tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4195679486315755857..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Catholic Herald on capital punishmentEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10773190931344483692017-06-28T15:03:49.198-07:002017-06-28T15:03:49.198-07:00I entirely accept that capital punishment is licit...I entirely accept that capital punishment is licit.<br />My concern is that the state and its agents have too often be proved to be vindictive and be willing to make up evidence where they don't have sufficient available. Too many wrongful convictions for me to feel comfortable trusting the state.tolkeinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08322788161398430426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40969057713005119382017-06-19T03:18:05.537-07:002017-06-19T03:18:05.537-07:00Creative Advertising Agency
Now you are on our Cr...Creative Advertising Agency<br /><br />Now you are on our Creative Page. Take a look at our promising creative works which are as diverse as anyone could think of... from big brands to lesser known to renowned brands. Being a proud Creative Advertising Agency in India, Saroj Ads is looking for more challenging advertising campaigns. Come. We are ready to pick up the gauntlet.<br /><br /><br />Saroj Ads which is headquartered in Chennai has branches in Bengaluru, Delhi and Hyderabad with pan-India presenceAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026799031032906371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76737981284476530142017-06-18T18:19:49.263-07:002017-06-18T18:19:49.263-07:00I reckon that the concept of capital punishment is...I reckon that the concept of capital punishment is valid in principle and in practice, but i'd like to know how you would reconcile capital punishment (or reconcile justice for that matter) with mercy which is also at the core of the Christian message, and how would such reconciliation precisely affect the topic of capital punishment or conform to your view on it in practice?<br />thank you so much for sharing !<br /> <br /> <br /><a href="https://www.golden-slot.com/goldenslot-mobile/" rel="nofollow">goldenslot casino</a><br /><a href="https://www.gclub-casino.com/" rel="nofollow">บาคาร่าออนไลน์</a><br /><a href="http://www.yama16.com" rel="nofollow">gclub casino</a><br /> <br /> <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75855072708975180692017-06-15T04:31:16.684-07:002017-06-15T04:31:16.684-07:00Anonymous, I can't speak for Prof. Feser, of c...Anonymous, I can't speak for Prof. Feser, of course, but perhaps I can offer some thoughts that may help. <br /><br />It is quite true that we deserve nothing of heaven or any other supernatural good: as sinners, we deserve punishment. <br /><br />God, in his mercy, desired to give to us better than what we deserve. In his justice, he refused to sustain a world order in which justice is not served. To satisfy both intentions, then, he willed that the Son take on human nature and in that way make due satisfaction for the sin of all who share that human nature. Thus justice and mercy are both served in Christ's passion and death for our sake. <br /><br />Yet God also willed not only that we receive the benefits of that salvation, he also willed that we humans <i>participate</i> in the economy of salvation, not as primary agents, but as willing intelligent secondary actors. Thus, we must <i>cooperate</i> with his saving grace, rather than reject his word and his gift; in addition, in mercy he granted us a role in bringing salvation to others via carrying the good news of salvation and in other acts of mercy in which we cooperate with God's will. Our being able to be a (participatory) cause of good in and for others is itself a mercy, not something we deserve or have any natural claim to. <br /><br />In human society, the best balance of justice and mercy is more difficult to discern, because we are neither able to foresee who will respond to mercy well, nor to <i>definitively cause</i> a person to want to reform and turn away from evil. In addition, (unlike God whose power is universal and omnipotent) we are not able to simply will that satisfaction be made for an offence and have it be done. We are limited to natural powers and causality, and so in pursuit of the best balance of justice and mercy which also considers the due good of the criminal and the due good of society, we are limited to the fact that the best good we can achieve will usually entail applying the proportionate punishment for a crime, and only sometimes permit us to apply a lesser punishment for the sake of mercy (and for other goods besides that of justice), knowing that in doing so we are foregoing justice to some extent. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89026946598160221252017-06-14T05:02:56.982-07:002017-06-14T05:02:56.982-07:00Dear Prof. Feser,
I reckon that the concept of ca...Dear Prof. Feser,<br /><br />I reckon that the concept of capital punishment is valid in principle and in practice, but i'd like to know how you would reconcile capital punishment (or reconcile justice for that matter) with mercy which is also at the core of the Christian message, and how would such reconciliation precisely affect the topic of capital punishment or conform to your view on it in practice?<br /><br />I myself try to use the salvation story as a framework but i still fail to see how it would apply in practice to the topic at hand; in justice humanity deserve(s/d) damnation, with mercy we are granted a way out (albeit we will still face death which, although being a punishment here, it is still a lesser one compared to damnation or the one originally deserved punishment), which, if rejected, we are going to face damnation after death (the original punishment), if accepted, we are granted salvation (after being punished in a lesser way than what is otherwise originally deserved). In either case, justice/mercy is satisfied by effect of every person being given their due according to their actions/choice with regards to the granted mercy.<br /><br />--<br /><br />Also, how would you explain God using particular (converted) people, that would otherwise have deserved the death penalty at the hands of the temporal authorities, in spreading His message. example: Saint Paul<br /><br /><br />Thank you,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55171358011675750512017-06-07T11:22:15.714-07:002017-06-07T11:22:15.714-07:00It isn't wise to put a dog into a fight you do... It isn't wise to put a dog into a fight you don't understand. And you proved you don't understand this fight when you claimed that the Church's error is irrelevant. How much of the post did you actually read before writing this?<br /> Whether the Church was wrong about the death penalty is obviously highly relevant, because it means the Church is not infallible like it claims. We already know <b>you</b> don't think she's fallible, but we're talking about Catholicism here, and a central claim is that, within qualifications, the Church is infallible (because of the Holy Spirit’s charism). Being wrong here counts as a modus tollens argument against Catholicism. How is this so hard to get?<br /><br /><i>And if in fact the Church has have been wrong about capital punishment for 2000 years it does not of course follow that the whole of magisterial authority is nullified.</i><br /> The claim made was that the Church's <b>credibility</b> will be nullified. And that's indisputable, precisely because of the nature of the Church's claims. A single error that the Church propagates as an infallible teaching, and you've proven that the Church is not infallible. Once we explain this mistake by saying that she just sold out to worldly powers, we can apply this to any doctrine we don’t like (then again, Doubting pointed out you already do that, so perhaps you think that’s a plus). The original post explains this better than I could, please read the whole thing, or else read it again.<br /><br /><i>As for “being taken seriously” all thinking people will take *more* seriously the Church which leaves open and does not fear the possibility of having been wrong for 2000 years. I think the right attitude of the Christian theologian is this: I serve only God, and trust that Christ guides His church to an ever clearer understanding of the truth.</i><br /> Your claim is only true if your definition of “thinking” makes it synonymous with “insane.” A sane person can see the implications of being in error here. In the best case, it means that the Church has failed to follow Christ, preferring instead to blow in the cultural winds, for 2000 years! It means this Church doesn’t have the Spirit of Truth, Whom we are told would lead us into all truth (John 16.13). It gets worse from there.Parádoxohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501803561895808925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9322701941787302632017-06-02T11:23:44.633-07:002017-06-02T11:23:44.633-07:00Hey Prof. Feser, will By Man His Blood Shall Be Sh...Hey Prof. Feser, will By Man His Blood Shall Be Shed be available on Kindle and, if so, when? I've tried to find it on the digital store since its release but failed. Thank you!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01613627123506607663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33181620676205106772017-06-02T10:34:05.420-07:002017-06-02T10:34:05.420-07:00‘Ne pasce troglodytam,’ I think, would be adequate...‘Ne pasce troglodytam,’ I think, would be adequate.Tom Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16067031472666752839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63803678948589713192017-06-02T07:40:41.552-07:002017-06-02T07:40:41.552-07:00timocratesJune 1, 2017 at 11:20 AM
@Stardusty
&qu...timocratesJune 1, 2017 at 11:20 AM<br /><br />@Stardusty<br />" banning torture outright is humanly speaking quite difficult "<br />--Does god change his mind?<br /><br />The claim to title of Vicarious Christ is unfounded if he must bend his principles to human difficulties. <br /><br />Christ told all to love their enemies. He didn't say anything about that being humanly difficult. He just told you his principle, but the supposed Vicarious Christ must have excuses made for him by apologists for failing to do what Christ did, and is thus undeserving of the title Vicarious Christ.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24421783510708311062017-06-02T06:27:55.966-07:002017-06-02T06:27:55.966-07:00I also agree: go away.I also agree: go away.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54413117801378809552017-06-02T06:22:37.918-07:002017-06-02T06:22:37.918-07:00Timo, I agree with all that...up to the point wher...Timo, I agree with all that...up to the point where Francis thinks that <b>inequality</b> of money is the worst of the evils of this world - worse even than teenage joblessness. <br /><br /><i>" Pope Francis has called youth unemployment one of the two gravest global issues."</i><br /><br />http://americasfutureworkforce.org/youth-unemployment/<br /><br />And that poverty is the heart and core of the Gospel. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72736695707439284072017-06-02T05:45:04.548-07:002017-06-02T05:45:04.548-07:00I agree: go away. I agree: go away. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47545108183126691512017-06-02T05:12:20.388-07:002017-06-02T05:12:20.388-07:00Go away.Go away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6206890288953806382017-06-01T23:23:08.633-07:002017-06-01T23:23:08.633-07:00Dan Hitchens: "There is another problem, note...Dan Hitchens: "There is another problem, noted in Feser and Bessette’s book: why would one take seriously a Church which for almost two millennia was so gravely mistaken, and so confident in its mistake?"<br /><br />Tony: "We should be holding their feet to the fire, publicly and pointedly, saying: "what you are claiming requires that Church doctrine taught for 2000 years is in error. Why should we accept any doctrine after that? You are trying to nullify the whole magisterial authority, and we won't have it!""<br /><br />First of all we should decide whom do we serve. Do we serve the truth and thus God, or do we serve the Catholic Church's pretensions? One cannot serve two masters. If one chooses to serve the truth then the matter of whether the Church may have been wrong for 2000 years is irrelevant. And if in fact the Church has have been wrong about capital punishment for 2000 years it does not of course follow that the whole of magisterial authority is nullified. The authority of the Church rests on its following Christ, no on never being wrong or never being wrong for too long. Not to mention that through much of the 2000 years of its history the church was also yielding political power, a fact that would certainly influence its teaching about morals. As for “being taken seriously” all thinking people will take *more* seriously the Church which leaves open and does not fear the possibility of having been wrong for 2000 years. <br /><br />I think the right attitude of the Christian theologian is this: I serve only God, and trust that Christ guides His church to an ever clearer understanding of the truth. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20030146159853083772017-06-01T15:14:21.552-07:002017-06-01T15:14:21.552-07:00sedevacantist
My Roman blood is boiling.<i>sedevacantist</i><br /><br />My Roman blood is boiling.timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77595432541314331962017-06-01T11:20:13.954-07:002017-06-01T11:20:13.954-07:00@Stardusty
Recourse to torture was standard practi...@Stardusty<br />Recourse to torture was standard practice in Roman jurisprudence and even then, like today, confessions were still of dubious legal value. I agree that the Church should have been much more firm, however, in arguing against its morality, though banning torture outright is humanly speaking quite difficult because in truth sometimes authorities know that someone knows something that could save countless lives, for instance.timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64187316277028418632017-06-01T11:10:14.957-07:002017-06-01T11:10:14.957-07:00Cheeky!
To be fair, Pope Francis's economics ...Cheeky!<br /><br />To be fair, Pope Francis's economics are still pretty in line with Catholic social teaching. He does insist on a business owners right to earn and make a profit and that this is necessary for a functioning economic system.<br /><br />But he has reminded us of the traditional Christian attitude toward money and its subordination to the order of charity or religious duties/works and morality generally. Profit seeking is not an end in itself but a means on the macroeconomic level toward development and progress. That is the fatal flaw of modern neoliberal economics: profit making is not, in fact, the goal of economics: wealth production is.timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21793431898184847972017-06-01T02:04:34.450-07:002017-06-01T02:04:34.450-07:00He believes it is the source of all evil on this p...<i>He believes it is the source of all evil on this planet </i> <br /><br />Can I assume you are speaking of Edward "Francis I" Feser? <br /><br />:-)Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91973049457227933842017-05-31T20:54:09.494-07:002017-05-31T20:54:09.494-07:00Ed despises money. He hates it. He believes it is ...Ed despises money. He hates it. He believes it is the source of all evil on this planet and just wants to pull out his sword and put law and order in effect. "Money," Ed was once heard to say, "is for women and sell outs."timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35230537014669717212017-05-30T06:33:54.945-07:002017-05-30T06:33:54.945-07:00I'm not sure just how strong the disagreement ...I'm not sure just how strong the disagreement is. I'm not sure any of Liberius II's comments should be described as involving "intellectual" anything. I read him as just reacting, like a bit of brainless matter rolling to the natural low point. <br /><br />But maybe that's just me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15167068619640529752017-05-30T06:23:59.264-07:002017-05-30T06:23:59.264-07:00@ George R.
I do regard it as more probable that ...@ George R.<br /><br />I do regard it as more probable that Pope Francis is making an error than that he is a secular humanist.<br /><br />That said, as you've set it up, (1) and (2) are a false dilemma. I don't think it's simply a matter of possessing all of the right principles and failing in the difficult calculation which results in the proposition "the death penalty is permissible in principle." I'm not committed to the view that he is simply making an intellectual mistake; he is, perhaps, tempted to take certain positions because he craves the regard of the liberal West, or because he enjoys disparaging certain theologians, or whatever. I don't know whether any of these are true, for I don't have access to Pope Francis's heart, but I don't think he has to be <i>either</i> "baffled" by the technical "difficulty" of a question of casuistry <i>or else</i> literally non-Catholic and illegitimate.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83428493082874526732017-05-29T23:49:58.102-07:002017-05-29T23:49:58.102-07:00why isn't it on kindle Ed?
Do you hate money?...why isn't it on kindle Ed?<br /><br />Do you hate money?joeyhttp://www.mpcdot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73579084272053714042017-05-29T18:54:13.253-07:002017-05-29T18:54:13.253-07:00No, I was thinking of Danny and Psychodust. Their ...No, I was thinking of Danny and Psychodust. Their avatars are even a bit similar, at a glance.<br /><br />And I give George R an automatic extra credit, as my middle initial is, in fact, R. On most sites I comment as "GeorgeLes" or "GRLeS".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70889668035641961192017-05-29T17:13:05.160-07:002017-05-29T17:13:05.160-07:00Anyone else notice that SP completely bypassed the...Anyone else notice that SP completely bypassed the yes/no questions?<br /><br />And so my comments on this particular thread are at an end. Go forth in the grace of Christ, my peeps.<br />Craig Paynenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75463873779370192602017-05-29T16:40:35.605-07:002017-05-29T16:40:35.605-07:00If you are referring to George R, he has long been...If you are referring to George R, he has long been a commenter here and is nothing at all like the new troll SP. He is a sedevacantist, and aside from that is well-read in Catholicism. Nor does he make fatuous comments like SP that are dripping with hatred of Christianity. Tonynoreply@blogger.com