We’re due
for an open thread. Now is your chance
to bring up matters that would otherwise be off-topic. For example, sometimes readers want to
respond to something I said on Twitter/X (and write up such a comment under a post
here – where it doesn’t get past moderation if it’s not on topic). But feel free to bring up whatever you like. From Cantor’s continuum problem to Canter’s
Deli, from Gertrude Stein to grapefruit wine, from Jack Kirby to Kier Kirby,
everything is fair game for discussion.
Just keep it civil and classy, as always. Previous open threads archived
here.
Hi Dr.Feser!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you're aware of Christian Wagner. Recently he had one of his friends, Hasan on his channel, and they went over the Pope Francis death penalty controversy in detail. Their thesis is basically this:
While the magisterial documents during Francis's pontificate (and even before that) contain many seriously problematic wording
and erroneous empirical judgments that can be discarded after careful consideration, (Eg. what the actual state of the detention systems is in the world today) they also exhibit a legitimate doctrinal development (not just during Francis, but even during JP2) regarding the death penalty:
Due to the relationship between the Law of the Gospel and Natural Law- with the former being a higher standard, that should be followed when possible - something can be BOTH "per se contrary to the Gospel" and NOT be intrinsically evil.
Under Natural Law, the state has a legitimate right to use the death penalty in certain cases to serve justice and protect its citizens. The historical teaching of the Church defends this principle against heretics who claimed that the DP couldn't be done without mortal sin (eg. Innocent III ).
The Law of the Gospel is a law that we as Christians, and Christian nations, are called to follow, that goes over the minimal requirement of NL, it calls for perfection.
Under this law, we are called to prioritize mercy over strict justice.
The newer teachings are focused on the latter principle (which is already present in older, historical documents, as they show).
(They also try to apply it to contingent circumstances that they judge in a bad a way, but this part, while problematic, is not in itself part of the direct moral teaching.)
The full explanation is in the second stream that I linked. It's very long, but he goes over basically every relevant, important document regarding the issue, and I believe his explanation to be sufficient. Of course this quick summary of mine is insufficient and doesn't deal with the possible objections.
In the video of the first link, Wagner explains the basics of this in around 8 minutes. They also critique your stance on the question, around the 10-20 minute mark, suggesting that your reading of the documents glossed over many important details. (and they go over additional objections as well).
I think it would be beneficial if you listened to this (the second link).
I know it's long, but you engage with this topic relatively often, and your treatment of it is very influential on the Catholic blogosphere, and I'm quite sure that they offer some new thoughts about the issue that you missed.
Best regards,
A reader of yours
############
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDVVPPDaFrw
Quick explanation at the beginning, clarifications and objections later
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDpIqVVC1Gw
Full video/stream that goes over most relevant documents.
Have any Thomists, so far, given an assessment of William Lane Craig's analysis of Divine Simplicity from his Systematic Philosophical Theology Volume IIA?
ReplyDelete