Edward Feser on Capital Punishment

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you see the truth and relevance of these passages, in the conversion of the man on the cross?
Job 28:28 And he said to man, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.’"
…
Psa 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who practice it. His praise endures for ever!
…
Prov 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.
…
Prov 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
…
Prov 15:33 The fear of the LORD is instruction in wisdom, and humility goes before honor.
 
goout said:
Cherry picked quotes from Genesis are not the full expression of the Church’s Magisterium.
Click to expand...
You consider it cherry picking scripture to cite the Magisterium citing that very passage?

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. (59)

The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.
(59) Gen 9:5-6
 
Last edited:
Your forced the passage in isolation, out of context, to prove a point that it does not prove. Against the living Magisterium’s explicit thought.

So, yea, that’s cherry picking.
 
Could you be selectively preferring unripe cherries, to those proven to be fully mature?
 
goout said:
Your forced the passage in isolation, out of context, to prove a point that it does not prove. Against the living Magisterium’s explicit thought.
Click to expand...
It is hardly out of context to use it in the same context in which the church has referred to it.

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.(1) 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. (Catechism of Trent)
(1) Gn 9:5-6

What context is there that can make that passage mean something other than what it obviously says? Is scripture so convoluted that even simple declarative statements cannot be understood? Scripture itself supports the death penalty, and this is the best example of such support, as church references to this passage attest.
 
Last edited:
“The opposition”… you’re sounding a lot like SSPX when they condemn the past several popes and an ecumenical council on developments concerning religions liberty and ecumenicism…
 
twf said:
“The opposition”… you’re sounding a lot like SSPX when they condemn the past several popes and an ecumenical council on developments concerning religions liberty and ecumenicism…
Click to expand...
I was specifically discussing Feser’s position, so the “opposition” would be those who opposed it. Whatever my argument “sounds” like it is either valid or not. Object to specific points I’ve made and I can respond to those objections.
 
goout said:
What so many can’t wrap their heads around is that the object of the Church’s moral teaching has never changed. Human life is sacred. Every life. Human justice is not the highest value.
Click to expand...
And divine justice? What of that? Does it depend upon human prudence, and does it bow down before human prudence?
 
So because MikeInVa is inconvenienced, the Church is unfaithful to it’s own doctrines.
Makes a lot of sense…
 
goout said:
So because MikeInVa is inconvenienced, the Church is unfaithful to it’s own doctrines.
Makes a lot of sense…
Click to expand...
When I have to have an annual subscription to the catechism something is broken. Will we also need a separate catechism for third world countries who lack the resources to establish prisons for well financed drug traffickers?
 
MikeInVA said:
40.png
goout:
So because MikeInVa is inconvenienced, the Church is unfaithful to it’s own doctrines.
Makes a lot of sense…
Click to expand...
When I have to have an annual subscription to the catechism something is broken. Will we also need a separate catechism for third world countries who lack the resources to establish prisons for well financed drug traffickers?
Click to expand...
You have the internet now. No subscription needed.
Of course that can be a curse also, as layman have the resources to parse the Magisterium of the Church on a continual basis.
 
goout said:
So because MikeInVa is inconvenienced, the Church is unfaithful to it’s own doctrines.
Click to expand...
The situation is somewhat more serious inasmuch as it’s not exactly clear which doctrine should be considered “its own” when the doctrine of last year contradicts the doctrine of the preceding two millennia.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
40.png
goout:
So because MikeInVa is inconvenienced, the Church is unfaithful to it’s own doctrines.
Click to expand...
The situation is somewhat more serious inasmuch as it’s not exactly clear which doctrine should be considered “its own” when the doctrine of last year contradicts the doctrine of the preceding two millennia.
Click to expand...
Well, things like expression of doctrines change. Moral evaluations take circumstances into account.
If a person can’t accept that then it will be difficult to be Catholic.
What does not change is
dogma
and the objective bases for doctrines
The objects of moral evaluation (like the sanctity of life)

The core of the faith does not change. Expression and understandings of it change. And circumstances change.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
Well, things like expression of doctrines change. Moral evaluations take circumstances into account…
The core of the faith does not change. Expression and understandings of it change. And circumstances change.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand this, which still doesn’t clarify things. The meaning of “inadmissible” is still unspecified. If capital punishment is inadmissible because it is evil in all circumstances, then this is a radical departure from earlier doctrines and a serious problem.

If, however, it means in the pope’s considered judgment that in current circumstances its use does more harm than good, and therefore it ought not be used, then that is very much in line with his predecessors and is no issue at all.

The problem arises from saying it is not intrinsically evil but acting as if it was. Circumstances may change but morality does not, and the application of moral doctrines in specific instances requires prudential judgment about which individuals may differ. About the validity of doctrine, however, differences of opinion are not legitimate so the question remains: is “inadmissible” a new doctrine meaning capital punishment is intrinsically evil, or is it a prudential judgment that its use (currently) is unwise. I’m not sure I see a third alternative.
 
MikeInVA said:
40.png
goout:
Should I go on about what morality is?
Click to expand...
Please explain how something is morally acceptable in one situation but “inadmissable” in another.
Click to expand...
Now you are moving the goalposts.
You were previously referring to circumstances.

Please, you pick the point you want to get to and I will be happy to help if possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top