus on hell [must be] taken as minatory rather than predictive.”

With this line of thought in mind, a parallel may exist in the theology of hell (spiritual death) and capital punishment (temporal death). The Church teaches that hell does exist and the state has a right to kill. That teaching cannot change.

The Church does not teach that anyone is in hell nor that any one ought be executed. Could it be that capital punishment, like hell (in Balthasar’s theology) are both only meant to be minatory?
Click to expand...
That is not an unreasonable argument, although I don’t find it a convincing one. Pius XII is cited as having said this about Rm 13:1-4:*Nor does the above citation from Paul’s letter to the Romans legitimate capital punishment, but only upholds the authority of civil government and its power of coercion in general. In regard to this passage and specifically to the “sword borne by public authority,” Pope Pius XII taught that Paul was referring to “the essential foundation itself of penal power and of its immanent finality,” and not to the content of “individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action.
*It is from an article citing his *Address to the Italian Association of Catholic Jurists (5 February 1955), AAS 47 (1955) 81, *which I cannot find in English. Nonetheless, I have seen nothing that reasonably suggests that Gn 9:6 doesn’t mean exactly what it says.

I’m not sure I understand why there is so much opposition to capital punishment except as a misunderstanding of punishment and justice. As Genesis says, murderers are to be executed because that crime is so horrific. Unfortunately, we no longer find it all that serious. Executions remind us of how we ought to perceive it.

Ender
 
Ender said:
That is not an unreasonable argument, although I don’t find it a convincing one. Pius XII is cited as having said this about Rm 13:1-4:*Nor does the above citation from Paul’s letter to the Romans legitimate capital punishment, but only upholds the authority of civil government and its power of coercion in general. In regard to this passage and specifically to the “sword borne by public authority,” Pope Pius XII taught that Paul was referring to “the essential foundation itself of penal power and of its immanent finality,” and not to the content of “individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action.
*It is from an article citing his Address to the Italian Association of Catholic Jurists (5 February 1955), AAS 47 (1955) 81, which I cannot find in English. Nonetheless, I have seen nothing that reasonably suggests that Gn 9:6 doesn’t mean exactly what it says.

I’m not sure I understand why there is so much opposition to capital punishment except as a misunderstanding of punishment and justice. As Genesis says, murderers are to be executed because that crime is so horrific. Unfortunately, we no longer find it all that serious. Executions remind us of how we ought to perceive it.

Ender
Click to expand...
No one denies that it is good and right that authority has the power of the sword.
It is some types of act of the sword that is in question.

Act and power are two completely different types of “good” as has been mentioned a number of times.
 
If one grants Msgr. Stuart W. Swetland’s hypothetical proposition capital punishment could be considered intrinsically immoral in the future, seems he fails to adequately address Prof. Edward C. Feser’s contention of successfully reconciling his “theological speculation” with over nineteen centuries of ecclesiastical teaching notwithstanding? :hmmm: Rather informative exchanges between Blue Horizon and Ender on this controversial topic . . . :yup:
 
SanctusPeccator said:
If one grants Msgr. Stuart W. Swetland’s hypothetical proposition capital punishment could be considered intrinsically immoral in the future, seems he fails to adequately address Prof. Edward C. Feser’s contention of successfully reconciling his “theological speculation” with over nineteen centuries of ecclesiastical teaching notwithstanding?
Click to expand...
This is one of the serious problems faced by those who oppose capital punishment. If it is opposed as intrinsically evil this would be a repudiation of virtually every teaching of every previous pope, Father, and Doctor of the church who spoke on the issue prior to the end of the 20th century. As Archbishop Chaput said in this regard: “The Church cannot repudiate that [the legitimacy of capital punishment] without repudiating her own identity.”

What this leaves is opposition based on the interpretation that executing someone who can be safely imprisoned is intrinsically evil, and now that such capabilities (purportedly) exist, virtually all executions are evil.

What this approach fails to address, however, is that the severity of the punishment is not determined by the degree of protection it provides. Rather it is determined by what is just, and the justness of any punishment is measured by whether its severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime. Capital punishment has always been acknowledged by the church as legitimate not because it provides protection against future crimes, but because it is the just punishment for certain crimes, chief among them being murder.

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top