Jack4 Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 2:28 PM, Peace said: Yeah, I was guessing that was going to be the verse, but it ain’t exactly the world’s strongest argument now is it? Expand The OT says If someone sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed. St Paul's verse means that the permissibility/admissibility of DP at least in principle* is carried over to the NT, not abrogated as such. *in principle; I follow Feser, arguing for DP in principle, not necessarily in practice; ie DP is not intrinsically evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 2:36 PM, Jack4 said: That is because there was new revelation (Jesus). Now,there is no more (public) revelation. Hence such changes wouldn't happen. Expand Do you oppose priestly celibacy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack4 Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 2:28 PM, Peace said: I don’t think Pope Francis or anyone else has said that it is intrinsically evil. Expand He has said things to that effect, eg his CCC anniversary speech cited in the latest edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 2:44 PM, Jack4 said: The OT says If someone sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed. St Paul's verse means that the permissibility/admissibility of DP at least in principle* is carried over to the NT, not abrogated as such. *in principle; I follow Feser, arguing for DP in principle, not necessarily in practice; ie DP is not intrinsically evil. Expand Sure, but has anyone banned it in principle, as intrinsically evil? Not that I am aware, but perhaps I missed it. I don’t think even Francis has tried to ban it as intrinsically evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack4 Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 2:44 PM, Peace said: Do you oppose priestly celibacy? Expand a) Priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. b) There are married priests in both the Catholic West and East. c) I do not see how celibacy is relevant. d) I think celibacy is a good idea. On 1/13/2019 at 2:28 PM, Peace said: Even though it was allowed in the past, I don’t see why the Church cannot prohibit it in her prudential judgment, just as She prohibits other things today that were permissible in the past. I mean really, if She can say that Latin Rite priests cannot be married and so forth, why can She not say that we may not put people to death? Expand Ordination of married men to the priesthood is still valid in principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 2:45 PM, Jack4 said: He has said things to that effect, eg his CCC anniversary speech cited in the latest edition. Expand Well, we’ll see. I had looked at the revised Catechim text, and it did not seem to go there. Francis obviously could do better in choosing his words more carefully when speaking sometimes. On 1/13/2019 at 2:47 PM, Jack4 said: a) Priestly celibacy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. b) There are married priests in both the Catholic West and East. c) I do not see how celibacy is relevant. d) I think celibacy is a good idea. Ordination of married men to the priesthood is still valid in principle. Expand Sure, but why cannot the Magisterium prohibit the death penalty in its prudential judgment (without calling it intrinsically evil)? Does it not have the authority to say that it is not appropriate for today’s circumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack4 Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 2:35 PM, Peace said: Well apparently when it comes to the death penalty the state has more authority than the Church. Can the state enact a law that would put to death a 16 year old who shoplifts a $20 pair of jeans from Target? Expand I don't get the point about the state having "more authority". The state administers DP. The Church teaches that it is permissible in principle, at least in hypothetical situations. My view is the same as JP2: Quote The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence".46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47 It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. ..."If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must 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". Expand From the above EV quote, your question is answered. On 1/13/2019 at 2:40 PM, Peace said: Well, you follow what you believe is the traditional teaching of the Church. Who has authority to decide what the traditional teaching of the Church is? Is that something that each Catholic gets to decide for himself? Mu guess is that your understanding of “what the Church has always taught” is based on your own personal analysis and research. This is subject to confirmation bias, is it not? Expand Each person should seek the truth and adhere to the truth he knows, with his conscience. You can err in good conscience. Not every view can be made to seem like the Church's traditional teaching. eg It would be impossible for Arianism. But if I'm understanding you correctly, you're asking whether someone may err in judging what is orthodoxy. The answer is that they may. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 (edited) On 1/13/2019 at 2:53 PM, Jack4 said: I don't get the point about the state having "more authority". The state administers DP. The Church teaches that it is permissible in principle, at least in hypothetical situations. My view is the same as JP2: From the above EV quote, your question is answered. Expand Knight’s statement seemed to suggest that the state has a God granted authority to impose the death penalty irrespective of what the Church has to say about it. My question was to probe the extent of his view on that (I don’t think Knight agrees with the JP2 Catechism’s view on the DP, either, but correct me if I am wrong). Edited January 13, 2019 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack4 Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 God sees one's sincerity and rewards it. This even means that a person who in good conscience believes that what Pope Francis says is orthodoxy is not culpable for erring thus. (assuming PF is not teaching orthodoxy) ^This is a continuation of my previous post. On 1/13/2019 at 2:47 PM, Peace said: banned it in principle Expand How can you "ban" something in principle? On 1/13/2019 at 2:49 PM, Peace said: Sure, but why cannot the Magisterium prohibit the death penalty in its prudential judgment (without calling it intrinsically evil)? Does it not have the authority to say that it is not appropriate for today’s circumstances? Expand Ordination belongs completely to the Church. The Church decides whom to ordain. Hence the Church can, just like that, reserve ordination to unmarried men. DP is administered by states. It is true that if bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, then public authority must limit itself to such means. Now, the question is - do we now have such bloodless means? If yes, then DP should not be carried out. JP2's judgement was yes, but it was a prudential judgement and we may disagree with him. On 1/13/2019 at 3:00 PM, Peace said: My question was to probe the extent of that Expand The quote says that punishment must be proportional to the crime. On 1/13/2019 at 2:49 PM, Peace said: Does it not have the authority to say that it is not appropriate for today’s circumstances? Expand I don't think the Church can say so authoritatively. She can, and did, say authoritatively that if bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, then public authority must limit itself to such means. The Church teaches the Gospel, and many things with it, authoritatively; but not social, political and economic matters. On 1/13/2019 at 2:44 PM, Jack4 said: The OT says If someone sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed. St Paul's verse means that the permissibility/admissibility of DP at least in principle* is carried over to the NT, not abrogated as such. *in principle; I follow Feser, arguing for DP in principle, not necessarily in practice; ie DP is not intrinsically evil. Expand I think I've addressed all points you raised. I would like to draw your attention to this (quoted) post in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 2:53 PM, Jack4 said: I don't get the point about the state having "more authority". The state administers DP. The Church teaches that it is permissible in principle, at least in hypothetical situations. My view is the same as JP2: From the above EV quote, your question is answered. Each person should seek the truth and adhere to the truth he knows, with his conscience. You can err in good conscience. Not every view can be made to seem like the Church's traditional teaching. eg It would be impossible for Arianism. But if I'm understanding you correctly, you're asking whether someone may err in judging what is orthodoxy. The answer is that they may. Expand Not exactly what I meant. The question was meant to illustrate that the Living Magisteruim has the authority to determine what is orthodox and what “the Church has always taught.” We are to follow our pastor and our bishop. If you have a disagreement you may go up the chain of command to appeal your case. I think it is appropriate to read stuff from Feser on the web, or to do our own reading of history and then just folllow whatever seems to make the most sense to us. Is that what you are advocating? This is why I have been saying that the mindset seems Protestant to me... On 1/13/2019 at 3:00 PM, Jack4 said: God sees one's sincerity and rewards it. This even means that a person who in good conscience believes that what Pope Francis says is orthodoxy is not culpable for erring thus. (assuming PF is not teaching orthodoxy) ^This is a continuation of my previous post. How can you "ban" something in principle? Expand Essentially the same thing as declaring something intrinsically evil. On 1/13/2019 at 3:00 PM, Jack4 said: but not social, political and economic matters. Expand The Church has numerous authoritative teachings in all of these areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack4 Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 3:15 PM, Peace said: The Church has numerous authoritative teachings in all of these areas. Expand I admit I wasn't clear enough. We can distinguish things in these fields on which the Church teaches and doesn't. Generally, the church teaches general stuff, not particular stuff in these fields. eg the Church teaches that the poor should be helped, but cannot always teach whether a particular policy decision will benefit the poor. On 1/13/2019 at 3:15 PM, Peace said: Not exactly what I meant. The question was meant to illustrate that the Living Magisteruim has the authority to determine what is orthodox and what “the Church has always taught.” We are to follow our pastor and our bishop. If you have a disagreement you may go up the chain of command to appeal your case. I think it is appropriate to read stuff from Feser on the web, or to do our own reading of history and then just folllow whatever seems to make the most sense to us. Is that what you are advocating? This is why I have been saying that the mindset seems Protestant to me... Expand a) What do you mean by Protestant, and why is it wrong? b) Previous Popes have not always upheld orthodoxy, as I have already pointed out c) I think that in the "chain of command"; Papal, saintly and theological consensus about doctrine is higher up than the views of the current Pope. d) Nonetheless, I agree that the default knee jerk reaction to Papal and episcopal pronouncements should be assent, even in troubled times as these. And even if the person has flaws, the office should be respected. e) I respect Feser not because he is some sort of superhuman but because his arguments are convincing and I judge them to be true. When he speaks on Catholicism, he cites Magisterium in his favour too. On 1/13/2019 at 3:15 PM, Peace said: Essentially the same thing as declaring something intrinsically evil. Expand PF criticised DP "per se". I think it means the same as intrinsic evil. _________ Do you believe that DP is permissible in principle (at least in hypothetical situations)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 (edited) On 1/13/2019 at 3:55 PM, Jack4 said: a) What do you mean by Protestant, and why is it wrong? Expand In this discussion, I am referring to the classic Protestant notion that each individual Christian has the right to privately interpret Sacred Scripture for himself, and to essentially decide what is right and wrong, and what is orthodox, for himself. It seems that the traditionalist view toward Sacred Scripture (and Tradition) is essentially the same, except that you are bound to follow infallibly defined doctrines. It seems that the Pope has no true authority. You seem to only follow him when he happens to agree with you, much in the same way that many Protestants follow their pastor if the pastor agrees with them, and changes churches and finds a new pastor when he does not. Quote b) Previous Popes have not always upheld orthodoxy, as I have already pointed out Expand And plenty of laypersons have not upheld orthodox teaching as well. The question is, who gets to decide what it orthodox? Does the Magisterium get to decide, and you follow what the Magisterium teaches? Or do you get to decide for yourself whether the Magisterium is correct? It seems that essentially you are doing the latter. If what the current Magisterium teaches makes sense to you, then you choose to follow it. If what Feser writes makes more sense to you, then you follow Feser. Quote c) I think that in the "chain of command"; Papal, saintly and theological consensus about doctrine is higher up than the views of the current Pope. Expand Well that is another issue for debate, but assuming that it is true for the sake of argument, again, who gets to decide what the "Papal, saintly and theological consensus about doctrine" is? Does the Magisterium get to decide what this consensus is, or does each Catholic get to decide for himself what the consensus is? Obviously, when the Magisterium issues a teaching, it does not view that teaching as contradicting the "Papal, saintly and theological consensus about doctrine". Are you not, then, by choosing not to follow the Magisterium, simply replacing their own judgement and authority with your own? Quote d) even in troubled times as these. Expand Let's not be overly nostalgic. The past had plenty of trouble in it as well. Quote Do you believe that DP is permissible in principle (at least in hypothetical situations)? Expand This is what I adhere to at the current moment: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html When and if the Church decides to go in a different direction, so will I. Edited January 13, 2019 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack4 Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 6:59 PM, Peace said: This is what I adhere to at the current moment: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html When and if the Church decides to go in a different direction, so will I. Expand The new paragraph implies that DP is legit in principle..... and not. It is ambiguous. So can you word yourself clearly,"DP is permissible in principle" or "not permissible even in principle". ? On 1/13/2019 at 6:59 PM, Peace said: Let's not be overly nostalgic. The past had plenty of trouble in it as well. Expand My point was not that the past was perfect, but that the knee jerk reaction to bishops should be assent, even when some of them err. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 (edited) On 1/14/2019 at 12:06 AM, Jack4 said: The new paragraph implies that DP is legit in principle..... and not. It is ambiguous. So can you word yourself clearly,"DP is permissible in principle" or "not permissible even in principle". ? Expand I do not see what is ambiguous about it. It seems perfectly clear to me. Look, we have a well established term, "intrinsically evil" and the Catechism did not use that term. What is ambiguous? As for your question, I can say that it it permissible in principle (in other words, that the Church has not defined it as intrinsically evil) but that it is inadmissible (not permitted) today, as the revised Catechism states. The situation is basically the same for married priests in the Latin rite. It is permissible in principle and was permitted in the past, but it is not permitted today (for the most part). What is your objection to that? Does the Church not have the authority to prohibit something today that she permitted in the past? Edited January 14, 2019 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack4 Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 6:59 PM, Peace said: It seems that the traditionalist view toward Sacred Scripture (and Tradition) is essentially the same, except that you are bound to follow infallibly defined doctrines. It seems that the Pope has no true authority. You seem to only follow him when he happens to agree with you, much in the same way that many Protestants follow their pastor if the pastor agrees with them, and changes churches and finds a new pastor when he does not. Expand No. I'm finding it difficult to articulate. The only issues where I do disagree with a (any) Pope are, afaik, Beatific Vision (against John 22) and DP (against Francis) and possibly perhaps Christology (if early Popes were heretic) and moral theology (if heterodox interpretations of Amoris are the ones intended by him). I believe the authoritative teaching of Benedictus DEus in the first case, JP2 in EV in the second, early Ecumenical Councils on the third and VS on the fourth. In each of the four cases, I can prove that my beliefs are taught clearly by the traditional Magisterium. On 1/14/2019 at 12:16 AM, Peace said: I do not see what is ambiguous about it. It seems perfectly clear to me. Look, we have a well established term, "intrinsically evil" and the Catechism did not use that term. What is ambiguous? As for your question, I can say that it it permissible in principle (in other words, that the Church has not defined it as intrinsically evil) but that it is inadmissible (not permitted) today, as the revised Catechism states. Expand Intrinsic evil means wrong regardless of circumstances. You can mean something without using that word. AFAIK the Catechism does not use this word to describe murder or lying or blasphemy FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now