We are good by virtue of our existence. It is impossible for Gad to create an evil thing. Every thing that has being is good, albeit to varying degrees. The being of “pure evil” cannot exist, if for no other reason than evil is not a created quality, but a privation of good.
LOL x 2. I never said that forgiveness and compassion have nothing to do with punishment either. F&C do not remove a punishment, but they should be taken into consideration when giving one. Showing compassion to those you despise is difficult. Giving forgiveness can be almost impossible. Sometimes the just punishment is the hardest one to give. Religion should be first and foremost about forgiveness and compassion, and if that isn’t evident in your actions then something is wrong IMO. No one can be as perfect as Jesus, but you should still try.
Is Satan “good by virtue of his existence”?
In a manner of speaking. This is a problematic metaphysical discussion, that is, the nature of evil. But to suggest that God creates evil things is to suggest that there is a measure of evil in God, and as such, is not pure good. Therefore we must conclude that since God is the perfection of good, that all that has being is good.
OK, this has quite spiraled way out of control …
I see it clearly.
A bit of a stretch. “Mother” does not equate to “greatest” otherwise the Church would teach that Mary is greater than her Son. Since you like Aquinas, I’ll cite the Summa Q.61 Art.2 Reply Obj. 1: “Prudence is absolutely the principal of all the virtues.” But the ranking of the human virtues is academic since we agree charity is the greatest virtue. I have offered how the death penalty may comply with charity – the greatest commandment within the Church’s teaching. That is enough for me.
I think you carry quite a few stones in your pockets. The weight of which, I think, causes you to miss the central point and dwell on the periphery of this encyclical and Church teaching in general on the subject of the death penalty.
*“A charity that loves and serves the person is never able to be separated from justice.” *(JPII, Christifideles Laici, 1988)
If by “quite a few stones” you mean I can cite any number of specific comments the Church has made that are directly relevant to the topic, you are correct. As to how that causes me to misunderstand what the Church teaches, that’s a bit less obvious.
While I love you like a brother or sister, I’ve got to go with John Paul II as your superior in understanding the enitire body of Church teaching regarding the death penalty (as does the retired moderator of this particular forum: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134752).
The more you dig into this issue the better you can recognize the problem we face: there is an unbridgeable gap between what the Church taught in the past and what is in the Catechism today. That really presents problems for people who sincerely want to understand what the moral position on this issue really is.
This very neatly summarizes the problem: we are forced to choose between two justifiable but competing positions - the Church now and the Church then. Your conclusion is surely a valid one - obviously - as it’s the position taken by pretty much all of the clergy. You will note, however, there are problems with this position which appear as soon as you try to defend it with an argument as there is quite literally nothing whatever in the entire history of the Church that justifies it. There are certainly no references in either 2267 or Evangelium Vitae to any supporting material and I doubt that this is mere oversight. So long as you stick with “because JPII said so” you are safe but once you leave that spot you will find you come to the argument empty handed.
I don’t see competing positions. EV does not contradict any prior infallible teaching; it does amplify and clarify prior Church teachings just as Christ promised His Holy Spirit would do through Peter and his successors (John 14:26).
Nowhere prior to 1995 (Evangelium Vitae) had the Church ever said that the death penalty should not be used. Given that the Catechism of Trent called the application of capital punishment “paramount obedience” to the fifth commandment I think it’s pretty clear that what is in the 1997 catechism is nothing like what is in the Catechism of Trent.
The charism of infallibility does not extend to opinions, even those of popes and that seems to be what we have in EV, the prudential opinion of JPII. As to whether the Holy Spirit requires supporting materials, I think it is more accurate to note that as morality does not change with time and place what is taught today should be a natural extension of what was taught before, and on this topic that is plainly not the case.
Let’s take the 1997 Catechism and section 2267 which is based on EV 56. The first sentence says: "The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty,* when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.**" *This claim is simply wrong. It is no more accurate than saying 2+2 = 5. The Church has never had such a restriction.
The Church has consistently taught that the civil authorities may only use the death penalty judiciously (having or exhibiting sound judgment; prudent). This teaching is not contradicted in EV.
I think it not clear at all. To the contrary, the documents are in harmony. A more complete quote from the Catechism of Trent is “the just use of this power … is an act of paramount obedience … “ (emphasis mine). EV elaborates on the just use of this power as taught by Trent; EV also does not proscribe capital punishment again in harmony with Trent.
That is incorrect. In matters of faith and morals, the papal opinion is charismatically infallible.
This paragraph simply begs the question and does not move us forward. Alleging EV is a not a “natural extension of what was taught before” is no proof. As I have shown above with citations, EV does naturally and authoritatively extend the Trentan formulations. Trent and EV both allow that prudence is required by the civil authority in effecting the death penalty. Where is the contradiction?
The Church has always restricted the use of the death penalty to “judicious“ use only as cited above in the Catechism of Trent.
Agree. However, who would claim the current penal system is less secure than the system in place in the 16th century?
This instruction is moral and, therefore, binding. Note that consistent with Trent, retribution is not offered as a moral means to justify capital punishment.
The Church does not teach that the primary purpose of the death penalty is justice. (And the primary purpose of punishment is not justice either but expiation as noted earlier in Pius XII discourse to Italian jurists.) Rather the primary purpose of the death penalty is, and has been consistently taught by the Church, is the security of human life. From the Catechism of Trent: “The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.”
You are right. EV rightly ignores your concept – retribution – and re-emphaizes Trent’s notion of the primacy of secuirty.
Now, Ender, if, as you have already promised, not to interpret Scripture (remember “Job”?) then why start now. The etymology of the word “heretic” is the Greek word “hairein” which means to choose. Heretics take the passages of Scripture they like and errantly elevate them above all others.
It seems that what you have offered, that JP2 offered his prudential opinion but found an unfortunate place to publish it (in the CCC), is the most acceptable. I think we should adopt a construction that does not potentially throw all Catholic doctrine into question. The Catholic Church taught for centuries that the death penalty was both the right and the duty of states. So we can believe:
I believe that your position, that JP2 was offering his prudential opinion but made an unfortunate decision about where to publish it (the CCC), is the most logical. The alternatives would seem to have the potential to throw all Catholic Doctrine into question. You can believe:
Our disagreement has never been about whether the Church ever supported the injudicious use of capital punishment. The question is not whether its use should be proper but over what makes it so and EV and Trent answer that question completely differently.
This simply begs the question of what constitutes just use. EV bases its opposition on it being unnecessary for the protection of society; Trent bases its support on the heinousness of the crime and the nature of man.
That this is obviously untrue can be seen from the number of papal statements made throughout history that are obviously wrong. In fact, papal pronouncements are charismatically infallible only when the pope claims they are or when he speaks in concert with the bishops, neither of which was the case with EV. Review Lumen Gentium 25 for a thorough explanation.
It is surely true that EV deals with prudence but Trent deals with justice; there is simply no rational connection between the two documents nor have I read any commentary suggesting such a thing. Trent states that capital punishment is necessary because the murder of a human, who is made in the image of God, is such a terrible crime; EV says that executions are unnecessary to protect society. They are worlds apart in what they address.
It is opinion and therefore not binding. It is not consistent with Trent and 2267 is not even consistent with what was just said in 2266 that the primary objective of punishment is retribution.
I am happy to use the statement of Pius XII to understand this issue, and we can start with your claim that the primary purpose of punishment is expiation. 2266 is rather explicit: “the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” As Cardinal Dulles explained in 2001: "Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution." It should be pretty clear that “redressing the disorder” means retribution, and as Pius said about punishment, it *"is the reaction required by law and **justice *in response to a fault"
That is the objective of the fifth Commandment, it is not the objective of punishment. Nowhere, even in the 1997 Catechism, does the Church ever make the security of human life the primary objective of punishment.
Retribution is not my concept. It is the Church which recognizes this as the primary objective of punishment, but you are surely right in noting that EV ignores it. That’s the problem.
You really should have believed me when I told you that I don’t offer my own interpretations of Scripture; your allusion to heresy is inappropriate not least because it is inaccurate. Let’s go back to Trent.
The acknowledgment that 2267 is prudential opinion is more widespread that most of its supporters realize.
Myopic.
Don’t be too hard on Ender. He just has trouble differentiating between the several different types of law in the Old Testament.