Defense has always been a valid objective of punishment and, contrary to 2267, there is nothing in de Liguori’s statement that suggests that capital punishment may be used *only *when it is necessary in defense.
I’m thinking the same thing about the use of the word “defense”.
Hmm. This could be why the discussion is going nowhere. I’m not suggesting doctrines change. Not only is that not possible, but part of my problem is it appears you think the Magisterium has got the issue of the death penalty wrong since 1995.
She can’t reverse her doctrines. I’m challenging your presentation of her doctrines in light of what the last few Popes have said, mainly you saying 2267 is wrong.
Do you acknowledge that the 1997 version of the catechism, in 2267, constituted a major change in the church teaching on capital punishment or is it your position that there has been no change in church teaching on this subject?
Actually what I said was that 2267 is not doctrine and since it is a prudential judgment it can be in error. If nothing else we are surely not obligated to assent to it.
No change in Church teaching properly interpreted.
I think it very imprudent to disagree with the prudential judgment, but that aside I was talking about 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.
I can’t find it because I’m still traveling and without access to my notes, but there is a statement from Archbishop Wilton Gregory where he comments on the significant change in the 1997 version of the catechism with regard to capital punishment. The proper understanding of something is taking the words to mean what they obviously say; I see no rational way to support the idea that nothing has changed.
Imprudent or not, we have no moral obligation to assent to prudential judgments and yes, this is one statement with which I disagree. This is an assertion about a verifiable fact regarding the traditional teaching of the church and it is not accurate. The church has never attached the caveat that the use of capital punishment was dependent on its need to protect the public. As I pointed out earlier this statement differs from the statement made in the 1992 version of the catechism regarding the traditional teaching on this subject. This is only one of the significant changes that was made in those five years between the two releases of the catechism. The 1992 version is in accord with all of the previous (half dozen) versions of catechisms going back to the the Catechism of St. Thomas. The 1997 version is different than all of the others and these differences are not addressed by refusing to acknowledge their existence.
Has something changed in the presentation on how capital punishment is to be administered? Yes, so clearly something has changed. Has Church teaching changed on the issue of capital punishment? No, since it’s something that can’t change.
I’d bet that Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Schotte, etc. etc. didn’t all of a sudden not understand what the Church teaches regarding the death penalty. I don’t think I’ll ever understand the line of thinking that implies they either never understood or forgot what the Church teaches.
If the statement is true then there should be some evidence to support it. Where is it? Surely we should have examples of the traditional teaching of the church to support 2267. You have 2000 years of church history at your disposal. Provide a single example that supports the assertion that capital punishment is to be used only when necessary to defend society. And you might also try to explain why all of the examples from previous catechisms and earlier popes do not contain such a restriction.
You keep providing a rationale for why 2267 cannot be in error which is not at all the same as rebutting my assertion that it is in error. I can provide at least a dozen citations from the traditional teaching of the church, none of which contains that restriction. Neither you nor anyone else can provide a single supporting citation. Even the catechism itself provides no supporting citation for the simple reason that there is nothing to cite.
The change was a good bit more extensive than you admit.*When the second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church appeared in 1997, some readers were surprised to discover that the purpose of capital punishment as restitution of public order had been removed from the discussion. *(Archbishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)
You can find the Latin here. For all of Liguori’s Theologia Moralis, look here.
Here’s a “singe example” from the Doctor of Moral Theology, which I quoted in my previous post:
Don’t overlook his earlier statement though: * What brought about this change in the catechetical presentation of the church’s moral stance?*
Thanks, but I can’t read Latin. The original source, however, was quite useful. While I don’t have access to his Moral Theology I did find his “complete works” which includes the “Instructions for the People” from which my citation was taken (p. 461)
I don’t think you have interpreted this accurately. The question is whether Liguori is saying that capital punishment can be used only if necessary to defend society where “defend” has the same meaning as in 2267 where it was used as defense "against the aggressor", that is in terms of self defense. According to your source, that was not his meaning.
I don’t necessarily support Brugger’s analysis. The link is just where I found the quote.
The question is whether the “common good” refers *solely *to the security of human lives or whether it has a broader meaning that encompasses justice, and I don’t think a convincing argument can be made that anyone in the church interpreted the term narrowly. The church has never placed mere existence as the highest value. In fact, in regard to the virtues, a good argument can be made that justice exceeds them all and would surely have been included in the meaning of the “common good.”
Where’s the disagreement? All protection of the common good, including justice, leads to and essentially is the defense of human lives, especially the spiritual aspect of human life.
This is not the context in which 2267 states that capital punishment may be used only to defend human life. That section ignores the concept of retributive justice, which is what makes 2267 so different than the statement made by St. Alphonsus and why his comment does not support the assertion about the traditional teaching of the church that 2267 makes.
:doh2::doh2::doh2::doh2::doh2::banghead::banghead::banghead: