Capital punishment and protection from error

[triumphguy]

Ender: you don't answer arguments you try and reduce them to the absurd.

Yes, it's a common rhetorical trick, but unless you are arguing for entertainment it debases the discussion.

At the heart of your argument is an important question: about the unchanging nature of truth.

You ask whether the Church has changed it's beliefs in order to respond to a certain situation.

But: the Church is not a Church of either A or B, but a Church of A and B (where appropriate and authentic, etc).

And there are different ways of approaching truth: doctrinally and pastorally.

And Mercy has always outshone Justice. That is the whole nature of the Atonement.

It was Just that a man should die for the sin of a man.

God did not deny that justice, but in His Mercy sent His Son as The Man to die for all men. Both Justice and Mercy were served.

The challenge is: what are we doing to foster that justice and mercy in our society?

[Ender]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

The Church has recognized the right of States regarding Capital Punishment (but never abortion or euthanasia) in the context of the time.

This cannot be true as the right of the State to execute criminals for the crime of murder is based on the concept of retributive justice which does not change with time. If death was a just punishment for murder 2000 years ago it is equally just today since the severity of the crime, being based on the inherent dignity of man, cannot change.

The woman taken in adultery (Jn 8:1-11):

She was guilty. She was guilty of a capital offense...

Humility, justice and mercy do not deny objective truth.

They do change the way we respond to objective truth.

What has changed in the last two decades that alters how these truths apply? The Church has surely always been aware of this passage yet nowhere has she applied it to this subject. If JPII referenced it in Evangelium Vitae I am unable to find it. The point is that the Church has never based her understanding of capital punishment on this incident. Rather she bases it on Gen 9:5-6 and Rom 13:1-4, which support - not oppose - its use.

Ender

[triumphguy]

Originally Posted by Ender

This cannot be true as the right of the State to execute criminals for the crime of murder is based on the concept of retributive justice which does not change with time. If death was a just punishment for murder 2000 years ago it is equally just today since the severity of the crime, being based on the inherent dignity of man, cannot change.
What has changed in the last two decades that alters how these truths apply? The Church has surely always been aware of this passage yet nowhere has she applied it to this subject. If JPII referenced it in Evangelium Vitae I am unable to find it. The point is that the Church has never based her understanding of capital punishment on this incident. Rather she bases it on Gen 9:5-6 and Rom 13:1-4, which support - not oppose - its use.

Ender

Well we could look at lists of what the State thought was a crime punishable by death 2000 years ago, or even 200 hundred years ago and see if the punishment "fits the crime" today.

In early Victorian England these crimes were capital offences. (10,000 Londoners were publicly executed for crimes such as these)


You could of course be hanged drawn and quartered for being a Catholic priest in Elizabethan England.


Gen 9:5-6 only references the shedding of blood.
Re: Rom 13:1-4 is a good one for your argument.

(BTW - so what's your position on taxes (vs. 6)(allowed and encouraged) , mortgages (vs. 8) (not allowed)?

[Ender]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

Ender: you don't answer arguments you try and reduce them to the absurd.

I try to be very specific with my answers ... but if I find an argument I believe is absurd I do try to make that point.

And Mercy has always outshone Justice. That is the whole nature of the Atonement.

I won't re-post the citation from the Baltimore Catechism I just made, I'll just add others to make the point that there is no justification for believing that mercy outshines or trumps justice.
- Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it. (JPII)
- We seek both justice and mercy. (USCCB)
- Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. (Aquinas)
- this movement of the mind" (viz. mercy) "obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded (Augustine)

And finally there are these:
- If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas)
- The law, nevertheless, is clear that for public prosperity it is to the interest of all that virtue - and justice especially, which is the mother of all virtues - should be practiced (Leo XIII)

I don't think there is any case to be made that mercy outranks justice.

The challenge is: what are we doing to foster that justice and mercy in our society?

I don't diminish the significance of mercy when I argue that it doesn't outrank justice, but I will point out that it is never wrong to be just but it can be wrong to be merciful.

Ender

[Ender]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

Well we could look at lists of what the State thought was a crime punishable by death 2000 years ago, or even 200 hundred years ago and see if the punishment "fits the crime" today.

To hold that the Church allows capital punishment for serious crimes and accepts that the State has the (God given) authority to apply it says nothing whatever about whether that authority cannot be abused. The Church also teaches that I have free will but surely no one would argue that she believes that I am morally free to do what I will simply because I am free to choose. Without that freedom to choose I could not be morally responsible for my choices and the same is true of States. That they have the right to employ capital punishment does not give them license to abuse that right or that however they choose to apply it is right simply because it is their choice.

Ender

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

Well we could look at lists of what the State thought was a crime punishable by death 2000 years ago, or even 200 hundred years ago and see if the punishment "fits the crime" today.

In early Victorian England these crimes were capital offences. (10,000 Londoners were publicly executed for crimes such as these)


You could of course be hanged drawn and quartered for being a Catholic priest in Elizabethan England.


Gen 9:5-6 only references the shedding of blood.
Re: Rom 13:1-4 is a good one for your argument.

(BTW - so what's your position on taxes (vs. 6)(allowed and encouraged) , mortgages (vs. 8) (not allowed)?

Clarify for me. "Strong evidence of malice in children 7 to 14" Does that mean what I think it means? Did they execute the kids?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[triumphguy]

Originally Posted by Ender

- Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it. (JPII)
- We seek both justice and mercy. (USCCB)
- Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. (Aquinas)
- this movement of the mind" (viz. mercy) "obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded (Augustine)

And finally there are these:
- If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas)
- The law, nevertheless, is clear that for public prosperity it is to the interest of all that virtue - and justice especially, which is the mother of all virtues - should be practiced (Leo XIII)

I don't think there is any case to be made that mercy outranks justice.
I don't diminish the significance of mercy when I argue that it doesn't outrank justice, but I will point out that it is never wrong to be just but it can be wrong to be merciful.

Ender

I agree with all of these, and I agree that mercy does not outrank justice, yet I stand by my argument.

Was Jesus both Just and Merciful with the woman caught in adultery? She walks away alive and unpunished!

Or would you say that Jesus was not just? I know you would not say that. You might, however, argue that this passage is not important in your argumentation. But I don't buy that this passage should not be considered very carefully.

Anyway. We could drag this on, but: I believe that following the Church's teaching I am called to be against capital punishment (and they are trying to reinstate it in Canada). You do not. You will never convince me that I am wrong, and I don't think you will be convinced that you are either.

Someone else is wrong on another thread and I need to go spend some time there Just kidding: I have a wife and kids to spend time with.

[triumphguy]

Originally Posted by JReducation

Clarify for me. "Strong evidence of malice in children 7 to 14" Does that mean what I think it means? Did they execute the kids?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Yes, children were executed, and shipped to penal colonies. (Not the same child obviously)

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

Ender: you don't answer arguments you try and reduce them to the absurd.

Yes, it's a common rhetorical trick, but unless you are arguing for entertainment it debases the discussion.

In support of Ender, reductio ad absurdum is more that a 'rhetorical trick'. but a recognized logical debate technique.

It shows that the person's premise is faulty as it leads to an absurd conclusion, and therefore disproved.

It's mathematical equivelent is proof by contradiction.

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

Was Jesus just with the Woman in Adultery?

Was he merciful?

Did she die by stoning?

Did Jesus condemn her?

Did he tell her to go and sin no more?

She wasn't going to die and everyone knew that. Roman Law prohibited the Jews from executing anyone.

Rather, the Pharisees presented the woman as a trap.

So what was the trap?

If they presented the woman and Christ said "go ahead and stone her", they could have gone to the Romans and claimed that the Nazorean was defying their authority, as Rome had prohibited the Jews from executing anyone.

If Christ denied that she should be stoned, He would be denying the Moral Law handed down from Moses. Christ could not do that, as He Himself gave the Moral Law, and it is unchanging.

Rather, He escaped the trap by denying neither. He instead told the Pharisees to go ahead and stone her, but in a way they could not take to the Romans.

The Pharisees considered themselves to be sinless. They followed every iota of the written Law, ergo, they commited no sin.

But they could not make that claim to Pilate, he would have laughted them out of court.

That is why the wisest, the eldest left first, they saw how Christ escaped their trap. They could not go the Jews and claim that Christ denied the Law of Moses, nor could they go to Rome and claim that He advocated the flaunting of Roman law.

[triumphguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

In support of Ender, reductio ad absurdum is more that a 'rhetorical trick'. but a recognized logical debate technique.

It shows that the person's premise is faulty as it leads to an absurd conclusion, and therefore disproved.

It's mathematical equivelent is proof by contradiction.

It's a trick, a sales technique.

$300 a month isn't a lot of money, why it's only $10 a day, or to be exact 41 cents an hour.

What is absurd is that no-one budgets their life by the hour.

Goldlilocks was right, sometimes "just right" is "just right."

[triumphguy]

Originally Posted by Brendan

She wasn't going to die and everyone knew that. Roman Law prohibited the Jews from executing anyone.

Rather, the Pharisees presented the woman as a trap.

So what was the trap?

If they presented the woman and Christ said "go ahead and stone her", they could have gone to the Romans and claimed that the Nazorean was defying their authority, as Rome had prohibited the Jews from executing anyone.

If Christ denied that she should be stoned, He would be denying the Moral Law handed down from Moses. Christ could not do that, as He Himself gave the Moral Law, and it is unchanging.

Rather, He escaped the trap by denying neither. He instead told the Pharisees to go ahead and stone her, but in a way they could not take to the Romans.

The Pharisees considered themselves to be sinless. They followed every iota of the written Law, ergo, they commited no sin.

But they could not make that claim to Pilate, he would have laughted them out of court.

That is why the wisest, the eldest left first, they saw how Christ escaped their trap. They could not go the Jews and claim that Christ denied the Law of Moses, nor could they go to Rome and claim that He advocated the flaunting of Roman law.

Oh, so the essence of Christian mercy is to get a good lawyer?

That's reductio ad absudum btw.

[Mrs Sally]

Originally Posted by Rence

It would be cheaper to execute them the first time convicted. They would cut costs by cutting repeat appeals. You can lobby for whatever you feel strongly about, and you very well should. But you can't argue that executing a criminal is cheaper than supporting him/her throughout their sentence as well as paying for their continued crimes. It's the repeated appeals, continued crime, and related nonsense that drives up costs.

It's also cheaper to abort an unwanted child, a child who may be born with a disease or handicap. We are not called to find the cheapest way out with regards to human life - any and all human life. We always wait in hope of repentance.

All of those things you said about criminals are true, but not for every criminal in every prision. Some of convicted but are innocent, some reform. And most of thecrimes you mentioned are not capital crimes and so the convicted would not be on death row.

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

It's a trick, a sales technique. "

It is interesting that you find it so. St. Thomas Aquinas used that 'sales technique' as part of his cosmological proof of God's existance.

Why do you think that the Angelic Doctor had to resort to a 'trick' as part of his proof?

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by triumphguy

Oh, so the essence of Christian mercy is to get a good lawyer?
]

Or, as Christ has shown, it would be an impossibilty to deny God's Moral Law, and that any attempt to do so is not really at the essesence of Christian Mercy