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

[Demetra]

The public needs to be protected from the Parkland shooter and therefore he should remain in jail for life. I say “No” to killing him. That is for God to decide when he dies. Everyone should have a chance at redemption even from behind bars. The second amendment stays!! A bad guy with a guy may only be stopped by a good guy with a gun.

 

[Ender]

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

I’ll try one last time before giving up. My question is very simple and straightforward but you seem unwilling or unable to address it. Your responses are directed not to what I have asked but to what you think I’m going to ask, or to a comment you think I once made. Just ignore everything else and answer this:

Did the teaching that capital punishment is allowed only when it is necessary for protection appear in 1995/7 or was it something the church has taught throughout her history?

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly:

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

I’ll try one last time before giving up. My question is very simple and straightforward but you seem unwilling or unable to address it. Your responses are directed not to what I have asked but to what you think I’m going to ask, or to a comment you think I once made. Just ignore everything else and answer this:

Did the teaching that capital punishment is allowed only when it is necessary for protection appear in 1995/7 or was it something the church has taught throughout her history?

? Why did you truncate my post above deleting the answer to your question? And then ask the same question again? Here’s the complete post.

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.

 

[Ender]

? Why did you truncate my post above deleting the answer to your question? And then ask the same question again? Here’s the complete post.

OK, if EV (and therefore 2267) represent a development of doctrine, that is they teach something that was not taught before, then you must accept that the catechism is mistaken when it says the restriction on the use of capital punishment was part of the traditional (historical) teaching.

I haven’t addressed the question of the validity of the development, I’ve only been dealing with the question of whether the teaching is new or old.

 

[o_mlly]

OK, if EV (and therefore 2267) represent a development of doctrine, that is they teach something that was not taught before, then you must accept that the catechism is mistaken when it says the restriction on the use of capital punishment was part of the traditional (historical) teaching.

I haven’t addressed the question of the validity of the development, I’ve only been dealing with the question of whether the teaching is new or old.

No, I do not accept that the catechism is mistaken. Granted, the first sentence of 2267 translated in English is quite awkward and, as such, subject to interpretation. But the license to interpret requires all interpretations to harmonize with Evangelium Vitae, the primary document.

For example, in my interpretation, the 3 traditional conditions immediately precede the claim – “Assuming that the guilty party’s [1] identity and [2] responsibility have been [3] fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, …” and then 2267 continues in a parenthetical phrase stating the development – “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” If it were as you interpret then explain why the parenthetical? If the development was claimed as traditional then it would have been listed as the 4th traditional condition before “recourse to the death penalty.” But it is not.

But we need not argue these semantics. As the catechism is a secondary source, any confusion, as in all research, is remedied by examining the primary source. As the pope said, “The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess” (Benedict XVI). The authority of the catechism is in its footnotes. The authority for 2267 is EV p. 56, 69. I see no ambiguity in those paragraphs.

 

[Ender]

No, I do not accept that the catechism is mistaken. Granted, the first sentence of 2267 translated in English is quite awkward and, as such, subject to interpretation.

The structure is simple enough: “The traditional teaching of the church is that in situations where X exists, then Y is allowed, when condition Z is met”.

But the license to interpret requires all interpretations to harmonize with Evangelium Vitae, the primary document.

EV is silent on the issue.

For example, in my interpretation, the 3 traditional conditions immediately precede the claim – “Assuming that the guilty party’s [1] identity and [2] responsibility have been [3] fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, …” and then 2267 continues in a parenthetical phrase stating the development – “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” If it were as you interpret then explain why the parenthetical?

It isn’t a parenthetical; it is a dependent clause which modifies the rest of the statement by putting a condition on it.

But we need not argue these semantics. As the catechism is a secondary source, any confusion, as in all research, is remedied by examining the primary source.

There are no primary sources to cite that support the assertion, which is unsurprising inasmuch as the assertion is not accurate.

 

[o_mlly]

There are no primary sources to cite that support the assertion, which is unsurprising inasmuch as the assertion is not accurate.

Whether 2667 is or is not totally accurate is a non-issue. One may discard what one thinks is inaccurate in 2267 if, and only if, that which one discards is not taught in EV.

Perhaps you missed the quote in the prior post, “The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess” (Benedict XVI). Since EV does not claim what you seek to discard in 2267, you may discard it. But doing so does not change the teaching in EV nor have any impact on its validity.