Good, at least we can agree that the primary object of punishment is justice, which is what “redressing the disorder” means.You are correct about Catholic statements regarding the nature of punishment.
It was not meant to. I used it solely to establish the relationship between justice and punishment."The great shortcoming of II/II/33 is that it does not address the unique nature of the death penalty.
The essential natures of punishment and justice do not change with time; if executions were just in the past they are just today. No one has made the argument that they are unjust today, only that they are unnecessary.The Catechism has the benefit of nearly 800 years of post-Aquinas experience to reflect upon the uniqueness of capital punishment and now makes a distinction about it that it does not do for other forms of punishment.
I would not call it “arbitrary” but when there is a clear repudiation of previous teaching in a new, authoritative teaching (which I consider the Catechism to be), then I *do *exclude those statements.If one does not simply arbitrarily exclude the statements by Pius XII in 1952 (and various others before then, there was not even 80 years between the last statement of the Church on the other justifications and the changes it is claimed EV should be extended to presume. Just 50 years ago we had a pope that was very certain that for certain crimes the right to life of the offender was forfeit because of the gravity of the crime itself - with no limitation or qualification based on that offender’s future threat to society.
If one does not simply arbitrarily exclude the statements by Pius XII in 1952 (and various others before then, there was not even 80 years between the last statement of the Church on the other justifications and the changes it is claimed EV should be extended to presume. Just 50 years ago we had a pope that was very certain that for certain crimes the right to life of the offender was forfeit because of the gravity of the crime itself - with no limitation or qualification based on that offender’s future threat to society.
I would not call it “arbitrary” but when there is a clear repudiation of previous teaching in a new, authoritative teaching (which I consider the Catechism to be), then I *do *exclude those statements.If one does not simply arbitrarily exclude the statements by Pius XII in 1952 (and various others before then, there was not even 80 years between the last statement of the Church on the other justifications and the changes it is claimed EV should be extended to presume. Just 50 years ago we had a pope that was very certain that for certain crimes the right to life of the offender was forfeit because of the gravity of the crime itself - with no limitation or qualification based on that offender’s future threat to society.
No, executions were in fact unjust in the past when they were used for reasons other than safety. And I, among others, am making the argument that they are unjust today, despite you trying to tell me what I think. Among the warrants for my statement is the very fact that they are (almost always) and were (often) “unnecessary.”The essential natures of punishment and justice do not change with time; if executions were just in the past they are just today. No one has made the argument that they are unjust today, only that they are unnecessary.
Ender
Whatever else Innocent may have said, this point that the “powers-that-be” are appointed by God has been accepted by the Church since Paul first stated it. Are you claiming that it has been revoked by JPII?Pope Innocent based his thinking on Romans 13:1-4, that is, the death penalty is permissible because the powers-that-be are appointed by God. People who want to use this snippet on the death penalty, as opposed to earlier or later Christian writings should indicate if they accept all the claims in the letter, or just this one.
Perhaps you should have read the paragraph you quoted more carefully as the sentence immediately following the “protect and foster” statement is this:So, the balance tips to the inalienable right to life (the importance of which was asserted by Pope Pius XII) and the fundemental purpose of the law - “protect and foster human life” asserted by the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
Something that is often missed by those who tell me what I believe is that I do have a belief in the value of life as high as anyone. I just value innocent life greater than a life given over to evil.The Council of Trent says both that the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life (as you claim) and that capital punishment fulfills the purpose of the law (as I claim).
Ender
Where in Church teaching is justice made subordinate to safety?No, executions were in fact unjust in the past when they were used for reasons other than safety.
If “necessary” means solely “necessary to protect society” then an argument can be made that executions are largely unnecessary today (I don’t know that I agree but I won’t challenge this point for now). As I’ve already shown, however, the primary purpose of punishment is not protection but rather it is justice and justice is nowhere defined as even being related to protection let alone determined by it.And I, among others, am making the argument that they are unjust today… Among the warrants for my statement is the very fact that they are (almost always) and were (often) “unnecessary.”
Given the circumstances, it would certainly have been within his power to do so. However, I agree with Cardinal Dulles, there was no need to do so. The present Catechism, which relies heavily on JPII’s encyclical, is wholly compatible with past teaching.Are you claiming that it has been revoked by JPII?
“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.” Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, DN 2002
Good, so we agree on the purpose. At the time (nearly 500 years ago), death sentences served the purpose. Now, although it is still theoretically permissible, the Church teaches that the purpose is better served by non lethal means:Perhaps you should have read the paragraph you quoted more carefully as the sentence immediately following the “protect and foster” statement is this:
*“This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.”
*The Council of Trent says both that the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life (as you claim) and that capital punishment fulfills the purpose of the law (as I claim).
Again, we do not pursue a random collection of teachings, but a coherent whole. As we have already seen, an adjustment in best serving fundemental principles to suit current conditions is wholly within the Church’s provence:“…authority will limit itself to such means, 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.” - CCC 2267
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html“Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.”
"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.
Those words are John Paul II’s, but the teaching did not originate with him. We can find it in LUMEN GENTIUM, the dogmatic constitution of the Church from the Second Vatican Council. As you have noted, Pope Pius XII was exposing it more than a decade prior. And, of course, the Council of Trent identified it as the the purpose of law…The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination." CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI
So what you are saying is that you value life, but are not ‘pro life’ in a Catholic sense?Something that is often missed by those who tell me what I believe is that I do have a belief in the value of life as high as anyone. I just value innocent life greater than a life given over to evil.
"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.
The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.
The “in every phase of development” and “every condition” is a tall order. But the Church, like Christ, asks us to do what is right, not what is easy.The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38, quoting LUMEN GENTIUM)
If you were really wanting a coherent whole, you wouldn’t keep editing out / dismissing / the part of #2267 that limits the application of the qualification you quoted to only the “protect” justification of the 3 justifications listed in #2266. Any hope of coherency is lost when you have to edit out part of one paragraph in order to declare that everyone is obliged in obedience to a presumption that 2/3s of what was listed in the immediately prior statement does not apply since it was not reiteratedNow, although it is still theoretically permissible, the Church teaches that the purpose is better served by non lethal means:
Again, we do not pursue a random collection of teachings, but a coherent whole.
I’m sorry, that is nonsensical. I’ve quoted both entries in the Catechism in their entirety ad nauseum. The use of fragments (or no citations at al) is what I have been opposing. Notice that each time we put a teaching in context, be it the Catechism of Trent, the current Catechism, or then Cardinal Ratzinger’s words, we can have meaningful discussion.If you were really wanting a coherent whole, you wouldn’t keep editing out / dismissing / the part of #2267 that limits the application of the qualification you quoted to only the “protect” justification of the 3 justifications listed in #2266. Any hope of coherency is lost when you have to edit out part of one paragraph in order to declare that everyone is obliged in obedience to a presumption that 2/3s of what was listed in the immediately prior statement does not apply since it was not reiterated
If CCC 2267 was simply an extension of the principles in CCC 2266, why would it specifically use narrower criteria? Fortunately, the Church gives us further guidence. CCC 2267 references CCC 2306 next to the line in question:“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, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
And, for further clarification, CCC 2298:“Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.” - CCC 2306
Which directly references 2267… This, of course, will either launch another attack on me personally, or a rehash about the Catechism not being last word. At a certain point, it becomes evidence that people are making arguments of convenience. That is, they will grasp and seize anything that they beleive makes their point, but remain undaunted when the claim is explored and debunked." In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors." - CCC 2298
You seem to be misunderstanding my point, but I admittedly can be unclear. Let me try again…Where in Church teaching is justice made subordinate to safety?
If “necessary” means solely “necessary to protect society” then an argument can be made that executions are largely unnecessary today (I don’t know that I agree but I won’t challenge this point for now). As I’ve already shown, however, the primary purpose of punishment is not protection but rather it is justice and justice is nowhere defined as even being related to protection let alone determined by it.
Justice is defined as “rendering to each one his right” (Summa II/II 58,1) and the degree of punishment that justice demands must be “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” (2266)
Also: "*Augustine says: "Unless a man restore what he has purloined, his sin is not forgiven. “Since therefore the safeguarding of justice is necessary for salvation, it follows that it is necessary for salvation to restore what has been taken unjustly.” *(Summa II/II 62,2) A man’s salvation depends on him making restitution for his sin. But what restitution is possible when he cannot restore what he has destroyed?
"Wherefore when that which has been taken cannot be restored in equivalent, compensation should be made as far as possible" (Summa II/II 62,2 ad 1) and finally *“Wherefore, according to the judgment of the present life the death punishment is inflicted, not for every mortal sin, but only for such as inflict an irreparable harm.” *(Summa II/II 66,6)
Ender
I am pro-life in the Catholic sense, unless you wish to define this in terms that only begs the question at hand. In this case, continue to chase your tail.So what you are saying is that you value life, but are not ‘pro life’ in a Catholic sense?
I just gave you the Church’s definition, at least the definition that it wishes the laity to use. Frankly, there are a lot of places I suspect you disagree, but let’s just rehash one:I am pro-life in the Catholic sense, unless you wish to define this in terms that only begs the question at hand. In this case, continue to chase your tail.
Every phase, every condition. You’ve already stated that you value some lives more or less based on your perception of their spiritual state. Which, by the way, is generally considered a sin. The Church teaches that we cannot look into the hearts and minds of others, nor can we presume to know the mind of God."The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life… The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition…
You certainly called that one…I am pro-life in the Catholic sense, unless you wish to define this in terms that only begs the question at hand. In this case, continue to chase your tail.
You first mentioned your military service long after it was apparent you were in an alternate reality where citations that had been posted dozens of times didn’t exist and where you thought it was appropriate to repeated claim people believed things they had repeatedly argued against (always refusing to point out where they believed what you were accusing them of believing). That you had been under that kind of stress did explain (though not excuse) a lot about how you came to deal with conflicting opinions the way you do. PTSD isn’t quite an illness in the way of things like schizophrenia or chronic teen-onset depression; it is caused, not innate.or mentally ill (because of my military service)…
I don’t recall you ever using a citation that was “too long”. For the longest time, you had a policy of neither using or recognizing any quotations at all outside of the CCC (all short citations by nature), and even then usually quoting #2267 either with an ellipsis, in two separate parts, or with creative bold face to dance in circles around the part of it specifying that it was limiting just the protect/defense justification in particular of the 3 justifications / goals listed in CCC#2266.Then the quotes were too long, no too short,
I mentioned no names and have threrefore slung no mud, or violated no Catholic teaching, but I have seen enough evil to know it exists. I know that is not popular in many circles today, but I firmly believe it, know it, to be true. Evil is as real as the conrcrete and steel that we continue to erect to protect the innocent. It is as real as the blood that flows in the street and into the sewers of our inner cities where gangs exercise more control than the police. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.It all gets a bit tiring. But it is probably worth pointing out that such mud slinging, like professing who is and is not evil in the eyes of the Lord, is also covered in the Catechism.
Maybe I misunderstood. Is this the mudslinging you were talking about?You’ve already stated that you value some lives more or less based on your perception of their spiritual state. Which, by the way, is generally considered a sin. … But it is probably worth pointing out that such mud slinging, like professing who is and is not evil in the eyes of the Lord, is also covered in the Catechism.
I must admit, I am starting to wonder if the neurons in your brain even fire sequentially. Shall we list all the documents I have cited?You first mentioned your military service long after it was apparent you were in an alternate reality where citations