No, I look to Aquinas to explain them:
We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.
Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments.
That should sufficiently explain the nature of a just sentence,
No, it doesn’t. I’m sorry but I don’t understand. A reference to Aquinas’ work would be nice and appreciated; like a link or the name of a book or
something. I also don’t see a reference to punishment for a violation of criminal law. I also suspect that what you have stated is not actually quoted, at least not properly, because you are using bits and pieces of Aquinas’ reasoning. I’m not saying this to be uncharitable; I’m saying this because that possibility exists.
as for mercy there is this:
*Mercy and clemency concur in this, that both shun and recoil from another’s unhappiness, but in different ways. *For it belongs to mercy [Cf.30, 1] to relieve another’s unhappiness by a beneficent action, while it belongs to clemency to mitigate another’s unhappiness by the cessation of punishment.
Nope, doesn’t explain it either. I do see the word “punishment” being used but I don’t see it specifically referring to punishment because of a violation of criminal law. And again, I suspect what you have stated is not quoted because you are using bits and pieces of Aquinas’ reasoning and/or taking something he said out of context. I noticed you used “Cf.30, 1” without any explanation as to what this means. Is it referring to a footnote? From where? You cite no source. Again I apologize, but I do not understand.
In either case, there can really be no argument that a merciful punishment is as severe as the just punishment - whatever the punishment is - otherwise how could it be considered merciful? Logically these concepts present no problems, nor are they particularly difficult to comprehend. They do, of course, make it difficult to maintain your position.
Perhaps you are correct
if you are using definitions that Aquinas provided, but Aquinas is not the only philosopher/theologian/Church father. Even if he is a saint he was not infallible when he lived as a mortal human being on earth. He may have been wrong.
Other definitions of “just” and “merciful” could be used. Relying on only those provided by Aquinas is not really sufficient IMHO. There is always room for debate and discussion when it comes to topics like the topic of this thread. There can always be an argument. Issues like the one presented in this thread are not cut and dried, although the Church has stated that the death penalty is wrong except when it is the only way to keep the public safe. And I feel much more secure about the Church’s position as stated in the CCC than I feel when reading something by Aquinas. Or you (again, I’m not trying to be uncharitable; I just feel that the Church has greater authority).
My position (what I believe you are responding to here; please correct me if I have misread your post (as simply stating my “position” is “difficult to maintain” without defining it is rather confusing)) is that the claim I have heard most often is that abortion is a violation of Universal Law. I didn’t state that I agree with the argument that abortion is a violation of Universal Law.
I only stated that I have heard that argument most often. How you get from my claim to my agreeing with the argument I have heard most often appears to me to be a tangled mass of illogical reasoning. Let me try to present it another way:
(1) I’ve heard that Mr. Jones down the street is a child molester.
(2) Ergo, Mr. Jones is a child molester.
See the problem?
If you read my last post you will see that I have now stated something I agree with - not agreeing with a possibility, but a real claim. Human beings killing people via the death penalty has
never been just. It is not our right to determine when a human being should die. Abortion is wrong, euthanasia is wrong, capital punishment (with the exception of it being the only way to protect the public) is wrong.
It always has been and it always will be. It shows us attempting to place ourselves on the throne of God. God and only God has the right to determine when a person will die, not abortionists, not those who perform euthanasia, and not those who kill via the death penalty (with the exception noted above). Our lives do not belong to us and certainly others’ lives do not belong to us!!
We are not the Fates and we are not God. Attempting to usurp His position is clearly wrong.
I disagree with the argument you present (and which Aquinas
may have presented. ** A just punishment
is a merciful punishment.** If you are using your argument to defend capital punishment I wonder why you don’t say that an abortionist should be torn apart as he tore apart unborn children, without anaesthetic. In the case that is being discussed in this thread (which involved late-term abortions in which the child was born alive and and then had his/her spine broken) the just punishment (according to what I believe you are using as an argument) would simply be “an eye for an eye.” The abortionist should have his spine snapped and then left to die.
Is this what you are saying should happen to the abortionist?
There is Church teaching that says the argument I see most often is clearly incorrect? I wasn’t aware the Church even knew what argument I have seen most often. Wow. How could the claim that the argument I see used most often being a violation of Universal Law be incorrect? I’m the one seeing the argument, not the Magisterium. Not the Vatican. Just me.
