Support the Death Penalty?

[Texas_Roofer]

You made the (false) claim about the conditions necessary for use of capital punishment, thus you get to either back it up or withdraw it.

No one has claimed a necessity for immediate (today) termination of the suspects or even rushing the appeals process used to establish certainty of the sentence, so no one is obliged to address the combination of a straw man with begging the question that you posed here.

Again you do not answer. Spin is not needed. Each time you are asked to draw a culpability line you refuse to answer. There is obviously a problem concerning when you believe culpability applies.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Simply repeating a reference to the same false equivalence…

Is this better for you ? vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

As far as I can tell, no one is denying that the Church has the prerogative to teach that the state should restrict use of the DP if it has other the means to achieve an equivalent level of safety for society while maintaining a balance against its other responsibilities. But that is less than half of what is required for the conclusion you endorse

What you and SoCal have avoided doing is backing up your claims that the Magesterium now officially claims the authority to make that determination for the State and, by extension, that the Church can oblige the State to alter how it spends its resources in a way other than how the State has determined was the best balance for the common good.

I do not think you will understand the approprate reference for the staement made, yet it is here va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htmplease use this to read 2485-2486

Yet another deliberate false statement about what is already in black and white on this thread (there is an unpleasant word for that too). I have recently (post #184) referenced the position of a soldier at war serving at the order of the State, which does allow for taking the lives of the opposing force whether or not the opposition had “sinned”. You are rather obviously trying to tune out the parts of Church teaching that are inconvenient to your interpretations.

Again you could not answer the question, you changed it to read " opposing force" thus avoiding the issue.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Again you could not answer the question, you changed it to read " opposing force" thus avoiding the issue.

Yet ANOTHER false statement by you about what has been said by who in this thread:

Let me try to help you. No one has cited a Catholic teaching which allows license to killing people who commited no sin, thus whether your plan kills one or one thousand is not the issue. The issue is you had no permission to kill any innocent people.

You claimed that “No one has cited a Catholic teaching which allows license to killing people who commited no sin”. I pointed out that I actually had and where I did it. You were the one that expanded the scope of your challenge in that way, where I’d pointed it out as a parallel in my response to the executioner question that you pretended not to see to try to claim I hadn’t answered it.

Now, if you want to go back and retract / correct your claim, feel free, but I kind of doubt you’d bother since you are also sticking by the “immediate threat” claim without a leg to stand on, have gotten into habit of making false statements about what others have said by acting as if that is justified by feigning a superior moral position (hint: making deliberate false statements undermines an sort of moral claim to righteousness) and are otherwise trying serving as an excellent source of examples for Logical Fallacies 101.

 

[Donna_P]

May God be with you.

Where the prison system is good and the convicted stay in place, there is NEVER a need for the death penalty.

We are all called by God to help each other get to Heaven. Some need every single moment to come to Him. We sin if we take that away.

God bless you.

 

[Ender]

As far as I can tell, no one is denying that the Church has the prerogative to teach that the state should restrict use of the DP if it has other the means to achieve an equivalent level of safety for society while maintaining a balance against its other responsibilities.

I’ve been struggling with this statement. Perhaps I misunderstand your point but I’m not sure I agree with it.

The Church has the obligation to teach truth but the truth she teaches is not hers: “As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm … The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm.” (Veritatis Splendor) If this is true (and I certainly accept it), the what is the source of her “prerogative” to teach that the state should restrict use of the death penalty?

She does not have the right to teach opinion - popes and bishops may certainly express their personal opinions - but they may not be presented as “Church” teachings. Unfortunately, with regard to the death penalty, I think this line has been blurred.

Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I’ve been struggling with this statement. Perhaps I misunderstand your point but I’m not sure I agree with it.

I probably should have used “preach” or yet another word instead of “teach”. The attitude of Veritatis Splendor was what I was trying to convey; that the church can teach in a general way what is moral versus immoral use of authority for a State to use in guiding its operations, or to declare in a general way whether certain considerations are legitimate factors or not from a moral perspective (e.g. its condemnation of apartheid as a concept), but the authority to decide which of the fine points applies and how that should impact the outcome in a particular instance is (and always will be) reserved to the State. This is much the same as my understanding about the Church teaching regarding just war - the Church has the authority to proclaim what the conditions are, but not make an “official” determination as to whether a particular instance meets those criteria.

 

[rpp]

{snip}Yes, there are contradictions in Holy Tradition, just as there are some contradictions in Holy Scripture, … {snip}

First, I realize that I have lifted this partial sentence out of context. The phrase was used to contrast and amplify SoCalRC’s point. Yet this statement makes some very serious claims.

While this is completely off topic, it must be emphasized that there are no contradictions in Holy Scripture nor in Sacred Tradition. To make such an assertion is simply erroneous.

 

[SoCalRC]

While this is completely off topic, it must be emphasized that there are no contradictions in Holy Scripture nor in Sacred Tradition. To make such an assertion is simply erroneous.

We believe that Luke both wrote one Gospel and Acts. Yet, in the two, an indentical story is told with slightly different details (ex. compare Luke 24 with Acts 1). So in a literal sense, there are contradictions.

There are even, gasp, errors. Matthew asserts that Judas recieved 30 pieces of silver as prophesized by Jeremiah (Matt 27:9) but it was actually Zechariah who made the prophesy (11:12-13). And, of course, if not a contradiction, there is an extreme discrepency regarding Judas’ fate if we compare Matthew to Acts…

This is why Catholics are not fundementalists. It is also why we believe we need to be part of an apostolic Church. But your point is well taken. Contradictions are the result of our failings and limitations, not God’s. We are imperfect. That is why we have more than 24000 ancient fragments/copies of the Gospels with literally no two being exactly alike. It is why the four Gospels differ on something as momentus as Jesus’ last words on the cross.

But God is perfect. So, in the moral context it would have been more accurate for me to say “seeming contradictions”. God has only one will, but because our limitations our understanding and application is often not wholly correct. Again, this is why we look to the Magesterium, with its Gift of Authority.

Best Regards

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer
Again you could not answer the question, you changed it to read " opposing force" thus avoiding the issue.

Yet ANOTHER false statement by you about what has been said by who in this thread:

actually the statement is correct and shows a lack of understanding of “just war”. Your statement had to insert “opposing force” but your implying just war. Did you know that? If the war is just the opposing force is not innocent. Additionally, the slaughter of innocents is in the Bible did you know that? It had nothing to do with abortion, so did you referrence abortion? Your answer indicates a problem with understanding of slaughter of innocents.

You claimed that “No one has cited a Catholic teaching which allows license to killing people who commited no sin”. I pointed out that I actually had and where I did it.

please reread comment above

You were the one that expanded the scope of your challenge in that way, where I’d pointed it out as a parallel in my response to the executioner question that you pretended not to see to try to claim I hadn’t answered it.

actually you cited a reference which required “that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined” which contradicted the condition of the question, so you did not actually answer the question you changed the question then answer the new version which differed from the old view, and that is why you were given the other catechism reference.

Now, if you want to go back and retract / correct your claim, feel free, but I kind of doubt you’d bother since you are also sticking by the “immediate threat” claim without a leg to stand on, have gotten into habit of making false statements about what others have said by acting as if that is justified by feigning a superior moral position (hint: making deliberate false statements undermines an sort of moral claim to righteousness) and are otherwise trying serving as an excellent source of examples for Logical Fallacies 101.

Actually I have two good legs, a catechism, and a Church so I am in good shape.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I probably should have used “preach” or yet another word instead of “teach”. The attitude of Veritatis Splendor was what I was trying to convey; that the church can teach in a general way what is moral versus immoral use of authority for a State to use in guiding its operations, or to declare in a general way whether certain considerations are legitimate factors or not from a moral perspective (e.g. its condemnation of apartheid as a concept), but the authority to decide which of the fine points applies and how that should impact the outcome in a particular instance is (and always will be) reserved to the State. This is much the same as my understanding about the Church teaching regarding just war - the Church has the authority to proclaim what the conditions are, but not make an “official” determination as to whether a particular instance meets those criteria.

Why not just write what the Church writes? The Church does not use “preach” or “teach” so why use those words the Church is very clear on this issue.

I’m guessing you will change the issue now.

 

[Ender]

Why not just write what the Church writes? The Church does not use “preach” or “teach” so why use those words the Church is very clear on this issue.

The “teaching” on the death penalty is neither infallible nor ordinary; it is prudential. Infallible teachings require the assent of faith, ordinary teachings require religious assent (892), but prudential statements don’t require assent at all as they are but opinions. The statements on the death penalty are very clear; what is obviously unclear to many is that these prudential statements are not binding and I for one don’t agree with them.

Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

actually the statement is correct and shows a lack of understanding of “just war”. Your statement had to insert “opposing force” but your implying just war. Did you know that?

If you’d bothered to actually read what I’d said in post #184 either the first time or at my previous reminder that you’d apparently (or was it intentionally?) missed its contents, you would have noticed that I actually used the term “just war” there, and tried alternate wording later on the same topic when my initial comments didn’t register with you.

The problem remains that you are reading less than half of what been said to you, blocking out the parts you don’t have answers to, and then deliberately keep making one false or misleading statement after another about what the other parties have said or what can be found in the teaching documents of the Church to try to maintain a semblance of coherence on your part.

If the war is just the opposing force is not innocent.

Since each State is granted the authority to make their determination about going to war independently, this is not so cut and dried. One side could be working on the presumption the requirements had been met requiring a preemptive strike, while the other was engaged in self defense. Both could be convinced they are engaging in a just action and have a erasonable defense of the same. On the ground, a particular soldier may have very little knowledge as to whether who they are aiming at is guilty or innocent, but they don’t have a particular guilt, and there might not even be particular guilt on either side depending on whether decisions were made on bad information.

Additionally, the slaughter of innocents is in the Bible did you know that? It had nothing to do with abortion, so did you referrence abortion? Your answer indicates a problem with understanding of slaughter of innocents. please reread comment above

I’m taking it your closing comment about me changing the subject was supposed to serve as your excuse for introducing this tangent? Yet another example for Logical Fallacies 101.

actually you cited a reference which required “that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined” which contradicted the condition of the question, so you did not actually answer the question you changed the question then answer the new version which differed from the old view, and that is why you were given the other catechism reference.

See above. Your premise that there are clear innocent and guilty parties in a just war is your own construct and no more defensible from Church teaching than your claim that use of the death penalty requires an immediate threat. If you are going back to the question of the executioner, I’ll point out that you have still not answered the question I posed long ago asking you to clarify if the doubts of a person merely assigned by the State to carry out the sentence without having been privy to the full evidence and deliberations was sufficient to override the authority of the State after having gone through an extensive judicial process - one generally regarded as operating on just principles - to determine “the guilty party’s identity and responsibility”.

Why not just write what the Church writes? The Church does not use “preach” or “teach” so why use those words the Church is very clear on this issue.

I was looking for synonyms, as I was initially giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was a comprehension issue and not an intentional effort to misrepresent what I and others had said up to this point.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer
Why not just write what the Church writes? The Church does not use “preach” or “teach” so why use those words the Church is very clear on this issue.

The “teaching” on the death penalty is neither infallible nor ordinary; it is prudential. Infallible teachings require the assent of faith, ordinary teachings require religious assent (892), but prudential statements don’t require assent at all as they are but opinions. The statements on the death penalty are very clear; what is obviously unclear to many is that these prudential statements are not binding and I for one don’t agree with them.

Ender

I guess I was not clear I was not referring to the death penalty I was referring to ( let me pull a quote) “*No believer will wish to deny that the teaching authority of the Church is competent to interpret even the natural moral law. It is, in fact, indisputable, as our predecessors have many times declared, (1) that Jesus Christ, when communicating to Peter and to the apostles His divine authority and sending them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as guardians and authentic interpreters of all the moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel, but also of the natural law, which is also an expression of the will of God, the faithful fulfillment of which is equally necessary for salvation. (3)”-*PPVI

“Interpret” is what I was referring to I have never seen the Church use the word “preach” in the contexted mentioned earlier

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…

If you are going back to the question of the executioner, I’ll point out that you have still not answered the question I posed long ago asking you to clarify if the doubts of a person merely assigned by the State to carry out the sentence without having been privy to the full evidence and deliberations was after having gone through an extensive judicial process - one generally regarded as operating on just principles - to determine “the guilty party’s identity and responsibility”. .

As always phrases have been added to misrepresent the issue, and the catechism is ignored concerning such practices. In this case “sufficient to override the authority of the State” was added thus producing a silly bated question. It is really a poor debate technique designed in trickery.

The classic example is " Have you stopped beating your wife?" so have you?

 

[Ender]

“Interpret” is what I was referring to I have never seen the Church use the word “preach” in the contexted mentioned earlier

Interpreting and teaching are typically the words applied statements of the Church and either will do, but my point is the same: her comments on the death penalty represent the prudential opinion of JPII and faithful Catholics are under no obligation to accept them.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Interpreting and teaching are typically the words applied statements of the Church and either will do, but my point is the same: her comments on the death penalty represent the prudential opinion of JPII and faithful Catholics are under no obligation to accept them.

Ender

Are you including the catechism in that? The eariler post is from the catechism.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

As always phrases have been added to misrepresent the issue, and the catechism is ignored concerning such practices. In this case “sufficient to override the authority of the State” was added thus producing a silly bated question. It is really a poor debate technique designed in trickery.

Whether you intended to or not, there was an unsupportable (based on your refusal to defend it) premise built into how you posed the question about the culpability of the executioner. The “have you quit beating your wife yet” question is indeed a similar case of building an premise into a question. What seems to be escaping you is that the logical error rests in building that premise into your question in the first place, not pointing the false premise out.

The executioner cannot as an individual have culpability for carrying out his obligations under a legitimate oder by the State regarding a decision properly reserved to it under Natural Law. Building in a presumption that the the executioner had an equal and overriding personal responsibility (a requirement for culpability) to make a determination about a particular instance of the State’s exercise of judgment (as properly made by the courts in a system based on accepted principles of justice) without having been granted that authority or obligation by the State (or even access to the evidence in order to effectively make an independent prudential judgment) does indeed constitute a “debate trick”. Without that presumption, the liability for an incorrect determination rests with the State making the decision as a body and not individual functionaries when they are exercising the State’s assigned temporal authority under natural law.

 

[Ender]

Are you including the catechism in that? The eariler post is from the catechism.

My comments apply both to section 2267 of the catechism and to that part of the encyclical Evangelium vitae on which it is based.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
The executioner cannot as an individual have culpability for carrying out his obligations under a legitimate oder by the State regarding a decision properly reserved to it under Natural Law.
…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Interpreting and teaching are typically the words applied statements of the Church and either will do, but my point is the same: her comments on the death penalty represent the prudential opinion of JPII and faithful Catholics are under no obligation to accept them.

Ender

My comments apply both to section 2267 of the catechism and to that part of the encyclical Evangelium vitae on which it is based.

Ender

Wow !
I will not be walking this road with you.