Will Texas execute two innocent men? [CNA]

[Ender]

Your idea of what constitutes Church Tradition is not mine. I also know of multiple popes that do not agree with you. Realize that just like we do not get to set our own interpretations of Scripture above the Church, we should also not set our own narrow views of “Church Tradition” above the Church. The danger with personal interpretation of Scripture is the “personal interpretation” part, not the Scripture part.

His understanding of what constitutes the traditional teaching of the church is, however, correct, as should be fairly obvious from the half dozen catechism quotes I provided spanning 800 years. Support for the use of capital punishment is of course much older even than that, going back to the first popes and including most of the Fathers and Doctors. That three modern popes have expressed their personal opposition to its use does not change what has been said on the matter for the nearly 2000 years prior.

Capital punishment* may* be moral. It is not an absolute moral good, as should be self-evident with even a little reflection.

It should be self evident inasmuch as there is virtually no such thing as an absolute moral good. No matter how moral an act may appear to be it can be rendered immoral if the intent behind it is immoral. Given that, there can be no such thing as an intrinsically good act.

Ender

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has stated:

*2267 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.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”*

This, of course, mirrors Pope Saint John Paul II’s teaching in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae. The recent decision of Pope Francis to advance his predecessor’s teaching in this area further is indeed to be welcomed. We await the formulation. The work of the commission is slow since it is methodical…but it will be part of the legacy of “the Pope of Mercy.”

As CAF in based in the United States, I congratulate the Bishops of the United States for their work in this area. Their writings, which have increased in number and forcefulness in recent years, have been most impressive as the matter moves toward fruition.

I can say, as an old Thomist who taught moral theology for many years, that following the evolution of this particular issue during and now since the papacy of Pope Saint John Paul II has been the most remarkable aspect to me in the whole field of moral theology, and above all with regard to the College of Bishops.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/catholic-campaign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia I have followed with great interest because of his commentary of civic responsibility and Catholics.

He stated a few years ago, quite well, exactly where the Pope and the theological commission are heading – and I might add the College of Bishops as a body

We must gladly receive the pronouncement from the Church’s Magisterium on this matter of morality, when it is pleased to articulate the position toward which we have been moving now for many years

Indeed, it is thanks in part to the advocacy of the Archbishop that the Governor of Pennsylvania instituted an effective moratorium on the death penalty in that State in response to the Church’s growing discernment – which coincides with the determination of society beyond the Church’s officials, as we clearly see in European governments – that the death penalty is no longer morally acceptable, from the Catholic perspective given the criteria articulated in Evangelium Vitae and in The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Regarding the events in Pennsylvania: catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop-chaput-applauds-penn-governor-for-halt-to-death-penalty-55872/

What Archbishop Chaput expresses in his article below is a determination of the morality of the act of executing a prisoner that reflects what Pope Saint John Paul II determined in Evangelium Vitae and which is articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Archbishop’s thoughts conform to the teachings of Pope Benedict and express what Pope Francis is teaching now with an greater depth, clarity and precision

It also powerfully shows how the successor of Peter is helping to refine the thoughts of the rest of the College of Bishops as their thoughts become more precise and coalesce

The thoughts of Archbishop Chaput on the death penalty with bolding added by me

*Weekly Column by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap
September 7, 2012

Even when a defendant is well defended, properly tried and justly found guilty, experience shows that capital punishment simply doesn’t work as a deterrent. Nor does it heal or redress any wounds, because only forgiveness can do that. It does succeed though in answering violence with violence – a violence wrapped in the piety of state approval, which implicates all of us as citizens in the taking of more lives.

Turning away from capital punishment does not diminish our support for the families of murder victims. They bear a terrible burden of grief, and they rightly demand justice. Real murderers deserve punishment; but even properly tried and justly convicted murderers – men and women who are found guilty of heinous crimes – retain their God-given dignity as human beings. When we take a murderer’s life we only add to the violence in an already violent culture, and we demean our own dignity in the process.

Both Scripture and Catholic tradition support the legitimacy of the death penalty under certain limited conditions. But the Church has repeatedly called us to a higher road over the past five decades. We don’t need to kill people to protect society or punish the guilty. And we should never be eager to take anyone’s life. As a result, except in the most extreme circumstances, capital punishment cannot be justified. In developed countries like our own, it should have no place in our public life.

Last month here in Pennsylvania, execution warrants were signed for four men. A judge stayed one of the execution warrants, but the three remaining warrants could potentially result in the first execution in our state in 13 years. One of the cases in which appeals seem to be exhausted involves Terrance Williams. In October, Williams is scheduled to die by lethal injection for the murder of Amos Norwood in 1984, a crime committed when he was 18 and a college freshman. Williams is indisputably guilty of the crime. He’s also mentally competent. His defense attorneys argue that he was repeatedly sexually abused as a youth, including five years of abuse at the hands of the man he murdered, and that this helped motivate his violence. The state counters that all of Williams’ claims – including claims of sexual abuse – have had proper judicial review and been rejected.

Terrance Williams deserves punishment. No one disputes that. But he doesn’t need to die to satisfy justice. We should think very carefully in the coming days about the kind of justice we want to witness to our young people. Most American Catholics, like many of their fellow citizens, support the death penalty. That doesn’t make it right. But it does ensure that the wrong-headed lesson of violence “fixing” the violent among us will be taught to another generation.

As children of God, we’re better than this, and we need to start acting like it. We need to end the death penalty now*

 

[Ender]

We must gladly receive the pronouncement from the Church’s Magisterium on this matter of morality, when it is pleased to articulate the position toward which we have been moving now for many years.

I can understand a position that says it is unwise to use capital punishment for any number of prudential reasons, but I cannot understand a position that claims it is immoral to use it. What is the matter of morality you refer to and what is the moral position toward which we are moving? Are you suggesting that at some point the church will declare capital punishment intrinsically evil, because if she doesn’t do that then what will have changed? If it is not intrinsically evil then there will be situations where its use is appropriate, just as today.

…the death penalty is no longer morally acceptable, from the Catholic perspective given the criteria articulated in Evangelium Vitae and in The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Since the criteria are prudential, how can the death penalty become immoral? Beyond that, how can concern over what is necessary to achieve a secondary objective (safety) override the concern over what is necessary to achieve the primary objective (retribution)?

What Archbishop Chaput expresses in his article below is a determination of the morality of the act of executing a prisoner that reflects what Pope Saint John Paul II determined in Evangelium Vitae and which is articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Given that JPII and the catechism both acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment in certain (albeit rare) circumstances, will we now determine that they were both wrong?

The thoughts of Archbishop Chaput on the death penalty with bolding added by me…
“…experience shows that capital punishment simply doesn’t work as a deterrent.”

Although I have great admiration for Archbishop Chaput, this is an assertion he is not really competent to make; there is in fact a great deal of debate over this very point. More significantly, suppose in the future it is determined there is indeed a significant deterrent effect. According to the argument that the safety of society determines the appropriate punishment, this would “morally” mandate the use of the death penalty according to the very criteria that are being cited now that make it “morally unacceptable”. Is anyone else uncomfortable with the idea that what is moral can be determined by the studies of social scientists?

“Nor does it heal or redress any wounds, because only forgiveness can do that.”

Retribution is not intended so much to redress particular individual wounds as it is to redress the general disorder caused by the offense. That is, there is more involved than just the harm endured by the individuals directly involved.*…this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. *(Pius XII)

“…men and women who are found guilty of heinous crimes – retain their God-given dignity as human beings. When we take a murderer’s life we only add to the violence in an already violent culture, and we demean our own dignity in the process.”

Part of man’s dignity flows from his being morally accountable for his actions. It is not contrary to that dignity to hold him fully accountable, nor is it necessarily contrary to our dignity to insist that this accountability extend to the loss of his very life.

"Both Scripture and Catholic tradition support the legitimacy of the death penalty under certain limited conditions."

If both scripture and doctrine support the legitimacy of the death penalty, on what basis can it now be considered not merely injudicious but immoral?

"We don’t need to kill people to protect society or punish the guilty.* And we should never be eager to take anyone’s life. As a result, *except in the most extreme circumstances, capital punishment cannot be justified.

If capital punishment is not needed today to punish the guilty then how was it ever justified? It is not true that only modern societies have the capability of imposing life sentences, that capability arguably extends back to the Romans, and undeniably back before the Catechism of Trent where it was asserted that capital punishment was “an act of paramount obedience.” We should not be eager to take anyone’s life. We should, however, be willing to take those steps necessary to "form a just conception of the wickedness of murder."

“Terrance Williams deserves punishment. No one disputes that. But he doesn’t need to die to satisfy justice.”

This is really the discussion that needs to be held, but I have yet to see anyone present an argument to support the claim.

Ender

 

[Peebo]

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Capital_punishment_world.png/750px-Capital_punishment_world.png

Well…seeing that most if not all countries have abolished or use capital punishment in only extreme circumstances…it’s probably not surprising that the US is one of only 4 industrialized countries …Japan…Singapore and Taiwan being the other 3 that still perform capital punishment…those other 3 countries are not Christian countries…most Christian countries …including Catholic countries have abolished capital punishment…so apparently those Catholic countries don’t have any problem understanding what the last 3 Popes have been saying about capital punishment…nor do other Protestant countries…it seems mainly here in the US…and some here on CAF who have a problem facing the fact that the church is saying it’s no longer necessary…still…there are quite a few 3rd world…Muslim and communist countries that agree with those who still support it here in the US.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I can understand a position that says it is unwise to use capital punishment for any number of prudential reasons, but I cannot understand a position that claims it is immoral to use it.

You have indicated that you cannot understand in previous threads. I am sorry that you cannot understand. That you cannot understand does not alter the reality, however, of what actually is.

Are you suggesting that at some point the church will declare capital punishment intrinsically evil, because if she doesn’t do that then what will have changed?

You repeatedly speak in categories that simply do not apply for the matter at hand. There would be no need to declare capital punishment “intrinsically evil.”

Although I have great admiration for Archbishop Chaput, this is an assertion he is not really competent to make

It should not even require saying that it is his competence to say exactly what he has said – and that he well knows, as an accomplished theologian and bishop of 28 years, what is within his competence as a bishop to say and to do. A Bishop is to teach, to govern and to sanctify.

He is competent to say what he wrote, both as the Archbishop of Philadelphia and on behalf of the Pennsylvania Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Governor of the State, in turn, is to be gladly thanked for his action that is reflective of the Church’s teaching, which the Archbishop has well and precisely articulated.

I will add, moreover, that I have found over the years Archbishop Chaput’s writings on the Church’s Social Doctrine as well as the role of Catholics in public life to be exceptional for its excellence in content and its clarity of formulation.

Archbishop Chaput, along with his brother bishops, as the Successors of the Apostles, have every competence to make that finding toward which they are moving in tandem with the Successor of Peter.

Theologians recognise the alteration of praxis and conclusions as a consequence of evolving theological reflection as well as, actually, a variety of other factors…especially in the contemporary world.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Your idea of what constitutes Church Tradition is not mine. I also know of multiple popes that do not agree with you. Realize that just like we do not get to set our own interpretations of Scripture above the Church, we should also not set our own narrow views of “Church Tradition” above the Church. The danger with personal interpretation of Scripture is the “personal interpretation” part, not the Scripture part.

:yup:

 

[Tim_D]

… that the death penalty is no longer morally acceptable, from the Catholic perspective given the criteria articulated in Evangelium Vitae and in The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Strange, then, that no less than Cardinal Ratzinger stated that one’s personal beliefs can be contrary to this position in the Catechism, yet can still be a in good standing with the Church.

Also, what are we to make of the first edition of the Catechism that states: “Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”

How is it that the Church can teach two such different opinions on the same matter? Was the Church wrong?

 

[Tim_D]

Your idea of what constitutes Church Tradition is not mine. I also know of multiple popes that do not agree with you. Realize that just like we do not get to set our own interpretations of Scripture above the Church, we should also not set our own narrow views of “Church Tradition” above the Church. The danger with personal interpretation of Scripture is the “personal interpretation” part, not the Scripture part.

“…*the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” * Catechism of the Catholic Church, first edition.

Perhaps you can explain to those who compiled the original edition of the Catechism what does and what doesn’t “constitute Church Tradition.”

 

[Ender]

You have indicated that you cannot understand in previous threads. I am sorry that you cannot understand. That you cannot understand does not alter the reality, however, of what actually is.

Let me restate this in a way that cannot be misrepresented. Based on Catholic doctrine, there is no valid argument to support the claim that the use of capital punishment is immoral.

You repeatedly speak in categories that simply do not apply for the matter at hand. There would be no need to declare capital punishment “intrinsically evil.”

If capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, then its use is contingent, as it has always been, and it cannot be said to be “no longer morally acceptable.” It is as morally acceptable now as before: when the conditions are met.

It should not even require saying that it is his competence to say exactly what he has said – and that he well knows, as an accomplished theologian and bishop of 28 years, what is within his competence as a bishop to say and to do. A Bishop is to teach, to govern and to sanctify.

If he was discussing church doctrine this would be true, but theology provides no training at all regarding the deterrent nature of the death penalty. I addressed my comment specifically his assertion that “…experience shows that capital punishment simply doesn’t work as a deterrent.” As I said, the determination of the deterrent effect of capital punishment is the province of social scientists, not bishops.

Archbishop Chaput, along with his brother bishops, as the Successors of the Apostles, have every competence to make that finding toward which they are moving in tandem with the Successor of Peter.

Whatever “finding” you refer to here, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t include the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Given the intensity of that debate, it’s not clear that anyone is competent to render a definitive finding, which makes it all the more inappropriate for him to have attempted to do so.*“By issuing policy statements on matters that lie beyond their specific competence, and that pertain rather to experts in secular disciplines, the bishops diminish their own credibility in speaking about matters with which they are specially charged as spiritual leaders of the church.” *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Strange, then, that no less than Cardinal Ratzinger stated that one’s personal beliefs can be contrary to this position in the Catechism, yet can still be a in good standing with the Church.

The Cardinal’s statement is not strange to a theologian.

Also, what are we to make of the first edition of the Catechism that states: “Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”

How is it that the Church can teach two such different opinions on the same matter? Was the Church wrong?

They are not “opinions.”

If you would honestly like to know, Pope Saint John Paul II actually had in mind another formulation than what, in the end, he enunciated…one that was much stronger and therefore left less latitude.

The committee of theologians working on the Catechism presented the original work in French, as that was the language for the working group’s communication as well as for textual composition.

The editio typica, of course, was the subsequent Latin text. This necessitated a revision of all vernacular editions to conform to the editio typica. The Holy Father took the occasion then of issuing a revised edition to make yet further emendations that he, using his jurisdiction that is full, supreme, immediate, and universal, unilaterally decided to make. One of them was on this section, and precisely to reduce the latitude. Thus it was reformulated.

The issue before the present commission concerns exactly the issue of minimal latitude that was left. Consultation is occurring within the College and, to some extent, the community of theologians beyond. There will be, in other words, a third articulation of this section. It will render even more precise just how non existent “practically non-existent” really is.

It goes without saying that the Holy Father always retains the prerogative of acting unilaterally – although in this instance, there is no doubt of the support of the College.

 

[lmachine]

It is as morally acceptable now as before: when the conditions are met.

The whole point of this thread and the U.S. bishops’ position on the matter is that those conditions do not exist in America today. If you want to argue in the abstract that the death penalty can be morally acceptable, fine, the Catechism agrees with you. Coming into this thread to argue about it comes with the context of the death penalty in America, where conditions that make capital punishment morally acceptable simply do not exist.

 

[Ender]

The whole point of this thread and the U.S. bishops’ position on the matter is that those conditions do not exist in America today. If you want to argue in the abstract that the death penalty can be morally acceptable, fine, the Catechism agrees with you.

OK, to this extent then you agree with me against the unqualified claim made by Don Ruggero that the death penalty is no longer morally acceptable. If the conditions exist anywhere - a point you don’t contest - then its use in that instance is moral.

Coming into this thread to argue about it comes with the context of the death penalty in America, where conditions that make capital punishment morally acceptable simply do not exist.

There are two issues here: are the conditions cited (which I assume to be that the morality of capital punishment is dependent on its necessity for the protection of society) accurate, and are they met. Ignoring the first (which is the more interesting one), how are we to judge the second?

First, how is “sufficiently protected” defined that we can say we don’t need capital punishment to *"*defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor"? Part of the problem is surely that …there is no definition of what this means. For example: we know that recidivism exists among killers just as it exists among thieves. How many recidivist murders can we accept and still assert that society is “defended”? If we don’t execute murderers, and they kill again (for which we have the statistics), there must be some number of murders we are willing to accept. So - approximately what is that number? One a year? Ten? 50? Given that absolutely no one has or will even suggest that such a number might exist, how is it possible to assert that capital punishment is not necessary to protect the public when no one will even attempt a definition of what that might mean?

Second, who is it that has the legitimate right to make that determination? If the teaching on war is any guide, and I am not aware of any reason to suspect it is not, then the entity tasked with determining the legitimacy of each instance of capital punishment is not the clergy but the government responsible for the common good. Regarding war, the catechism says:
*2309 *…The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
What is the argument that what is true of war is not equally true of capital punishment?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

The issue before the present commission concerns exactly the issue of minimal latitude that was left. Consultation is occurring within the College and, to some extent, the community of theologians beyond. There will be, in other words, a third articulation of this section. It will render even more precise just how non existent “practically non-existent” really is.

It goes without saying that the Holy Father always retains the prerogative of acting unilaterally – although in this instance, there is no doubt of the support of the College.

My one concern, and the reason I resisted agreement with the great St. John Paul was not theological, but factual. I would like to see a greater examination of whether the premise that we can safely incarcerate people in a manner as to keep society safe is true or untrue. This would not be a matter of theology, but of penology. If the current understanding of the morality of the death penalty is based on a questionable premise outside of faith and morals, then the conclusion might be erroneous.

Don, this is one area I have never been able to resolve to my satisfaction, as this is a premise which is in my area of expertise. I keep waiting for the Holy See to call me for a consultation. (sigh!). I have only resolved the issue of capital punishment personally from a new direction, that of the harm we do to ourselves collectively with each execution, versus the value of safety to society, justice, etc. Any devaluation of life makes further devaluation easy. Without writing out a full essay as to why, let me just say that I do not see us making serious progress on abortion and euthanasia while keeping a death penalty.

 

[Ender]

I would like to see a greater examination of whether the premise that we can safely incarcerate people in a manner as to keep society safe is true or untrue. This would not be a matter of theology, but of penology. If the current understanding of the morality of the death penalty is based on a questionable premise outside of faith and morals, then the conclusion might be erroneous.

I would like to see such an analysis as well for exactly the same reason. As you said though, this is a matter of penology, and surely moral values cannot turn on the answers to practical questions.

Ender

 

[Don_Ruggero]

My one concern, and the reason I resisted agreement with the great St. John Paul was not theological, but factual. I would like to see a greater examination of whether the premise that we can safely incarcerate people in a manner as to keep society safe is true or untrue. This would not be a matter of theology, but of penology. If the current understanding of the morality of the death penalty is based on a questionable premise outside of faith and morals, then the conclusion might be erroneous.

Don, this is one area I have never been able to resolve to my satisfaction, as this is a premise which is in my area of expertise. I keep waiting for the Holy See to call me for a consultation. (sigh!). I have only resolved the issue of capital punishment personally from a new direction, that of the harm we do to ourselves collectively with each execution, versus the value of safety to society, justice, etc. Any devaluation of life makes further devaluation easy. Without writing out a full essay as to why, let me just say that I do not see us making serious progress on abortion and euthanasia while keeping a death penalty.

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it. There have been many over the years shocked to be consulted.

It is not necessary to write an essay. I know it very well. Your last lines were exactly the mind of John Paul. That, actually, together with the experience of World War II, the occupations…and, of course, the Shoah. It is so for all Europeans, and especially intently those of us of a certain age.

Watching it all unfold over this span of years has been quite interesting. The stage was set, as it were, by the Pole and the German but it will come to its fruition by the Latin American. Of course, there are very obviously issues about the State in his lived experience, too. And we, that is the Church, have issues regarding our own past, as well.

 

[Ender]

"Tim_D:

How is it that the Church can teach two such different opinions [catechism Ed 1 and Ed 2] on the same matter? Was the Church wrong?

They are not “opinions.”

This doesn’t answer the question. There is in fact a rather significant difference between the two editions on what constitutes the traditional teaching of the church.*2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. *(Second edition, 1997)

*2266 …The traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. (First edition, 1992)

• They clearly express different positions on what is in fact the traditional teaching of the church since the first edition does not contain the conditional restriction added to the second edition. Given that whatever the traditional teaching was in the past it cannot change in the future it is quite reasonable to ask: what gives? Which one is right?

2267 (Ed 2) goes on to assert:
*Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it…
While 2267 (Ed 1) only says: If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor…*Edition 2 unquestionably expresses an opinion (prudential judgment) about the capabilities of modern penal systems. How would you defend such an assertion if not to cite studies that lay out the statistics regarding recidivism, deterrence, prison violence et al. There is no appeal to Aquinas or the Fathers to help with that one. Edition 1 makes no such assertion. What analysis was done in the intervening five years to justify the later claim? Surely this cannot be a doctrinal statement, which makes it…an opinion.

Ender

 

[didymus]

One may argue that these two men haven’t committed crimes that merit the death penaly, but claiming they’re innocent seems a bridge too far.

In Woods’s case the death penalty is ridiculous since he committed what’s called felony murder. Only the shooter should be eligible for the death penalty.

In the other case I would never convict if the only evidence was the testimony of fellow inmates who might have grudges or gotten plea deals – if not for time off at least for better conditions in prison.

 

[pnewton]

This doesn’t answer the question.

Let me try another answer as to why the two different editions are different. They are different formulations. All teachers do this, from parents to classrooms.

Surely this cannot be a doctrinal statement, which makes it…an opinion.

This statement can only be true if the only possibilities are doctrine and opinion.

 

[Ender]

Let me try another answer as to why the two different editions are different. They are different formulations. All teachers do this, from parents to classrooms.

OK, then let me rephrase the two versions like a parent would.

*“You can go outside.”
“You can go outside when your homework is done.”

*There’s not a kid in the world who wouldn’t understand that these mean very different things. In the same way the statements on capital punishment say different things; they are not two formulations of the same concept.

*“You can use capital punishment.”
“You can use capital punishment when it is necessary for the protection of society.”

*The problem is, both editions claim to represent the traditional teaching of the church, yet since they are different they cannot both be right, and while it is not possible to prove a negative, I’ll bet that there is no example one can produce that supports the second edition version. There are innumerable examples supporting the version found in the first edition.

This statement can only be true if the only possibilities are doctrine and opinion.

I agree. So, is there another option?

Ender