The War for Peace or Why Trump Doesn’t Matter (Part 3)

The War for Peace (part 2)

The War for Peace (Part 1)

The Holy Finitude

Who knew that a young, cloistered Carmelite could provide the most compelling objections and sanctifications of modern thought to date.

Source: The Holy Finitude

Reclaiming Marxism: Dispelling the Myths and Nominal Misconceptions of a Misunderstood Man

The Flying Monkey Manifesto, Part I: The Inevitability of the Revolution–Satire

QUAERETUR: The TULIP and the Rosa Mystica

The Plight of the Modern Proletarian Or What I Learned Working Minimum Wage After College.

So I wrote a piece on labor in America which was basically just applying Pieper to minimum wage struggles. Tell me what you think.

A Podcast about Nihilism I Think You’ll Enjoy Discussing

http://www.radiolab.org/story/dust-planet/

I thought this was fascinating.

On the Death Penalty

http://thomistica.net/commentary/2015/3/5/mutationist-views-of-doctrinal-development-and-the-death-penalty

Typical Thomists. They make a very good case for the death penalty in general, but when the particulars get in the way, they simply brush past them with “authority.”

The Waldensians believed that the temporal power could not preach the Gospel or had no role in it. The falsity of this thought is self-evident from both Scripture and Tradition. The temporal power has the responsibility to exercise positive law in accordance with the Natural law informed by the Divine law. The situation of the Waldensians re-communion contained different circumstances, however, and require a different treatment. Europe in 1210 was predominately Roman Catholic. Catholicism was the de facto and de jure religion in practically every country. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that those states and countries where Catholicism was so much a part of their legal jurisprudence would exercise capital punishment according to the Natural law informed by the Divine law. The statement of recantation Waldensians states that the punishment must be exercised “advisedly.” In order to keep continuity with the Deposit of Faith, it is necessary to conclude that which advises the capital judgment is the Natural law informed by the Divine law. The question then arises whether it is possible for a state that is not enacting positive law based on the Natural Law informed by the Divine law to adjudicate capital punishment justly. For though the King of France, acting as the arbiter of civil justice, adjudicated capital punishment, he did so informed by the fullness of the Divine law’s light upon the Natural law. Only then was he able to make a truly just judgment. To say that one can make a just judgment without just information from the Divine law would be a Pelagian. Since it is through Revelation alone that we are able know what is just, and then any judgment made without the information of Revelation would be unjust. Christ said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. None may come to the Father except through me.” Thus, a purely secular civil power, unless they are informed by the Divine law and incorporate such information into their adjudication, cannot justly administer capital punishment since it is devoid of the advice necessary to make right action.

Death of any person is malum in se. This is Truth. God told the Prophet Ezekiel that he does not delight in the death of the wicked. War is also malum in se but there are times when war is justified under certain criteria. The death penalty is a prudential matter. Prudence is the guide. Prudence is a virtue. Virtues come from God and His Law. It would be in keeping with the magisterial tradition of the Church to reconfigure Church guidance on the death penalty. In fact, it is the duty of the Church to promote societal norms so that the valid commission of malum in se acts is abolished. If the Church were to settle for simply offering prudential guidance to authorities with dubious authority to adjudicate death, the she would be neglecting the mission she was tasked with i.e. the Peace of God. The Peace of God is not without Justice of course but the Justice pursued is always the Divine Justice of God that desires no person die but live. Medieval Europe did not have the science and technology to effectively change the behavior of criminals. Say what you will about Norway, their program of rehabilitation has reduced their recidivism and crime rates substantially. It is obvious that capital punishment does not have the same force as it did for the 13^th century. 80% of law enforcement officers believe it has no effect on deterring crime. When a strategy fails to deter crime—see examples in the crime heavy areas of the US and South America—can it be still be used justly?

The right to life is inviolable except in the special exceptions. The taking of life is always malum in se. Just penalty may not but a just penalty is only conferred when it is in accordance with transcendental principles of law. Without those principles actively forming the decision of the court, Evangelium Vitae would condemn those adjudications as unjust and violations of the person’s right to life. The issue is whether to apply the death penalty in the United States of America, not abolish the death penalty worldwide. Just because not all moral issues have the same weight, it is still imperative that the Church in the United States determine what stance to have on the death penalty. There can be a diversity of opinion but to accurately serve the nation in which we live with the Gospel, we need to solidify into one opinion. It is necessary then to follow those authorities who are informed by the Divine law to reach the right opinion and retain our orthodoxy.

Cardinal Avery wrote an amazing book about the Magisterium and how it works. Being the military, I understand the principles of subsidiary very well. Things should be dealt with on the lowest level first. The lowest level of Magisterial authority in the US is our local Synod. It does no good appealing to past popes and the Church Fathers to defend the death penalty in general when the issue is the death penalty in the USA in 2015. It has been the constant teaching of the Church that the local Synod has Magisterial authority. If the local Synod declares, after study and prayer, that the death penalty must be abolished in the US, then we, as the laity, are bound by our baptismal promises to obey those bishops. Rome is neutral and the Fathers speak to the ages, but it ultimately the USCCB that makes will issue the specific teaching for Catholics in the US on this matter. To gainsay the Synod of Bishops would be in direct opposition with the Fathers, the constant teaching of the Church, and even the Holy Father whose representatives you have disregarded.