God s Justice and Ours [Scalia on the Death Penalty]

First Things via Arts and Letters Daily ^ | June 4, 2002 | Antonin Scalia

[Catholicguy]

I have addressed it before -as have others- as has the Papacy, the Magisterium, The Deposit of Faith etc etc. You just reject it and desire approval of contraception. Breathes there a Freeper Catholic that doesn' know this. The Magisterium says one thing and Sink says another...Who am I to follow?

[Catholicguy]

Again, you are begging the question by assuming the statement, "Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent," falls into the category of faith or morals. Surely this matter must have been discussed by the theologians by now. I have asked you to come up with an orthodox theologian who agrees with you on the matter, but so far, you have not.

That is an instance of repitition on your part, not "question begging." I am addressing the matter of whether or not a Catholic can reject an Encyclical and Doctrine.

It appears to me you think he can if he has good reasons. Scalia rejects both the Encyclical E. V. and Catechism #2267. I say that is the act of a protestant (cafeteria Catholic) that is no different, in principle, than what Frances Quisling, the SSPX, Sinkspur (I didn't want to slight you sink) and McBrien do.

Avery Dulles holds with the papacy and the Magisterium that is development of Doctrine. I can add the names Fr Brian Harrison and Cardinal Ratzinger etc etc.

Papal Encyclicals are not intended to be disected by layman to see which parts can safely be opposed and argued about. Encyclicals are meant to be about TEACHING from the Pope not Propositions to be debated by laity and theologians who have NO Teaching authority

[sinkspur]

I have addressed it before -as have others- as has the Papacy, the Magisterium, The Deposit of Faith etc etc.

You cannot explain the pope's sudden and, you say, authoritative, stance on capital punishment except to invoke "authority," which is no explanation at all.

The only theologians you're going to be able to find to back your point of view are going to be lefties like Rosemary Reuther and Daniel McGuire.

[sinkspur]

Is a Catholic guilty of objective sin by voting for a candidate (like a governor) who supports the death penalty?

If the death penalty cannot be justified under present circumstances, then should we advocate excommunication of Catholic politicians (like Frank Keating) who refuse to commute death sentences?

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I have a problem with this though: "I do not believe (and, for two hundred years, no one believed) that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. And if a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would—and could in good conscience—vote against an attempt to invalidate that law for the same reason that I vote against the invalidation of laws that forbid abortion on demand: because the Constitution gives the federal government (and hence me) no power over the matter."

If an innocent helpless baby does not have the RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness,..and being treated equally, which is afforded by our Constitution, then WHO does?

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of his essay.

Any thoughts or debate on this matter? Thanks in advance.. as this area of individual rights really concerns me. These children cannot defend themselves.. I would hope our Constitution would defend them. But I read him saying it does not. How can that be??

[MeekOneGOP]

Bumped for a.m. review! Thanks!

[sinkspur]

If an innocent helpless baby does not have the RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness,..and being treated equally, which is afforded by our Constitution, then WHO does?

Tenth amendment: any right not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the states.

There is nothing in the Constitution about murder, or robbery. Those are reserved to the states. Abortion should also be a matter for the states.

[Catholicguy]

You cannot explain the pope's sudden and, you say, authoritative, stance on capital punishment except to invoke "authority," which is no explanation at all. The only theologians you're going to be able to find to back your point of view are going to be lefties like Rosemary Reuther and Daniel McGuire

I have already cited The Pope himself, Card Ratzinger, Avery Dulles and I could compile a list of all living Catholic theroogians in union with the Pope; and I STILL don't think that would unseat you from your pro-contraceptive Hobby Horse.

The Pope explained his theological reasoning in Evangelium Vitae but, as you do not accept his authority OR his Theological explanation (and why should you; you are so much MORE qualified to speak of theology than is this brilliant and Holy Pope)but rely upon your own luminous intellect, a list of faithful theologians (who have NO teaching authority)is not going to sway you from thinking this Pope doesn't understand Development of Doctrine.

I guess Pope Sinkspur stands, like Luther, outside the Church, correct?

[sinkspur]

"Citing the Pope" is arguing from authority, which Aquinas says is the weakest rationale for doing anything.

How do YOU defend the Pope's shift, and his, IMO, weak argument from "changed circumstances"? Do you regularly accept major changes like this without so much as a whimper, or a nod toward "well, he knows better than I do"?

Should we treat politicians who support the death penalty the same way we treat politicians who support abortion?

[Catholicguy]

Again, you are begging the question by assuming the statement, "Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent," falls into the category of faith or morals.

Evangelium Vitae addresses matters of morals (Catechism 1749-1761)and the Pope's Theological explanation of the morality involved in Capital Punishment is explicated under the Rubric "Chapter 111: "You shall not kill" God's Holy Law." in the subsection "Human life is sacred and Invioable." This clearly is about morals and this giant of a moral Theologian traces the Development of Doctrine about Capital Punishment which is rejected by the strange bedfellows Scalia and Sinkspur - among many others - ESPECIALLY "conservative" Catholics.

[sinkspur]

The Pope explained his theological reasoning in Evangelium Vitae.

Yes, and as part of that explanation he presumed to know the state of the American penal system and made that the rationale for his presumption that the death penalty can rarely be used, if at all.

THAT is a matter of faith and morals?

[Catholicguy]

"well, he knows better than I do"?

My rule of thumb is "he knows more than sinkspur..."

[sinkspur]

Evangelium Vitae addresses matters of morals (Catechism 1749-1761)and the Pope's Theological explanation of the morality involved in Capital Punishment is explicated under the Rubric "Chapter 111: "You shall not kill" God's Holy Law." in the subsection "Human life is sacred and Invioable."

Has the death penalty suddenly become "killing" by the state, whereas, when the "penal system" was not as "improved" as it is today, it was NOT killing?

The Pope, like most popes before him, is a social liberal, and desires to present a "seamless garment" to the world on the matter of life. That is admirable.

But to maintain that the Church's constant teaching on the permissibility of the death is no longer valid, and, in fact, believing it is is committing a sin against faith and morals baffles logic.

[Catholicguy]

sinkspur, I don't see the purpose of the questions. I have NO authority yet you ask me to convince you. He who does have authority has explained his Theological reasoning in an Encyclical and yet he hasn't convinced you. Is it your idea that you understand what constitutes a real Development of Doctrine better than the Pope? Are you, as the hoary question states, "More Catholic than the Pope?"

Is it within the realm of possibility that the deficency lies within you and that the Pope is NOT mistaken?

[sinkspur]

My rule of thumb is "he knows more than sinkspur..."

You cannot explain this, rationally, can you?

I've enjoyed the repartee, but I'd sure like to read a rational explanation of the Church's sudden disapproval of the death penalty. I don't believe there is one. The Pope's is lame.

And, I suppose Scalia commits a sin when he refuses to commute a death sentence?

[sinkspur]

Is it within the realm of possibility that the deficency lies within you and that the Pope is NOT mistaken?

Yes, it's very possible. But until he or Ratzinger or someone else does a better job of explaining the rationale, I'll continue to support the death penalty.

[Catholicguy]

I've enjoyed the repartee, but I'd sure like to read a rational explanation of the Church's sudden disapproval of the death penalty. I don't believe there is one. The Pope's is lame.

Frankly, I haven't enjoyed it. It is ineffably sad to see a putative Catholic self-destruct and adopt protestantism and refer to the Doctrinal explanations of an intellectual giant as "lame."

[sinkspur]

Frankly, I haven't enjoyed it. It is ineffably sad to see a putative Catholic self-destruct and adopt protestantism and refer to the Doctrinal explanations of an intellectual giant as "lame."

Self-destruct? All you can do is throw the Pope's words at me and I'M the one who's deficient?

Supporting the death penalty is not "adopting protestantism," and you know it.

The Pope has given NO doctrinal explanations; he cites the "changed circumstances" or, rather, "the improved state of penal systems" as the reason for his changed view.

Nothing "doctrinal" about that.