Lying To Ourselves

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1262406090' post='2028396']
If an act was not performed by individuals, then no one is accountable, whether the act is good or evil.

Yes, I'd like to keep this line of logic logical.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Ok then

So this is how you think a rapist is convicted.

A random person incapacitates the rapist. Another random person says "You're guilty" and sends him to jail. Where another individual keeps him for a long time. And there is no societal body that oversees the is process ever.

brilliant logic.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1262406608' post='2028402']
Sternhauser hasn't been proven wrong about the Church's teachings on execution. He'd still like you to respond to his former question: did that document propose Church doctrine?



Sure. [url="http://www.sao.clriq.org.au/publications/cst_and_prisons.pdf"]http://www.sao.clriq...and_prisons.pdf[/url] I'd also like to know if you have witnessed those tenets being followed in the prisons in which you have worked.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Sure you have. I've given you documentation. You said "that doesn't matter". You don't want to show any documentation to refute it. hot stuff has proven you wrong.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1262406645' post='2028404']
Ok then

So this is how you think a rapist is convicted.

A random person incapacitates the rapist. Another random person says "You're guilty" and sends him to jail. Where another individual keeps him for a long time. And there is no societal body that oversees the is process ever.

brilliant logic.
[/quote]

How [i]is[/i] a rapist convicted, or how [i]can [/i]a rapist morally be convicted and treated? There is a difference.

~Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 11:34 PM' timestamp='1262406896' post='2028406']
How [i]is[/i] a rapist convicted, or how [i]can [/i]a rapist morally be convicted and treated? There is a difference.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Neither the Church nor the State allows you to operate outside of the laws of society. The laws of society deem that particular branches of the government deal with the arrest, trial and incarceration of a person who has broken the law.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1262406753' post='2028405']
Sure you have. I've given you documentation. You said "that doesn't matter". You don't want to show any documentation to refute it. hot stuff has proven you wrong.
[/quote]

Jaim.e, you claimed, through that document, that "the State" has the right to execute individuals. I said that the Church has long conflated "government," which is [i]any[/i] organization that secures the common good (the good of every individual in a society) and can take many forms, including non-coercively-funded forms and non-aggressive forms, with the "State," which is an institution that operates through aggression and claims a monopoly on certain types of violence.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 2, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1262407083' post='2028410']
Jaim.e, you claimed, through that document, that "the State" has the right to execute individuals. I said that the Church has long conflated "government," which can take many forms, including non-coercively-funded forms and non-aggressive forms, with the "State," which is an institution that operates through aggression and claims a monopoly on certain types of violence.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

the Church clearly states that an individual cannot execute another. Only (and in extreme circumstances that no longer exist) the state can render capital punishment. You (and this is quite pathetic) argue that an individual is the one committing the action. And you refuse to acknowledge that the state is responsible.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1262407068' post='2028409']
Neither the Church nor the State allows you to operate outside of the laws of society. The laws of society deem that particular branches of the government deal with the arrest, trial and incarceration of a person who has broken the law.
[/quote]

If a person is actually and truly guilty of a crime, and poses a real and grave threat to the individuals in society, execution is a legitimate option. The approbation of a majority of people, while certainly prudent to have, is not strictly necessary for justice to be done.

~Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1262407304' post='2028412']
If a person is actually and truly guilty of a crime, and poses a real and grave threat to the individuals in society, execution is a legitimate option. The approbation of a majority of people, while certainly prudent to have, is not strictly necessary for justice to be done.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Your opinion. (and its bs)

Show me where that is supported through Church teachings.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1262407279' post='2028411']
the Church clearly states that an individual cannot execute another. Only (and in extreme circumstances that no longer exist) the state can render capital punishment. You (and this is quite pathetic) argue that an individual is the one committing the action. And you refuse to acknowledge that the state is responsible.
[/quote]

St. Thomas said that. Execution is merely one form of defense of the innocent.

~Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1262407399' post='2028414']
St. Thomas said that. Execution is merely one form of defense of the innocent.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Please show me where Summa Theologica has been declared an infallible Church document.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1262407391' post='2028413']
Your opinion. (and its bs)

Show me where that is supported through Church teachings.
[/quote]

It seems that there isn't a consensus even among Church scholars on the issue. This issue is parallel to the use of force to end a grave threat:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15108a.htm

Consent would, in the case of a truly guilty man, be rationally required of the public.

~Sternhauser

[Hassan]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1262407537' post='2028415']
Please show me where Summa Theologica has been declared an infallible Church document.
[/quote]


That doesn't really help you. The reverse of your question is Stern asking what grounds you have for claiming that Aquinas is saying something contrary to Church teaching, assuming that is his actual opinion.


Sternhauser: how, when and what part of a particular society is granted the right to the legitimate use of violence?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='01 January 2010 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1262407537' post='2028415']
Please show me where Summa Theologica has been declared an infallible Church document.
[/quote]

No, Jaim.e, you see, I am saying that St. Thomas, not the Church, "clearly states that an individual cannot execute another." Even the Council of Constance did not go that far when it spoke out against tyrannicide carried out under certain conditions.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 2, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='01 January 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1262407814' post='2028418']
No, Jaim.e, you see, I am saying that St. Thomas, not the Church, "clearly states that an individual cannot execute another." Even the Council of Constance did not go that far when it spoke out against tyrannicide carried out under certain conditions.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I asked what the Church taught because I've demonstrated what the Church teaches.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Hassan' date='01 January 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1262407811' post='2028417']
That doesn't really help you. The reverse of your question is Stern asking what grounds you have for claiming that Aquinas is saying something contrary to Church teaching, assuming that is his actual opinion.


Sternhauser: how, when and what part of a particular society is granted the right to the legitimate use of violence?
[/quote]

Hassan, you usually perceive the meat of the issue. I like that.

Insofar as it is expedient, one ought to secure the approbation of as many people as possible prior to one's use of violence. Sometimes, there is no opportunity to do so, whether it be a robbery on one's house in the middle of the night, or because the vast majority of the individuals comprising society itself, [i]or[/i] the powers (sometimes conflated with "authorities") revered by society itself are themselves corrupt. National Socialist Germany would be a good example of such an instance.

The good of the individual is the reason society exists. The individual cannot bestow on "society" any rights that the individual himself does not have. But, for the good order of society, through avoiding scandal, it is prudent, insofar as possible, to acquire widespread approbation for one's intrinsically just actions. Society does not make the action of execution just, if the person is A) not guilty or B) if the execution is performed for the wrong reasons. Other individuals (society) can be of help in assuring that the person is guilty. Sometimes their help is not necessary, based on obvious first-person observation of a real crime.

~Sternhauser

Edited January 2, 2010 by Sternhauser