Malta has access to modern technology. How many people has it killed? The Muslims have access to modern technology and they’ve killed thousands, that’s no where near as many as the atheists.
Well your point is stupid.
I will forever engage in this “bad idea”. I can not help but bring my faith to everything, including politics.
This is a false dichotomy. One may do both at the same time. In doing so, one can still punish a criminal severely and maintain the mind of Christ. We just wouldn’t do so and call one whom Christ died for a “monster”.
I think you won’t find a stronger advocate for the catechism’s position on this subject than Cardinal Dulles.
This is the heart of the argument and of Dulles’ position: what does “defend against the aggressor” mean? Dulles is well aware of the problem with interpreting that phrase - as virtually everyone here has done - to mean “mere physical defense.” If that’s what it means then, as Dulles recognized, it would “run up against many biblical testimonies.”
This is exactly my argument and it all hinges on what the phrase “defend against” means. It appears that the strongest argument Dulles could find that “defending” meant more than physical defense was this:* It is at least plausible to think, with Professor Steven Long, that when the Pope speaks of the protection of society as grounds for using the death penalty, he may have more in mind than mere physical defense against the individual criminal. *
Dulles’ problem is that he is trying to square a circle. No one understands the phrase “defend against the aggressor” to include the concept of retributive justice, which it would have to mean for there to be any continuity with the past.
So much for the “development of doctrine” argument.
What you’ve described as “wrong” is the system of justice the church has always advocated. This is the passage most people refer to in rejecting the concept of vengeance:Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Rom 12:19)
The teaching has changed OR it hasn’t. You cannot argue that it has changed AND it hasn’t. As for the hermeneutic of continuity, I understand what the assertion means but no on has presented a reasonable argument as to how it has been achieved. Dulles tried but came up short.
This is one of the big problems for the new (changed) position on capital punishment. The price for murder today is exactly what it was 2000 years ago since the worth of a life and the horrific nature of the crime have not and indeed cannot change. If the price was not too high then then how can it be too high today? and if it is just then by definition it is not too high since a penalty that is too high is in fact unjust. This is one thing the march of progress cannot change: the value of a human life is constant and utterly independent of the capacities of a nation’s penal system therefore the just penalty for a murder will be exactly the same today as at any time in the past or future.
I would say they haven’t killed as many simply because they haven’t tried. You conveniently forgot to mention the numerous times the Muslims have tried to conquer Europe.
You would be singing a different tune if the Muslims were applying their religion to your political life.
Of course something can change and not - or be and not be - or hold two ideas in tension. Both/And, not Either/Or.
These statements are not contradictory, they just don’t mean what most people think they do. They are in fact about the rights of the individual and the responsibilities of the state.And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice: and whereas the commandment of God saith: Thou shalt not kill, it is understood, by thy private authority. (Catechism of St. Robert Bellarmine)
Dulles wasn’t at all pro-death penalty; in fact he agreed with JPII’s position, which makes his inability to support it as doctrine all the more significant.
Well that’s what you’ve done and tried to turn my position into.
Why use Dulles to support your opinions, and then say that he has “terribly weak arguments” when he disagrees with you? Your use of Bishops Conferences is similar in this respect.
I’ll side with the Church and her understanding on this.
That’s the point Triumphguy was making.
Then explain in your words what you think that phrase means.
Dulles understands the problem 2267 presents, identifies the only solution, and then shows by the weakness of his own argument just how unlikely that interpretation is. He supported JPII’s position. He was just not able to logically explain that comment in 2267.
I rarely use statements from the USCCB but they occasionally have their uses.
That’s all I’ve done. What you need to address is that each of us can legitimately make that claim: you cite documents from the last few decades and I cite everything before then. Surely you recognize the problem where we have opposite positions that are both supported by church teaching. How do you account for what appear to be contradictory statements?
So we can keep going in circles?
That’s not what I got out of Dulles’ statements on the death penalty.
Through a hermeneutic of continuity.
Aside from the fact that the church seems unwilling to even label someone a heretic these days, let alone execute one, the debate has never been about whether executing heretics is a good or a bad idea. It is about whether the proper punishment for murder is death. On the other hand, the argument that someone should not be executed because it is more beneficial to the common good has always been part of the teaching as well. Whether or not to execute on such grounds is of course a practical judgment rather than a moral doctrine but it is certainly one that is appropriate to make.
My position is nothing more than the doctrine the church has taught for nearly 2000 years and it isn’t clear how citing that doctrine as expressed in catechisms and by popes, doctors, and fathers of the church constitutes misrepresentation. I do recognize how it constitutes an inconvenience.
Let’s go round again
Nah. The “sure norm for teaching the Faith” isn’t actually the norm.Let’s go round again
So why not cite the current CCC and be done with it, since it IS Church teaching?
Practical and moral.
How sure of the norm can we be if the norm changes? You ought to be aware of the problems caused when doctrines change, especially if those changes involve the repudiation of earlier doctrines. You are much too casual about accepting 2267 as a doctrinal change since that position involves the rejection of doctrine that had been settled for nearly 2000 years. If doctrines on capital punishment can be discarded what about doctrines on contraception and homosexuality? Shall we just assume they can change also? If one ancient doctrine can change then why not all of them?
Does it make sense to pick one and ignore the other? It is unreasonable to pit two apparently contradictory teachings against one another and simply choose one and ignore the other. It is necessary to accommodate both and the only way I can see to do that is by understanding 2267 not as a new doctrine but as a prudential judgment about the application of existing doctrine to current circumstances. Discarding 20 centuries of Tradition is not an option.