Pope Francis: Former popes ignored mercy in using ‘inhuman’ death penalty

[Jack4]

27 minutes ago, Peace said:

All truths be they religious, moral, or scientific truths are from the same God.

Science is not "revealed" by God in the way religious doctrine is. In science, discarding old theories is a common thing. eg first Dalton said that the atom is indivisible, then Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr came up with their models and the quantum mechanical model of the atom we use now. 

In religious doctrine, this doesn't happen - a total reversal, a contradiction does not take place. Divorce,contraception, blasphemy etc will never be approved with Magisterial authority. Nor will, say, the doctrine of the Trinity be denied.  

21 minutes ago, Peace said:

Lastly, obviously if you have a situation where everybody has been teaching A for a long time, and then somebody new comes along and teaches B, you are going to give a strong benefit of the doubt to A and put the burden of proof on B.

If A is a matter of faith and morals and has been held always and everywhere, and they also argue for A from Scripture and reason, 

and,

if B cannot be harmonized with A,

then,

either proponents of B will have to argue against each and every argument in favour of A made by A's proponents and also prove from Scripture and reason that B is true,

or,

B is to be rejected. 

Do you agree?

[Jack4]

42 minutes ago, Peace said:

The point is that the Church has the authority to weigh the different factors, to determine what is truly a part of the deposit of faith, and to determine how the newer teaching relates to it.

I agree that the Church determines thus authoritatively and the children of the Church should obey this voice.

Yet lay theologians may, albeit without this authority, judge these matters in accordance with their knowledge and competence. After all, the Church's judgement recognizes that X is (already) true/false, its doesn't make X so. 

"Among the vocations awakened in this way by the Spirit in the Church is that of the theologian. His role is to pursue in a particular way an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the inspired Scriptures and handed on by the living Tradition of the Church." DV6

Of course, as the same instruction makes clear, theologians may not simply "dissent" from the Magisterium.

42 minutes ago, Peace said:

get on the internet, read a couple blog posts by Ed. Feser and read a few articles on New Advent

The issue I have with you phrasing it this way is that it leaves out the fact that Feser et al raise logical arguments and also quote the Magisterium.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Jack4

[Jack4]

48 minutes ago, Peace said:

declare to ourselves "Pope Zebra in the year 182 stated ABC therefore the deposit of faith must be X about the death penalty, so if the Pope and the bishops teach Y then they must be wrong."

The only thing in the deposit directly about DP is, afaik, that it is legitimate in principle; there is also the virtue of justice, to ensure that the putative accused is actually guilty, the punishment is proportional to the crime, etc. Obviously, it doesn't teach about the current time's state of criminal justice and punishment system. Hence, the deposit doesn't teach whether it is justly administered in our times, vide EV 56. 

The problem I see with "Y" , ie the new CCC para, is that it is not an improvement over the old para. The reasons for this are detailed in the First Things article I've linked to. Put simply, it is less clear that DP is permissible in principle.

59 minutes ago, Peace said:

declare to ourselves "Pope Zebra in the year 182 stated ABC therefore the deposit of faith must be X about the death penalty, so if the Pope and the bishops teach Y then they must be wrong."

Let me give you a hypothetical situation:

Pope Francis is just elected and hasn't spoken on contraception yet. Bishop Somebody says that contraception is wrong. A person SomeoneElse asks you what the Church teaches on contraception. Pope Zebra (Paul) and Dr Feser say it's wrong, but Bishop Somebody says it's okay. What will you say?

[KnightofChrist]

Holy Scripture, the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, popes, and councils of the Church for 2000 years have taught that capital punishment can be legitimate in principle.

Not just one Pope in the year yadda yadda, not just the Papacy. 

"If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture." — Avery Cardinal Dulles

 

[ithinkjesusiscool]

I'd say that Pope Francis isnt as clear in moral discussion as Pope Benwdict XVI. I think Pope Francis want to give the murderer a chance instead of killing them due to anger and revenge. 

But calling the death penalty anti-christian is wrong. You are allowed to kill someone if you really have to.  But never as revenge. Only for protection of society. Pope Francis should have explained it better. What about nomadic societies without prisons? Anti-christian to use death penalty then?

Pope Francis need to talk about this. Now people only think he goes against church teachings.

[Peace]

7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Science is not "revealed" by God in the way religious doctrine is. In science, discarding old theories is a common thing. eg first Dalton said that the atom is indivisible, then Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr came up with their models and the quantum mechanical model of the atom we use now. 

In religious doctrine, this doesn't happen - a total reversal, a contradiction does not take place. Divorce, contraception, blasphemy etc will never be approved with Magisterial authority. Nor will, say, the doctrine of the Trinity be denied.  

There is no new public revelation, just as there are no new scientific truths. Gravity and the inner structure of an atom are exactly the same today as they were 10 million years ago. What the Church does is better understand the revelation over time and the various manners in which it can be applied, just as the scientist better understands the scientific truths that govern the universe over time and the manner in which those scientific truths can applied. Both processes of understanding involve error and the progress is not always linear.

7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

If A is a matter of faith and morals and has been held always and everywhere, and they also argue for A from Scripture and reason, 

and,

if B cannot be harmonized with A,

then,

either proponents of B will have to argue against each and every argument in favour of A made by A's proponents and also prove from Scripture and reason that B is true,

or,

B is to be rejected. 

Do you agree?

Yes.

7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

The only thing in the deposit directly about DP is, afaik, that it is legitimate in principle; there is also the virtue of justice, to ensure that the putative accused is actually guilty, the punishment is proportional to the crime, etc. Obviously, it doesn't teach about the current time's state of criminal justice and punishment system. Hence, the deposit doesn't teach whether it is justly administered in our times, vide EV 56. 

The apostles did not teach with respect to human cloning, the use of stem cells, in vitro fertilization, gene modification and a boatload of other modern things, but the Church has authority to set limits in all of these areas. What exactly is your point?

7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

The problem I see with "Y" , ie the new CCC para, is that it is not an improvement over the old para. The reasons for this are detailed in the First Things article I've linked to. Put simply, it is less clear that DP is permissible in principle.

With all due respect, you are a just a random lay Catholic with an internet account. Nobody cares that you see a problem with it. There are plenty of people just as smart as you and just as smart as Ed Feser who do not see a problem with it. Every person on the Earth has an opinion. The Pope and the bishops in communion with him have authority to determine whether the new paragraph or the old paragraph is better. You may not like their decision, but that's simply too bad.

7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Let me give you a hypothetical situation:

Pope Francis is just elected and hasn't spoken on contraception yet. Bishop Somebody says that contraception is wrong. A person SomeoneElse asks you what the Church teaches on contraception. Pope Zebra (Paul) and Dr Feser say it's wrong, but Bishop Somebody says it's okay. What will you say?

I am honestly getting a bit tired of your ongoing deposition, especially as you do not answer 90% of the questions I ask you.

I will tell him to consult his pastor with his questions, just like I asked you if you had spoken to your bishop about your concerns.

7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

I agree that the Church determines thus authoritatively and the children of the Church should obey this voice.

Good. I am glad that you accept the revised paragraph of the Catechism.

7 hours ago, Jack4 said:

The issue I have with you phrasing it this way is that it leaves out the fact that Feser et al raise logical arguments and also quote the Magisterium.

Raising logical arguments and quoting the Magisterium is perfectly fine.

I know that Feser is the tradHero and catholicGenius and all, but practically everything he has done violates the principles set forth in Donum Veritatas, the very document that you and he rely to support your right to dissent. Simply put, he has not given us a shining example of how we are to bring our concerns to our clergy.

[Peace]

7 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Holy Scripture, the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, popes, and councils of the Church for 2000 years have taught that capital punishment can be legitimate in principle.

Not just one Pope in the year yadda yadda, not just the Papacy. 

"If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture." — Avery Cardinal Dulles

 

Nobody in this thread has disputed that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil.

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Nobody in this thread has disputed that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil.

I'm not stating anyone has done so. 

 

[linate]

what's the most straight forward way to look at this? the old popes taught one thing, now another pope is teaching something else. the catholic church, who isn't suppose to contradict itself, did in fact contradict itself.  i mean, it's possible to split hairs and say the popes didn't use the proper language to make the teachings binding, but let's just call a spade a spade. 

Edited January 20, 2019 by linate

[Guest]

 

It is not the first time a teaching of The Church has changed, and it won't be the last time.  Also, I don't think we can be pro-life ........... but only sometimes under certain conditions.  On these other times, we are not pro-life.

 

 

Quote

Original: 2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

 

Revision:  2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

 

 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, linate said:

what's the most straight forward way to look at this? the old popes taught one thing, now another pope is teaching something else. the catholic church, who isn't suppose to contradict itself, did in fact contradict itself.  i mean, it's possible to split hairs and say the popes didn't use the proper language to make the teachings binding, but let's just call a spade a spade. 

The OT permitted divorce. Our Lord forbids it in the NT.

I suppose by your simplistic thinking you also think that God also contradicted himself.

14 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Also, I don't think we can be pro-life ........... but only sometimes under certain conditions.  On these other times, we are not pro-life.

Under what conditions can we not be pro-life?

Edited January 20, 2019 by Peace

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Peace said:

 

Under what conditions can we not be pro-life?

 

If one is in favour of/advocates for the death penalty, then one is not pro-life in that instance.   

To me it is a contradiction to call oneself pro-life but only under certain circumstances.

(I may have worded things clumsily.  I did not mean to state that The Church teaches that it is ok to not be pro-life)

Edited January 21, 2019 by BarbaraTherese

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

If one is in favour of/advocates for the death penalty, then one is not pro-life in that instance.   

To me it is a contradiction to call oneself pro-life but only under certain circumstances.

I agree, but the pro-DP folks will say that putting someone to death can be "pro-life" because it gives weight to the seriousness of the offense, or some other such nonsense.

[linate]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

The OT permitted divorce. Our Lord forbids it in the NT.

I suppose by your simplistic thinking you also think that God also contradicted himself.

Under what conditions can we not be pro-life?

so you haven't done anything to negate my point. i take that as a tacit admission that my point stands. 

God doesn't contradict himself. but i'll be the first to point out that there's errors in the bible, though. and if you want to argue for liberal catholocism, i'd be open to that too. it's the only logical way out of all this sort of stuff, if a person is going to remain catholic. 

this isn't the first time the catholic church has contradicted itself... and it won't be the last. 

[Peace]

33 minutes ago, linate said:

so you haven't done anything to negate my point. i take that as a tacit admission that my point stands. 

God doesn't contradict himself. but i'll be the first to point out that there's errors in the bible, though. and if you want to argue for liberal catholocism, i'd be open to that too. it's the only logical way out of all this sort of stuff, if a person is going to remain catholic. 

this isn't the first time the catholic church has contradicted itself... and it won't be the last. 

You can take it as a tacit admission or anything else that you like, friend, because nobody cares about your silly opinions.

There is no contradiction in the Church's teaching on the death penalty. If you are too obtuse to see the reason why, that is your problem.