L
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
Ender
Guest
We’re discussing whether something is a natural right, not whether it is intrinsically good. I have a right to defend myself with lethal force if necessary. I would hesitate to call that a good but would not hesitate to call it a right. States have a natural right to employ capital punishment which, again, may not be a good but is surely a right.Lawfulness is something made good or right conditional on the current circumstances, the intention of the persons involved and its justness in relation to the common good. It doesn’t have the nature of intrinsic goodness or rightness.
“Us” as individuals, no; “us” as the state, yes.*Because God has a right to kill doesn’t give us the ‘right to kill’.
*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. (Aquinas)
Catholic authorities justify the right of the State to inflict capital punishment on the ground that the State does not act on its own authority but as the agent of God (Cardinal Dulles)
Princes and Governors that have public authority, put malefactors to death, not as masters of men’s lives, but as ministers of God (Bellarmine)
Ender
L
LongingSoul
Guest
That is a uniquely American interpretation. You have a right to defend yourself. It is lawful to use lethal force if this is the only possible way to save your life.We’re discussing whether something is a natural right, not whether it is intrinsically good. I have a right to defend myself with lethal force if necessary.
“If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful” - Aquinas
States have a right to inflict punishment. It is lawful to put a criminal to death if that is the only possible way to protect society.… I would hesitate to call that a good but would not hesitate to call it a right. States have a natural right to employ capital punishment which, again, may not be a good but is surely a right.
You are using the old Divine Right of Kings mentality applied to the state to justify your version of state rights and that never was Catholic teaching let alone what is conveyed through the current Catechism.
E
Ender
Guest
"Ender:
Ender
Did I not include the caveat “if necessary”? There is nothing uniquely or even remotely American about my statement; it is in fact scarcely different than yours. The point being made has nothing to do with the conditions that allow lethal force but is simply with the fact that the right to kill exists. That is, it is a natural right.I have a right to defend myself with lethal force if necessary.
.That is a uniquely American interpretation. You have a right to defend yourself. It is lawful to use lethal force if this is the only possible way to save your life
States have a right to inflict punishment. It is lawful to put a criminal to death if that is the only possible way to protect society.
- States have a conditional right to use capital punishment.
- To execute someone is to kill him.
- Therefore, states have a conditional right to kill.
Ender
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Originally Posted by Ender
I have a right to defend myself with lethal force if necessary.Did I not include the caveat “if necessary”? There is nothing uniquely or even remotely American about my statement; it is in fact scarcely different than yours. The point being made has nothing to do with the conditions that allow lethal force but is simply with the fact that the right to kill exists. That is, it is a natural right.Originally Posted by LongingSoul
That is a uniquely American interpretation. You have a right to defend yourself. It is lawful to use lethal force if this is the only possible way to save your life.
States have a right to inflict punishment. It is lawful to put a criminal to death if that is the only possible way to protect society.
Since it was never reasonable to assume I meant states had a right to kill whomever they wanted without constraint, this conclusion is no different than what I asserted earlier and what Brugger (Aquinas, Augustine, Bellarmine, et al) have said.
- States have a conditional right to use capital punishment.
- To execute someone is to kill him.
- Therefore, states have a conditional right to kill.
I strongly insist that you aren’t properly reflecting Catholicism in what you say.
Contemplate this analogy to see the difference. There is a man who owns a house. He has to go away for a long period, interstate or oversees. He asks you to caretake his property for him until he returns. Now this is not a rental or leasing agreement… this is a caretaking agreement. You are asked to care for this property as if it were your own. This affords you certain rights, such as the right to defend the property from damage and the right to take actions to maintain the quality of the property. You have these rights because this is your place of abode and because you have a commission to protect the owners property.
There is a tall tree beside the house that develops a huge crack down the middle and is teetering dangerously near the house. In this circumstance, it is lawful considering your safety and your commission, to chop down the tree to save yourself and the house. You don’t have any ‘right’ to chop down the tree since it is not your tree. The tree belongs to someone else who still in his absence holds the rights to its fate. He can decide that it blocks his view or that it might prove problematic to his plumbing down the track or that in the overall interests of property welfare, it doesn’t belong. You on the other hand have none of these rights over its fate. Your relationship to the tree is a strictly limited authority to deal with it appropriately if it is imminently dangerous to yourself and the house.
No ‘rights’ exist in relation to this tree. There is an authority inherent in the caretakers commission, but he doesn’t own the tree and therefore holds no ‘rights’ over its fate.
The idea of ‘rights’ suggests a greater degree of arbitrariness because of ‘ownership’.
I’ve found in this debate that it consistently comes back to the difference between the Catholic and Protestant view of our justification. The Catholic view is that as caretakers we are indeed given the keys to the house and meant to regard it ***as if ***it were our own. We are not given the keys to the house along with inclusion on the title and deeds, accorded all those rights of ownership that final salvation afford us. We simply aren’t to regard it ***as our own ***simply because we have the keys.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, and you do this despite the fact that I support all of my assertions with citations from the church herself.I strongly insist that you aren’t properly reflecting Catholicism in what you say.
Either I have the right to chop down the tree or I don’t. If I don’t have that right then I cannot remove it; I can only cut it down if I have the right to do so.There is a tall tree beside the house that develops a huge crack down the middle and is teetering dangerously near the house. In this circumstance, it is lawful considering your safety and your commission, to chop down the tree to save yourself and the house. You don’t have any ‘right’ to chop down the tree since it is not your tree.
You are tripping over the meaning of words. You cannot deny their objective meaning; what you oppose is their subjective meaning and you are trying to separate the two. If the dangerous tree is next door to me on your property then I have no right to remove it, but if the tree is on the property for which I have been given responsibility then I do have the right to remove it even though it is neither my house nor my tree.
This is a good analogy with ministers of the state. Because of the commission they have been given they have a right to do things that are forbidden to others. Just as the house sitter has the right to destroy the tree that threatens the house the minister of the state has the right to destroy individuals who threaten the country. This is a right the church has always recognized and recognizes to this day.
Ender
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I’ve read so much of Aquinas work in the course of these threads and know that you use citations in the wrong spirit… trying to prove that Pope John Paul II (and a number of other Popes) are to be dismissed as authors of discontinuity. People perennially use citations to justify wrong positions and worse.Yes, and you do this despite the fact that I support all of my assertions with citations from the church herself.
Either I have the right to chop down the tree or I don’t. If I don’t have that right then I cannot remove it; I can only cut it down if I have the right to do so.
Again, your idea of rights is culturally American and that is what I’m trying to show you through my perspective as a non capital punishment country so that you perhaps don’t have to live in a schism on this issue in practicing Catholicism. There is a distinct difference between what is a ‘right’ and what is ‘lawful (or ‘allowed’ in this situation). You have certain basic rights concerning your own body of course, but concerning everything else you are subject to the rights of the owner. Who, apart from criminals goes onto anyone’s property for any reason with the attitude I have a ‘right’ to do this thing? You are either ‘allowed’ by the owner depending on the nature of your visit there or allowed by the duty to safeguard the properties welfare… say if you walked past and saw the tree on fire, the situation permits your decision to chop it down to save the property.You are tripping over the meaning of words. You cannot deny their objective meaning; what you oppose is their subjective meaning and you are trying to separate the two. If the dangerous tree is next door to me on your property then I have no right to remove it, but if the tree is on the property for which I have been given responsibility then I do have the right to remove it even though it is neither my house nor my tree.
This is a good analogy with ministers of the state. Because of the commission they have been given they have a right to do things that are forbidden to others. Just as the house sitter has the right to destroy the tree that threatens the house the minister of the state has the right to destroy individuals who threaten the country. This is a right the church has always recognized and recognizes to this day.
They do not have the right to destroy the tree that threatens the house. They have the *right *to defend the house and permission to destroy the tree dependent on specific criterior. They are starkly different things. Having ‘rights’ means you don’t need any sort of permission. I have a right to live. I don’t need anyone’s permission to live. If I need someone’s permission to do something that is their right alone by virtue of their ownership … it doesn’t suddenly become my right. If you are a custodian or agent for an owner, your authority to violate a tenet of ownership (removing a tree or killing someone) is by way of permission… not rights.Ender
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the property of others. The defense of the property requires that an unsafe tree be rendered unable to cause harm.
By that statement, we are looking at all possible ways to achieve harmlessness inside of the authority we have as custodians of someone elses property.
Assuming that the offending limbs identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional caretakers role does not exclude recourse to the cutting down the tree, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending the existence of the residence against the threatening danger.
This statement addresses an extreme situation that can’t be accommodated solely within the normal boundaries of the authority. It’s not part of the continuum. It’s an exceptional circumstance requiring specific criterior for justification that are not required within the general authority given to the caretaker.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means,
You must see the difference between the two mentalities? This very much relates to our concept of justification and inheritance. Having the keys is not ownership.
E
Ender
Guest
The wrong spirit? Either their comments support my position or they don’t, and as I have been able to show repeatedly, they do.I’ve read so much of Aquinas work in the course of these threads and know that you use citations in the wrong spirit…
This is untrue. You’re not reading my comments very carefully.… trying to prove that Pope John Paul II (and a number of other Popes) are to be dismissed as authors of discontinuity.
So because some unnamed people misuse citations this disqualifies all of the citations I have made? Is this how you justify ignoring twenty centuries of Catholic teaching?People perennially use citations to justify wrong positions and worse.
I’m getting tired of this argument. You have this idea fixed in your head even there is no evidence to support your position. This is just another excuse to avoid dealing with the arguments I make, which have nothing whatever to do with the US.Again, your idea of rights is culturally American …
It’s pretty clear that there is no schism here.*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger)…and that is what I’m trying to show you through my perspective as a non capital punishment country so that you perhaps don’t have to live in a schism on this issue in practicing Catholicism.
*… prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Cardinal Dulles)
The term “lawful” as it was used referred not to civil law but to divine law. Nor is there a difference between what is a right and what is lawful. If I am allowed to do something then I have the right to do it.There is a distinct difference between what is a ‘right’ and what is ‘lawful (or ‘allowed’ in this situation).
If someone gives me permission to do something then they have given me the right to do it. It’s pretty simple: if I don’t have the right to do something and do it anyway I’ll get in trouble but if I do something and don’t get into trouble it can only be because I had the right to do it.They do not have the right to destroy the tree that threatens the house. They have the *right *to defend the house and permission to destroy the tree dependent on specific criterior.
No it doesn’t. I have a right to live and work wherever I please, a right many people in the world probably don’t have. That my right is given to me by my government doesn’t make it any less a right.Having ‘rights’ means you don’t need any sort of permission.
I don’t deal in mentalities. A minister of the court has the right (and the responsibility) to punish criminals; a civilian does not have that right. An executioner has the right to execute criminals; a civilian does not have that right. A state has the right to impose capital punishment. That point is simply not in dispute.You must see the difference between the two mentalities? This very much relates to our concept of justification and inheritance. Having the keys is not ownership.
Ender
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Legitimate diversity in applying the death penalty… not justifying the death penalty. Positions like David Lukenbills could be said to regard the application. Your position disagrees with the doctrine.Again, your idea of rights is culturally American …
“When a journalist said the majority of Catholics in the United States favor use of the death penalty, Cardinal Ratzinger said, “While it is important to know the thoughts of the faithful, doctrine is not made according to statistics, but according to objective criteria taking into account progress made in the church’s thought on the issue.”
Di Ruzza said the divergence of many Catholics in the United States from the church’s current position is a sign that “the universal church must also accompany the particular churches a little bit” and help guide them on this “journey of purification,” which is more a process of “maturity rather than a revolution or change in tradition.”
Without reading Popes John Paul and Benedict’s clear condemnations of the death penalty, the catechism will “unfortunately have the risk of being ambiguous or taken out of context,” he said.
The church upholds the inherent dignity of all human beings, even the most sin-filled, and believes in hope, conversion and mercy, he said.
There is always room for conversion, he said, and forgiveness does not mean being naive about the real evil the human being is capable of committing.”
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103884.htm
Cardinal Dulles was also clearly not suggesting ‘prudential judgement’ was concerning the justification for the death penalty since he went on to say…
"Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.
For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance."
Retribution as a general principle of justice similar to how the Hippocratic oath is a general principle of medicine, is a guardian, but has no supernatural effect in creation in the way God’s retribution does. We can only consider the order of existence as we know it in applying judicial precepts.
“The clause, “to possess, claim, and use, anything as one’s own”, defines more closely the object of right. Justice assigns to each person his own (suum cuique). When anyone asserts that a thing is his own, is his private property, or belongs to him, he means that this object stands in a special relation to him, that it is in the first place destined for his use, and that he can dispose of it according to his will, regardless of others.”The term “lawful” as it was used referred not to civil law but to divine law. Nor is there a difference between what is a right and what is lawful. If I am allowed to do something then I have the right to do it.
If someone gives me permission to do something then they have given me the right to do it. It’s pretty simple: if I don’t have the right to do something and do it anyway I’ll get in trouble but if I do something and don’t get into trouble it can only be because I had the right to do it.
newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm
As caretaker of a thing, there is no ‘destination’ and he is not free to ‘dispose of it according to his will, regardless of others’. However, he is lawfully authorised to guard, defend and protect the thing.
That right is not ‘given’ to you by your government. Your right is honoured by your government. It is a human right, not a legal right. Inhumane governments may deny the right illegally, but to live and work are not subject to legality. The right proceeds from an intrinsic ownership relationship … not from a point of law. Perhaps under communism you would claim it is lawful to live and work because under communism there is no sense of individual rights but that’s a good reason why we thoroughly reject the lawfulness of communist regimes themselves. They are intrinsically inhumane.No it doesn’t. I have a right to live and work wherever I please, a right many people in the world probably don’t have.That my right is given to me by my government doesn’t make it any less a right.
E
Ender
Guest
Dulles’ position was that the justification for its use was prudential. It would in fact make little sense to say the application was prudential since its application is always prudential. This sentence means what it obviously says: The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.Cardinal Dulles was also clearly not suggesting ‘prudential judgement’ was concerning the justification for the death penalty since he went on to say…
“Ought not to be invoked because on balance it does more harm than good” is a prudential reason for not employing capital punishment.
"Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.
This is Dulles’ explanation both of how the Magisterium reached its conclusion on the use of capital punishment and why he agrees with them. These are completely practical reasons.For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance."
Here is what the church teaches regarding judicial precepts: retribution is the primary objective of punishment.Retribution as a general principle of justice similar to how the Hippocratic oath is a general principle of medicine, is a guardian, but has no supernatural effect in creation in the way God’s retribution does. We can only consider the order of existence as we know it in applying judicial precepts.
None of this is relevant.As caretaker of a thing, there is no ‘destination’ and he is not free to ‘dispose of it according to his will, regardless of others’. However, he is lawfully authorised to guard, defend and protect the thing.
The issue is whether I have the right and, like the right to chop down the tree, I do. Just as the state has the right to kill.* “Thou shalt not kill:” The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to** the right of taking away life** for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty;*" (Pius XI)That right is not ‘given’ to you by your government. Your right is honoured by your government. It is a human right, not a legal right.
In this section from Casti Connubi, Pius XI is discussing abortion and how it is forbidden even for what would seem the most compelling of reasons. He speaks of the “right of taking away life” which he acknowledges exists but explains that that “right” exists only for the guilty. Here we have yet another pope recognizing the right of a state to take life, to execute the guilty … to kill.
Ender
- Status
- Not open for further replies.