Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[Betterave]

“2267 simply states a position on the advisability of treating murderers according to their deserts.”

2267 makes no statement whatsoever regarding the treatment of murderers “according to their deserts.” It speaks solely in terms of protection; it ignores not only retribution but deterrence and rehabilitation as well.

That is your groundlessly asserted interpretation, Ender! Good grief man - just because a text doesn’t explicitly mention something does not give you grounds to claim that the authors of the text ignored that something in formulating their statement!

“Vaguely explicit”? You’re defending your position with oxymorons?

The oxymoron was used to refer to your position.

In regard to those passages in Genesis, however, there is nothing vague about the way the Church refers to them.

NOTHING vague?? Big claim, not much justification.

Let’s look at some passages in fuller context:

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. 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.

This sounds perfectly compatible with 2267.

As, then, the Sacred Scriptures prescribe remedies for so dangerous a disease, the pastor should spare no pains in making them known to the faithful.

Of these remedies the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide.

The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. To the utmost of his power he destroys the universal work of God by the destruction of man, since God declares that He created all things for man’s sake. Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself !

Again perfectly compatible with the CCC.

It isn’t credible to contend that the Church didn’'t mean what she plainly said.

Now let’s notice that it isn’t credible to contend that the Church plainly said what she did *not *plainly say, indeed what she plainly did not say.

From the same section of the Catechism of Trent:
First, he who thinks himself injured ought above all to be persuaded that the man on whom he desires to be revenged was not the principal cause of the loss or injury. Thus that admirable man, Job, when violently injured by the Sabeans, the Chaldeans, and by Satan, took no account of these, but as a righteous and very holy man exclaimed with no less truth than piety: The Lord gave, the Lord hath taken away.

Since I never made the claim, what it logically entails is irrelevant. Once again you attack what you incorrectly attribute to me rather than what I actually said.

Yes, quite well. Do you understand the notion of responding to my actual comments?

I VERY EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED how the claim IS logically entailed by what you actually said! You *ignore *that and then tell ME to respond to your actual comments? You are a very difficult fellow.

 

[Ender]

Please restate this argument using *citations *from 2267 rather than just your interpretive paraphrases.

Doh! Do you understand the notion of logical implication?

“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, …Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal … cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’” (CCC 2267)

Let me interpret this. “If criminals can be securely locked up they shouldn’t be executed. Since States can securely lock them up the need to execute them should be practically non-existent.” Do you see anything about justice in there? The point being made is that only the need for defense justifies capital punishment, and since modern prisons make it unnecessary for defense it should not be employed. If the need for justice was a concern, then defense would not be the sole criterion, but since it is defense alone that determines the use of capital punishment the logical implication is that retribution for the crime does not require the use of the death penalty. If this is true it means 2267 is stating that no crime merits death.

Therefore Ender claims that it is not true that execution has never been absolutely necessary to expiate the sin of murder - and you certainly seem to think that it has always been true that execution has been absolutely necessary to expiate the sin of murder , since you say:

The problem you consistently create is with your insistence on inserting terms like “always” and “never” into my comments where I have not used them. You understand the significance of what you’re doing - how it changes the meaning of my statements - or you would not bother with it. There are any number of problems with your replies…

But this claim - it has always been true that execution has been absolutely necessary to expiate the sin of murder - **logically entails **that *no non-executed murderer can repent so as to expiate his crime. *

… not least of which is your apparent confusion over the relationship between retribution and expiation. Retribution is deserved in every case of crime or sin. Expiation occurs not simply because someone is punished but only if the punishment is voluntarily accepted. Finally, repentance - and even forgiveness - does not obviate the need for punishment. Repentance alone cannot expiate a crime. Nor is it necessary that every sin be expiated in this life; that can still be accomplished in purgatory.

Ender

 

[Ender]

just because a text doesn’t explicitly mention something does not give you grounds to claim that the authors of the text ignored that something in formulating their statement!

It is not merely the fact that the text says nothing whatever - explicitly or implicitly - about justice, it is primarily the fact that what is explicit is sufficient in itself to make the point. And what it states is that the Church allows capital punishment when it is the “only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings.” What could allow executions if they are not necessary for defense? and, if something else allowed them, then this statement would be incorrect. In fact, we know this statement is incorrect because it incorrectly states traditional Church teaching on the subject which never limited executions to the need for defense.

Let’s look at some passages in fuller context: 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.This sounds perfectly compatible with 2267.

There is no context that will aid your position. This comment goes to the end of the Fifth Commandment but we are talking about the ends of punishment, which are different. 2267 does indeed talk about defense - as does Trent - but Trent does not limit itself solely to defense … which is not surprising as punishment is not solely (or, especially, even primarily) about defense.

Of these remedies the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder

A concept which is lost when punishment is tied to defense rather than desert.

*Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? This seems unlikely. Consider the deviant who tortures small children to death for his pleasure or the ideologue who meditates the demise of innocent thousands for the sake of greater terror. Genesis says murderers deserve death *because life is precious; man is made in the image of God. How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live? (J. Budziszewski)

Again perfectly compatible with the CCC.

This comment pretty much sums up your approach, which is to simply quote something without bothering to explain how it could possibly support your position. How, exactly, does one form a just conception of the wickedness of murder by visiting on them the same punishment handed out to thieves?

I VERY EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED how the claim IS logically entailed by what you actually said! You *ignore *that and then tell ME to respond to your actual comments?

You first very explicitly changed my comment before responding to it. You keep using the word logic. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Ender

 

[d97c]

The Pope says clearly that a Catholic may disagree about the death penalty but NOT about abortion. There is a clear difference, and a Catholic may support the death penalty…and I do. You mean to tell me that if Hitler had been caught and convicted, it wouldnt have been proportional justice to execute him?? Read this::
“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia”
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

 

[Ender]

The Pope says clearly that a Catholic may disagree about the death penalty but NOT about abortion.

This is actually a significant comment as it clearly signals that there is a fundamental difference between the nature of the Church’s position on abortion and her position on capital punishment. Simply put, one is not free to disagree with the Church about doctrine yet we are free to disagree about the teaching on the death penalty. The only reason this could possibly be so is that the teaching is not doctrine but opinion. We may be obligated to assent to doctrine (fallible or not) but we have no such obligation with regard to opinions … even those of popes.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

I doubt whether it’s worth wasting any more time arguing with you on this, but here goes!

Doh! Do you understand the notion of logical implication? A HECK OF A LOT BETTER THAN YOU DO!

“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, …Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal … cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’” (**PART OF **CCC 2267)

Let me interpret this. DOH! “If criminals can be securely locked up they shouldn’t be executed - WHY? FOR THE REASONS GIVEN; NOT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE UNJUST TO DO SO. Since States can securely lock them up the -]need /-]ABSOLUTE NECESSITY to execute them should be practically non-existent.” Do you see anything about justice in there? YES, OBVIOUSLY! The point being made is that only the need for defense -]justifies /-] MAKES capital punishment ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, and since modern prisons make it unnecessary for defense it should not be employed, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN. If the need for justice was a concern, then defense would not be the sole criterion [AND IT’S VERY CLEARLY NOT THE SOLE CRITERION GIVEN!], but since it is PRIMARILY defense -]alone/-] that determines the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY OF THE use of capital punishment, the logical implication is that retribution for the crime does not require the use of the death penalty. If this is true it means 2267 is stating that -]no crime merits death/-] PROSECUTION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT ADVISABLE WHERE THERE IS NO COMPELLING DEFENSE CONSIDERATION.

2267 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 *JUST *PENALTY IN ITSELF! ], if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, [REASON:] as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person *.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

The problem you consistently create is with your insistence on inserting terms like “always” and “never” into my comments where I have not used them. You understand the significance of what you’re doing - how it changes the meaning of my statements - or you would not bother with it. There are any number of problems with your replies…

This is not my problem, Ender. I use those terms based on what you have said. Here’s what you wrote:
"The severity of the sin cannot change with time therefore the degree of punishment must be the same as well and the concern for defense is entirely irrelevant to that question. "
“Cannot change with time” implies “always”; “always x” implies “never not-x”.

I don’t just make stuff up. You do…

… not least of which is your apparent confusion over the relationship between retribution and expiation. Retribution is deserved in every case of crime or sin. Expiation occurs not simply because someone is punished but only if the punishment is voluntarily accepted. Finally, repentance - and even forgiveness - does not obviate the need for punishment - ALTHOUGH REPENTANCE COMBINED WITH BAPTISM OR INDULGENCES MAY. Repentance alone cannot expiate a crime. Nor is it necessary that every sin be expiated in this life; that can still be accomplished in purgatory.

…My “apparent” confusion? I’m confused as to how you managed to think that I was confused about any of that. Please refer to a comment I have made where I appear to be confused about this.*

 

[Betterave]

There is no context that will aid your position.

That may just be true, since you don’t care about context.

You first very explicitly changed my comment before responding to it. You keep using the word logic. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

No, I very explicitly showed you that I did not change it. I obviously know how logic works, and have proven that. You have repeatedly proven the opposite about yourself. Correct me if I’ve missed something, but not once have you cited a logical concept and shown how it applies to an argument. You just make groundless ad hominem assertions about how logical you are and how illogical I am.

 

[Ender]

THE DEATH PENALTY IS A *JUST *PENALTY IN ITSELF!

I agree with this. This raises the question of whether a lesser penalty can also be just. In questions of degree - should the sentence be five or eight years? - either or both of the penalties can be just, but when the penalties differ in kind - namely between imprisonment and execution - the question is more pointed. A punishment that is insufficient is as unjust as a penalty that is too harsh, and it would appear, based on the Church’s continued reference to Gen 9:6, that anything less than the punishment it prescribes is insufficient and therefore unjust.

This is not my problem, Ender. I use those terms based on what you have said. Here’s what you wrote:"The severity of the sin cannot change with time therefore the degree of punishment must be the same as well and the concern for defense is entirely irrelevant to that question. "“Cannot change with time” implies “always”; “always x” implies “never not-x”.

I never (see, I do use these terms) said I didn’t use unconditionals. I simply didn’t use them as you implied. You added them in places where I avoided them thus deliberately changing the meaning of my comments.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I obviously know how logic works, and have proven that. You have repeatedly proven the opposite about yourself. Correct me if I’ve missed something,

OK. Here’s a thread you started in #309 that I commented on a few times and then dropped, so let’s readdress it.

*‘P is just’ does not imply 'not-P is not-just.

*This is sometimes true and sometimes not; the form may be conditionally true but it is not universally true. No conclusion can be logically drawn from a single premise.

Ender

 

[Thoughtfulone]

A comment by the Vatican made this week from an article about the stoning of an Iranian woman.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the Catholic church opposes the death penalty in general.

Full article:

google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gXkaTBshlOFxCGSAuNLwK9OSLVSwD9I1Q8M80

 

[d97c]

Thank God for the Pope who said that Catholics CAN treat the death penalty and abortion different. He says we can support the death penalty AND I DO !!
Read this if you think it’s not the case !!

“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

 

[Ender]

A comment by the Vatican made this week from an article about the stoning of an Iranian woman.

“Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said the Catholic church opposes the death penalty in general.” %between%

Rev. Lombardi’s comments were a bit loose. The Church does not oppose things in general, she teaches moral truths. High ranking clerics may certainly oppose things in general but that is something entirely different. The Church - her teaching as opposed to her current bishops - does not oppose capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Rev. Lombardi’s comments were a bit loose. The Church does not oppose things in general, she teaches moral truths. High ranking clerics may certainly oppose things in general but that is something entirely different. The Church - her teaching as opposed to her current bishops - does not oppose capital punishment.

Ender

Then why would the Vatican SPOKESMAN say it if it weren’t true? Is he in the habit of making things up?

 

[d97c]

Here’s what I want to know-----What makes Pope John Paul 2’s opinion and dislike of the death penalty’s application better and MORE CORRECT than centuries of other catholic doctors and other Popes writings…OTHER “magisterium”----

From St. Augustine on, capital punishment was seen in a different light. In his City of God, for example, Augustine speaks of certain exceptions to the divine law forbidding killing of a human being, including “for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.” As a rationale for these exceptions, Augustine refers to agents of authority as “a sword in the hand” of God, and cites a series of examples from the Old Testament where men are justified in killing in obedience to God.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument takes a slightly different tack. In the Summa Theologiae Aquinas affirms that the individual person is to the community as a part to the whole. Thus, just as a decayed member of the body may be excised for the good of the whole, so too “if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community … he may be killed in order to safeguard the common good.” Theologians after St. Thomas by and large followed his line on the death penalty, and alternative interpretations only began to surface in the late 18th century.

Finally, as regards the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, until fairly recently the overall tenor of the scattered papal pronouncements or allusions to capital punishment tended toward acceptance of a practice firmly ensconced in society and in civil law, and commonly defended by theologians.

The first Pope to take a stand in favor of the death penalty was Innocent I in the year 405, who in response to a query from the bishop of Toulouse bases his favorable position on Paul’s letter to the Romans. Innocent writes, “In regard to this question we have nothing definitive from those who have gone before us. It must be remembered that power was granted by God, and to avenge crime the sword was permitted; he who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). What motive have we for condemning a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.”

In the year 866, however, Pope Nicholas I adopted a different angle in his letter to the newly converted Bulgarian Christians. Nicholas urges the neophytes to promote life both of body and soul, and to “rescue from death not only the innocent, but also the guilty.” As grounds for his argument, Nicholas appeals to the example of Christ, who had saved the Bulgarians from their imprisonment to death and brought them to eternal life.

After the turn of the millennium came another milestone in the Church’s reflections on capital punishment. In dealing with Waldensian heretics who sought reentry into the Catholic Church, Pope Innocent III required the pronouncement of a profession of faith which included the statement: “The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude.”

The basic acceptance of the legitimacy of capital punishment continued through more recent pontificates, though usually in the form of indirect reference. In his letter to the bishops of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Pastoralis Oficii, Leo XIII wrote of the prohibition by divine and natural law of killing or wounding a human being, “except for a public cause [that is, by public authority] or in the necessity of defending one’s own life.”

Pius XII presented a more explicit defense of the lawfulness of capital punishment. He states that “as long as a man is without guilt, his life is untouchable,” and adds that “God is the sole lord of the life of a man not guilty of a crime punishable by the death penalty.” The Pontiff provides the moral reasoning behind his thought on capital punishment in an address to a congress of doctors: “Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he himself, through his crime, has deprived himself of the right to life.”
The answer is contained in the Current Pope’s statements that we CAN disagree with the catachism

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
   priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

 

[Ender]

Then why would the Vatican SPOKESMAN say it if it weren’t true? Is he in the habit of making things up?

I am indifferent as to why people say things; I only care whether what they say is correct, and what he said was incorrect … or imprecise if you prefer. As should be obvious, the Church does not teach about things “in general.”

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

From the newest Catechism:

9: “The ministry of catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. The Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching.

Then these:

1. Pope (and Saint) Pius V, Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

“The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.”

NOTE: This Catechism is stating that executions reflect paramount obedience to a God given commandment.

Yet, PJPII and the newest Catechism ask us to all but do away with executions, based upon a worldly defense of society, consisting of an error prone prison system that already causes huge numbers of innocent deaths because they don’t properly restrain unjust aggressors.

1. Pope Pius XII 9/14/52

“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.”

1. Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.

“Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity.” ” . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).” (2)
“Capital Punishment: New Testament Teaching”, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., 1998
therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm

NOTE: “It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ “

PJPII’s amendment to the Catechism, via EV, is, strictly based upon an historical evaluation of the worldly prison system. In addition, it should be noted that such evaluation was also in error.

1. “Catholic scholar Steven A. Long says in “Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Death Penalty” (The Thomist, 1999, pp. 511-52),

“It is nearly the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) is that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation).”

NOTE: NOT SUBJECT TO CULTURAL VARIATION.

 

[Betterave]

1. Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.

“Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity.” ” . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).” (2)
“Capital Punishment: New Testament Teaching”, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., 1998
therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm

NOTE: “It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources **only **contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ “

1. “Catholic scholar Steven A. Long says in “Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Death Penalty” (The Thomist, 1999, pp. 511-52),

“It is nearly the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) is that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation).”

NOTE: NOT SUBJECT TO CULTURAL VARIATION.

Obviously that is why the CCC does not exclude recourse to the death penalty! Nonetheless, the general claim implied here, that the terms of its use are “not subject to cultural variation,” can only be an absurd one to anyone familiar with a little history, whether ancient or that which is currently unfolding in the modern world.

 

[Betterave]

OK. Here’s a thread you started in #309 that I commented on a few times and then dropped, so let’s readdress it.

*‘P is just’ does not imply 'not-P is not-just.

*This is sometimes true and sometimes not; the form may be conditionally true but it is not universally true. No conclusion can be logically drawn from a single premise.

Ender

In other words:
If
‘P and only P is just’
then
‘P is just’ does imply ‘not-P is not-just’.

But it remains universally true that:

‘P is just’ does not by itself imply 'not-P is not-just.

 

[Betterave]

I am indifferent as to why people say things; I only care whether what they say is correct, and what he said was incorrect … or imprecise if you prefer. As should be obvious, the Church does not teach about things “in general.”

Ender

That’s nonsense, of course she does!

 

[Betterave]

Here’s what I want to know-----What makes Pope John Paul 2’s opinion and dislike of the death penalty’s application better and MORE CORRECT than centuries of other catholic doctors and other Popes writings…OTHER “magisterium”----

Obviously, if JPII’s view is better, it is better because the reasons he adduces are better, for example, they may be grounded in a fuller consideration of/more robust understanding of the concrete condition of the human person (both qua murderous, and qua vengeful, for example), as well as a greater historical awareness and sensitivity to the weaknesses and failings of both secular and theocratic states as executors of justice.