Nice try, the catechism is not my personal opinion, nor JPII’s. The Church has never taught a complete opposition to the death penalty that includes today and during the Council of Trent. Did you read the USCCB cite posted eariler by Ender? I would recommend it.
I appreciate the comments from both you and RPP but I’m afraid this horse is not merely deceased but beaten flat. I’m moving on to more useful discussions and more interesting aspects of this topic.
I was refering to the opinion of JPII that the only valid reason for capital punishment is if no other means of punishment could still provide safety for society at large from said murderer. That is very different from what the Counsil of Trent said on the matter.
Yes, but, to use the last citation you provided as an example, it did not actually address the part of your claim you were asked to substantiate. Your later attempt to explain its relevance required circular reasoning in assuming the validity of the conclusion you were being asked to substantiate.
This is as factually untrue as the allegation you made about the citations Ender provided.
Over and over and over again the defintions of catechism stress that a catechism covers “basics” or “fundamentals”, and is “elementary” - not meant to be analyzed critically. Looking at the introduction to the CCC itself, there is no basis for a presumption that catechism in particular will contain all the nuances of official teaching on a subject, and there is certainly not a guarantee that its contents can be interpreted in a vacuum where existing Church teaching should be ignored when interpreting its statements.
As I said, what stood out to me of your post 413 was that your allegation that ’ anyone who didn’t accept your cascade of unsupported conclusions was “ignorant”, and that the only alternatives to your conclusion were “ugly” ’ That is what stood out to me, if you had more important things to say they were lost in your reliance on yet more personal attacks and emotional language in attempting to close your defense of resorting to emotional attacks in the first place.
Probably, takes a special type to count. Their use is acceptable when dissecting statements to detail who said what in a series of events, articulating what constitutes circular reasoning, pointing out evasion of requests for documentation, and identifying instances of ad hominem attacks. Part of the reason I backed off responding to you for a while was to see if it was possibly just me that was triggering your use of emotional language and ad hominem attacks, but you just kept “spreading the love around” anyway.
This is another place where you have your logical requirements confused, as your opponenets are not obliged to provide citations to prove straw-man version of their arguments or defend themselves against fanciful allegations they’ve said things you’ve simply made up about them to try to distract from challenges to parts of your argument that also seem to have simply been made up.
It is unfortunate that this thread so thoroughly derailed in the way it was.
JPII, the counsel of Trent, and the Catholic Church all agree on the teaching. It is the author who differs.
You forgot the citations again. May be it is not accidental you cann’t find a Church teaching to back your claims?
If you read the article in it’s entirety, you would know that this statement is not true.
Tell you what TR, you find a site that discusses styles of debate that says a group is obliged to provide proofs for versions of arguments only one person is claiming they said, even after they’ve pointed out they’ve never made those particular claims, and I’ll see what I can do for you…
Actually the statement is true. The article contains 2 opinions which disagree, yet the article cites practically no church documents certainly none to support the statements made. That is why it is a poorly written document. Simply separate the opinions and review the supported fact base, you’ll see there is practically nothing but opinion in the article.
Actually you will do no such. Please note I am waiting for you to prove the above claim to be “false” and “intentionally”. Ender has to date posted no Church writtings to support several critical accusations concerning church teachings. If you wish to really support Ender you could simply post the documents yourself
At several points, most recently in post post 448, TR claims I need to be providing “references to show a prudential catechism? a rejection of Church teaching on the death penalty by Ratzinger or the USCCB?”
You have not missed anything, it is the claim the USCCB and Ratzinger disagree with the Roman Catholic Church read top half of Post #298 (pg 20) it is as good a reference as any
Again Ratzinger has not been shown to say the CCC is “prudential” and Natural Moral Law is in the CCC as written in the hearts of men, not States. States are to only have laws which align with Natural Moral Law. There is not direct grant to states from Natural Moral Law. The conduit is men and Church has clearly maintained the Church is the authentic interpreter of Moral Natural Law, not men, not states
Ratzinger is not shown to have “disagreed” that is one of citations you cannot obtain.
To whit:
Ender said this in post 298:
Ender was disagreeing with VpT’s analysis of the weight of that particular section of the catechism. He never said they disagreed with the “Roman Catholic Church” - that is an expansion of scope that exists only in TR’s mind
Here again, TR seems to not be able to restrain himself from implying the scope of the opposing claim in much much larger than it is. He has yet to point out where anyone has claimed the CCC is prudential as a work, yet he keeps dropping the implication thats been said as a whole.
Unless TR has something in particular he’s going to address on what has already been stated on the Church’s interpretation of Natural Law placing temporal authority, including the authority to exact capital punishment) irrevocably in the hands of the States, I’m not even sure what his point of disagreement is on this.
The USCCB nor the Ratzinger have been shown to disagree.
As the author of post 298 let me explain that I never meant to imply that either the USCCB nor Ratzinger (nor Dulles for that matter) disagreed with the teaching on the death penalty. Dulles and the USCCB clearly agree with it; I have read nothing one way or the other about Ratzinger/BXVI’s personal opinion. I disagree with 2267 - as far as I can tell everyone I have referenced appears to agree with it.
The point I have been trying to make is not that the catechism is prudential but only that the section on the death penalty is. I have not argued that Ratzinger (or the USCCB) ever used the word prudential. Rather I have claimed that 2267 is prudential whether or not that particular word is used because that seems to be the only rational interpretation of the comments they made about it. When they state or intimate that a Catholic in good standing may disagree with a particular teaching then it can only be because the teaching is not binding and is therefore prudential.
No one disputes that wealthier defendants can hire better lawyers and, therefore, should have a legal advantage over their poorer counterparts.* The US has executed about 0.15% of all murderers since new death penalty statutes were enacted in 1973.* Is there evidence that wealthier capital murderers are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based upon the proportion of capital murders committed by different those different economic groups? Not that I know of.
Reconsider.