(January 25, 2016 at 1:42 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(January 23, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So what exactly is the difference between the 1st edition's teaching and the 2nd, other than the fact that they used a different word that doesn't even change the message? They both say that the DP is only ok if it is the only means to keep a society safe, otherwise the right thing is to take the route that does not kill the person.

With that being said, yes, the teachings do evolve over the course of 2,000 years. The official, doctrinal teachings don't change completely but they evolve and get added on as we come to a better understanding of things. However, on this particular issue, I see no "evolution" between the 1st and 2nd edition's stance. And I still don't understand why you objected to my initial post about this in the first place.

I find it curious that you don't seem to think changing the word of Gods disciples and through extension God is extremely relevant. After all, even if the change is only slight it can cause an entire divergence of interpretation. Given the nature of the text I would of thought the creator of everything would want it made very clear what he wants and choose his words very carefully as he would be more knowledgeable than a master linguist and thus more conscious of the potential pitfalls. Thats not even taking omnipotence into account. 
Did he make a mistake the first time? Is there predictive text in heaven? If so I totally get it.

Let me preempt Catholic Lady:

Quote:Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870: “… We, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

(January 23, 2016 at 6:24 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

Quote:Catholic_Lady

So what exactly is the difference between the 1st edition's teaching and the 2nd, other than the fact that they used a different word that doesn't even change the message? They both say that the DP is only ok if it is the only means to keep a society safe, otherwise the right thing is to take the route that does not kill the person.

With that being said, yes, the teachings do evolve over the course of 2,000 years. The official, doctrinal teachings don't change completely but they evolve and get added on as we come to a better understanding of things. However, on this particular issue, I see no "evolution" between the 1st and 2nd edition's stance. And I still don't understand why you objected to my initial post about this in the first place.

Saying that a person should do something is different than saying that they must do something (as in "authority will limit itself to such means...").  It's a slight-of-hand shift to be sure, but when five of the United States Supreme Court justices are Catholic, such statements from the Magisterium mean something, don't they?  (Well, not to Us, at least! )

Jehanne, the 2 different quotes were these:

From 1st edition:

Quote:2267. If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

From 2nd edition:

Quote: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 with the dignity of the human person.

They mean the exact same thing. Just because they used the words "authority should limit itself" in the first and "authority will limit itself" in the 2nd, really means nothing at all. Heck, it was probably just a different translator since they are not originally written in English. The message is clearly the same, and that message is exactly what I said on my post that you, for whatever reason, objected to - the DP is only ok when it is the only way of keeping society safe from a predator... but if there is another way that doesn't kill them, that way should be used instead. That was the teaching in the first Catechism, and it is the teaching in the Catechism of today.  

I'm sure you know that and are just grasping at straws so you don't have to admit that you were wrong about the Catechism changing its teaching on this.

(January 25, 2016 at 10:29 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: They mean the exact same thing. Just because they used the words "authority should limit itself" in the first and "authority will limit itself" in the 2nd, really means nothing at all. Heck, it was probably just a different translator since they are not originally written in English. The message is clearly the same, and that message is exactly what I said on my post that you, for whatever reason, objected to - the DP is only ok when it is the only way of keeping society safe from a predator... but if there is another way that doesn't kill them, that way should be used instead. That was the teaching in the first Catechism, and it is the teaching in the Catechism of today.  

I'm sure you know that and are just grasping at straws so you don't have to admit that you were wrong about the Catechism changing its teaching on this.

Should is a duty, an obligation. Something you aspire to accomplish.
Will is future tense. An inevitability. One expresses a much stronger commitment to it than the other.
1. "I should avoid bludgeoning that man to death with a rock."
2. "I will avoid bludgeoning that man to death with a rock."
Do you see the difference?


The change would seem to reflect the attitudes of the times. Why was the change required? Presumably you don't think God made a mistake, that it was the translators with their different interpretations. Correct me if I'm wrong. 
If thats the case how can you be sure about anything the bible says without reading it in its original hebrew? Shouldn't this be of a huge concern to you considering a result of this is that the always right, never changing word of God is changing often? Sometimes radically?

(January 25, 2016 at 10:29 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: They mean the exact same thing. Just because they used the words "authority should limit itself" in the first and "authority will limit itself" in the 2nd, really means nothing at all.

Hi CL, in my professional capacity as a Business Analyst, I can guarantee you that 'should' and 'will' mean 2 very different things, as Raphiel stated. One of the first lessons in writing good Business Requirements is that your statements are 'complete' (they say everything you want to say), discrete (they handle one item at a time), unambiguous (they say exactly what must be said) and imperative (are direct, testable instructions).

'Should' meets none of those. If it's BR101, I'd expect the divinely inspired representatives of God to know it. Why should such a revision be needed?

Sorry guys, but I really don't see a different message at all. The message is the same: The death penalty is immoral unless it is the only means available for keeping society safe.

Perhaps the change in the word (if it was even intentional) was to express reinforcement of the seriousness of this teaching. There are Catholics who like to think the death penalty is A-ok, so I see why they would have needed to make themselves more clear and more stern.

oh, come on! the list given isn't an exclusive list?

as a liberal living in a 1st world country, i would argue that execution is always a poor response to crime, from a bunch of rational and ethical reasons.

however.

if you were on an island alone with 3 other people with a finite food supply, and one of those people killed the other for his food, would you not kill him as a response to the "crime"?

because you already have information to know in this situation:

it's him or you.

judgement is always context dependant. doesn't matter how evolved or how barbaric you are.

(January 25, 2016 at 6:06 pm)phil-lndn Wrote: oh, come on! the list given isn't an exclusive list?

as a liberal living in a 1st world country, i would argue that execution is always a poor response to crime, from a bunch of rational and ethical reasons.

however.

if you were on an island alone with 3 other people with a finite food supply, and one of those people killed the other for his food, would you not kill him as a response to the "crime"?

No "her"?

(January 25, 2016 at 6:06 pm)phil-lndn Wrote: oh, come on! the list given isn't an exclusive list?

as a liberal living in a 1st world country, i would argue that execution is always a poor response to crime, from a bunch of rational and ethical reasons.

however.

if you were on an island alone with 3 other people with a finite food supply, and one of those people killed the other for his food, would you not kill him as a response to the "crime"?

because you already have information to know in this situation:

it's him or you.

judgement is always context dependant. doesn't matter how evolved or how barbaric you are.

Nice non-sequitor - on an island alone with two others, there is no government, no police force, corrections officers, nor prison to contain such a threat, therefore killing to defend yourself is the only option. The discussion at hand involves no such scenario.

(January 25, 2016 at 6:06 pm)phil-lndn Wrote: oh, come on! the list given isn't an exclusive list?

as a liberal living in a 1st world country, i would argue that execution is always a poor response to crime, from a bunch of rational and ethical reasons.

however.

if you were on an island alone with 3 other people with a finite food supply, and one of those people killed the other for his food, would you not kill him as a response to the "crime"?

because you already have information to know in this situation:

it's him or you.

judgement is always context dependant. doesn't matter how evolved or how barbaric you are.

I would argue that in such a scenario you would try to kill the other two yourself for the food no matter how much you think you wouldn't. That is, of course, if it seems to you like there are no other options for extended survival left. It also depends on how much food there actually is. If there's very little to begin with then you couldn't rationalise commiting murder for it.