Should the 19 year old Florida school shooter be given the death penalty?

[Ender]

I accept all the teaching of the Church as authoritative regardless of the date. Rather I think you are trying to say that Church teachings after some date are not authoritative. So, I ask you a third time, Is EV an authoritative teaching of the church?

Of course it is, but that’s not really the relevant question.

 

[o_mlly]

This is not true. The church never had that as a requirement for the use of capital punishment…prior to 1995.

EV passes every aspect of Neuman’s examination of legitimate development of doctrine criteria.

1. Preservation of Type
2. Continuity of Principles
3. Power of Assimilation
4. Anticipation of Its Future
5. Conservative Action upon Its Past
6. Chronic Vigour

Granted, EV is a conservative development of the tradition which most, if not all developments of doctrine, have been.

You claim EV does not develop but rather corrupts. For the umpteenth time, what your argument lacks, and you have not produced, is a teaching that EV contradicts.

States have had, however, the capability of imprisoning people for life for centuries, and probably for millennia.

And why is that important?

 

[o_mlly]

Of course it is, but that’s not really the relevant question.

EV is not only relevant, EV is the crux of the matter. Absent EV, this thread would not be 580 + posts.

 

[Ender]

EV passes every aspect of Neuman’s examination of legitimate development of doctrine criteria.

This response has nothing whatever to do with my comment. I was addressing a matter of historical fact: whether or not the church ever taught that capital punishment depended for its legitimacy on whether it was necessary for protection.

If your claim is historically accurate (“All capital punishments throughout all history were unjust if bloodless means were available to protect society.”) then your claim that it is a legitimate development cannot be true, because it is impossible for a doctrine to exist in the past and at the same time be a new development.

You claim EV does not develop but rather corrupts.

I have never made such a claim. All I have said is that either the caveat about the use of capital punishment existed in the past, in which case the restriction cannot be the result of development under JPII, or it is a development of doctrine in which case it obviously could not have existed in the past.

I’d just like you to tell me which you think is true. Make a choice.

 

[Ender]

For the umpteenth time, what your argument lacks, and you have not produced, is a teaching that EV contradicts.

I don’t think there is a contradiction in EV #56 only because I don’t understand it the way you do. Here are the problems with your interpretation as I see them:

The catechism (2266) teaches that retributive justice is the primary objective of punishment…all punishment. The protection of society is a secondary objective, yet 2267 ignores the primary objective altogether.

The catechism (2260) also says that the teaching of Gn 9:5-6 is “necessary for all time”, but, again, (your interpretation of) 2267 ignores that section as well.

Genesis 9:6 says that murderers are to be executed because their victims were created in the image of God, but (your interpretation of) 2267 turns that position on its head and holds that murderers are protected because they were made in the image of God.

If the protection of society is the primary objective of capital punishment, then if social scientists were able to determine that in fact it was a deterrent, 2267 would require us to vastly increase the use of the death penalty precisely because it was shown to increase our protection. How can something be considered immoral today that might turn out to be a moral requirement tomorrow based not on our understanding of doctrine but on the work of social scientists?

 

[o_mlly]

This response has nothing whatever to do with my comment. I was addressing a matter of historical fact: whether or not the church ever taught that capital punishment depended for its legitimacy on whether it was necessary for protection.

If the Church develops doctrine, as does EV, then Newman’s work does offer a useful critical method to asses the development.

Your argument essentially claims that any development of doctrine after the year (insert your year here) may be dismissed because that doctrine was never taught before. Which is, of course, nonsense.

If your claim is historically accurate (“All capital punishments throughout all history were unjust if bloodless means were available to protect society.”) then your claim that it is a legitimate development cannot be true, because it is impossible for a doctrine to exist in the past and at the same time be a new development.

I think you confuse ontology with epistemology. The truth is not dependent on our knowing it. When we come to know the truth does not render that truth prior to our knowing it into ontological oblivion.

That a doctrine did not exist in the past does not mean that it was not true in the past.

"For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of
divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her" (Dei Verbum 8).

 

[o_mlly]

I have never made such a claim. All I have said is that either the caveat about the use of capital punishment existed in the past, in which case the restriction cannot be the result of development under JPII, or it is a development of doctrine in which case it obviously could not have existed in the past.

I’d just like you to tell me which you think is true. Make a choice.

In 1997, 1995 is in the past.

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t think there is a contradiction in EV #56 only because I don’t understand it the way you do. Here are the problems with your interpretation as I see them:

The catechism (2266) teaches that retributive justice is the primary objective of punishment…all punishment. The protection of society is a secondary objective, yet 2267 ignores the primary objective altogether.

The catechism (2260) also says that the teaching of Gn 9:5-6 is “necessary for all time”, but, again, (your interpretation of) 2267 ignores that section as well.

Genesis 9:6 says that murderers are to be executed because their victims were created in the image of God, but (your interpretation of) 2267 turns that position on its head and holds that murderers are protected because they were made in the image of God.

If the protection of society is the primary objective of capital punishment, then if social scientists were able to determine that in fact it was a deterrent, 2267 would require us to vastly increase the use of the death penalty precisely because it was shown to increase our protection. How can something be considered immoral today that might turn out to be a moral requirement tomorrow based not on our understanding of doctrine but on the work of social scientists?

The teaching is explicit regarding the moral use of capital punishment. The teaching is not a philosophical proposal but a theological declaration. If one’s reason cannot reach the truth of EV then one has to elevate their reasoning, not dismiss the teaching. Theology, faith seeking understanding, a priori accepts the truth of the teaching and assigns to reason the task of understanding. Reason may not reach that truth but right reason cannot reject that truth. Perhaps that is where you are at.

 

[Ender]

Your argument essentially claims that any development of doctrine after the year (insert your year here) may be dismissed because that doctrine was never taught before. Which is, of course, nonsense.

But this is nothing like my argument. In fact I haven’t even been making an argument; I’ve been trying to get you to state whether 2267 (and EV) represent a development of doctrine, that is, a change from what was taught in the past. That’s all.

That a doctrine did not exist in the past does not mean that it was not true in the past.

True enough, just not relevant to anything I’ve said. I asked only whether something was taught in the past. That’s a simple yes or no question.

 

[o_mlly]

But this is nothing like my argument. In fact I haven’t even been making an argument; I’ve been trying to get you to state whether 2267 (and EV) represent a development of doctrine, that is, a change from what was taught in the past. That’s all.

If you have an argument please state it concisely and clearly.

 

[o_mlly]

True enough, just not relevant to anything I’ve said. I asked only whether something was taught in the past. That’s a simple yes or no question.

It seems when refuted that the claim is made that that was not your argument.

And when exposed as fallacious then that is not relevant.

 

[o_mlly]

What I reject is the assertion that capital punishment is legitimate solely when it is needed to provide physical protection from the particular felon.

If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means … (Evangelium Vitae p. 56).

It appears what you reject is exactly what EV p. 56 teaches. ?

 

[Ender]

If you have an argument please state it concisely and clearly.

As I just said, I would like you to “state whether 2267 (and EV) represent a development of doctrine, that is, a change from what was taught in the past.” Yes or no.

 

[porthos11]

Arkansan:

This is blasphemy you know.

I’m pretty sure that he meant to say that Pilate found Him guilty of treason, not that Our Lord was actually treasonous. Otherwise the Romans would have no real reason to crucify Him.

Actually, don’t forget that Pilate acquitted Jesus. He was found not guilty of any charges.

This is what makes Pilate’s decision even more abhorrent. It’s analogous to a jury acquitting a guy, a mob protests, and a judge sentences the guy to death anyway.

 

[o_mlly]

As I just said, I would like you to “state whether 2267 (and EV) represent a development of doctrine, that is, a change from what was taught in the past.” Yes or no.

When offered you rather quickly dismissed Newman as relevant, to your question. I offer his work to you again. Please review his commentary.

EV, in part, represents a development of doctrine and, as all developments of doctrine, does not change, in the sense of contradict, what was previously taught.

As Newman notes a development of doctrine is only a change in a special sense:

This character of addition,—that is, of a change which is in one sense real and perceptible, yet without loss or reversal of what was before, but, on the contrary, protective and confirmative of it,—in many respects and in a special way belongs to Christianity.

 

[Fauken]

Actually, don’t forget that Pilate acquitted Jesus. He was found not guilty of any charges.

This is what makes Pilate’s decision even more abhorrent. It’s analogous to a jury acquitting a guy, a mob protests, and a judge sentences the guy to death anyway.

I don’t think Pilate acquitted Him. Pilate may have found Him innocent personally, but there is no way that Roman soldiers in the Roman Empire infamous for discipline and decimation would have been unpunished for participating in essentially an illegal lynching. There is no way there could have been a crucifixion without the consent of the Roman government. He said “I find no guilt in Him”, not “Rome finds no guilt in Him”.

 

[Arkansan]

I don’t think Pilate acquitted Him.

He literally found him innocent and washed his hands of the matter.

 

[Fauken]

If he found Him innocent, then there would be no crucifixion. If he found Him innocent, there would have been no Roman soldiers present and it have only been a lynching by the Pharisees. No guilty order, no Roman assistance, no crucifixion. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment enforced by the Roman government, and they would not be crucifying a man declared innocent by the government.

 

[Arkansan]

He literally found him innocent and washed his hands of the matter.

 

[Fauken]

Did you mean to repeat this?