RE: Atheism & the Death Penalty.
January 25, 2016 at 10:29 am
(This post was last modified: January 25, 2016 at 10:30 am by Catholic_Lady.)
(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.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh