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

[Jack4]

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I definitely understand why you think I'm the one sowing division in the Church (even though I'm not).  Can you explain your accusation that I'm fostering a culture of death and vengeance?  In what way?  Are you referring to the death penalty itself?  Because I haven't actually stated my position on the matter - at least not in this thread.  Or do you mean my arguments against the change to the Catechism?  If that's the case, then you would have to accuse Pope John Paul II of the same thing, as it's his position that I'm defending.

Feser:

Quote

 

 If capital punishment were intrinsically evil, then the magisterium of the Church will have been teaching grave moral error and badly misunderstanding scripture for two millennia.  And that would undermine the credibility of the Church.  If she could be that wrong for that long about something that serious, why should we trust anything else she says?

I have repeatedly hammered on this point, and I find that my critics repeatedly avoid addressing it.  They do not say either: “Yes, that’s true, but here’s why it’s not in fact a problem” or: “No, it’s not true, and here’s why.”  They simply change the subject.  For example, they accuse me of being bloodthirsty, or they quote from the catechism, or they bring up slavery or the slaughter of the Canaanites, or they bemoan the cold rationalism of Thomists, or they start ranting about Donald Trump and “Republican Rite Catholicism,” or in some other way they try to dodge the question of exactly how the Church could be trusted on any other subject if she had been teaching grave moral error and badly misunderstanding scripture for two millennia.

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/01/prof-fastiggis-pretzel-logic.html

 

 

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

this change to the Catechism... I can still find ways to argue that it doesn't contradict existing Church teaching (if the pope's argument is that the dp is morally permissible, but inadmissible in the light of technological advances

I've linked to a FT article making this interpretation.

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I also believe that the footnote in a previous apostolic exhortation claiming that divorced and remarried persons can receive communion remains the more damaging "footnote" to this pope's legacy.

351. But note 329 of Amoris is very problematic too.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/05/the-other-footnote-in-amoris-laetitia

[Peace]

On 1/29/2019 at 6:13 PM, fides' Jack said:

I believe it's extremely dangerous to question the Magisterium, and such a thing can only be done when there is a legitimate concern over false teachings on faith or morals, as evidenced by tradition.  I've been considering the question you're asking me for months.  Personally, I want to believe the Holy Spirit would preserve us from the pope changing existing teaching in a way that he attempts to invoke ex cathedra.  That being said, the rules for speaking ex cathedra make it clear that it's not valid if it's a change to traditional Church teaching on those matters, since Church teaching simply can't change.  To answer your question, no, I would not accept the revised paragraph of the Catechism even if the pope did issue a statement like that.  As far as I know, he has not, yet.  But I would like to know if I'm wrong about that - and if so, do you have a link to the statement itself?  If you want to know why I answer "no", read the bottom of this post.

Thus, you would reject the change regardless of the level of authority that Pope Francis gave to the teaching. As I suspected, your talk about "authority that it did once have was due to the (then) pope's statement holding everything it contained as genuine Church teaching" was simply a smokescreen. Where that seems to lead is that you are the ultimate judge of Sacred Tradition. You seem to interpret the tradition for yourself and if you conclude that Pope Francis or anyone else contradicts your interpretation, then you reject it. As I mentioned to @Jack4 I think this is essentially a Protestant approach to authority (having been a Protestant myself for 30 years). I could be wrong here, but I have yet to hear anyone explain to me why I am wrong.

On 1/29/2019 at 6:13 PM, fides' Jack said:

The Catechism is not worthless, but any change like that should be suspect. 

By "the enemy" I'm referring to the devil.

Thanks for clarifying.

On 1/29/2019 at 6:13 PM, fides' Jack said:

I definitely understand why you think I'm the one sowing division in the Church (even though I'm not).  Can you explain your accusation that I'm fostering a culture of death and vengeance?  In what way?  Are you referring to the death penalty itself?  Because I haven't actually stated my position on the matter - at least not in this thread.  Or do you mean my arguments against the change to the Catechism?  If that's the case, then you would have to accuse Pope John Paul II of the same thing, as it's his position that I'm defending.

I did not accuse you of anything if you read my post carefully. I wrote that it is possible that the devil is using folks like you to sow division in the Church, just as I admitted the possibility that he could be using the Catechism to undermine the faith (although I must say that I think the former much more likely than the latter).

 

As for the general idea of fostering a culture of death and vengeance, I do not know whether it would apply to you in particular, but I do think that the imposition of the death penalty in modern society has lead to a lack of respect for the value of life. I think that putting people to death in modern society has taught us to value life less, not more as some would argue.

Obviously legalized abortion has had a much greater effect in promoting the same culture.

[Guest]

 

 

For every nine people executed, one person on death row has been exonerated.

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Guest

[Guest]

Just listened to the Feminism debate. Trent destroyed him. Guessing it will be more of the same in the Death Penalty debate. 

[penitent60]

There is in Australia a man whose name I shall not speak who murdered 35 people and is sentenced to 35 life sentences and 1000 yrs. I wonder if he feels it would have been better to be killed, but he did steal a lot of lives that were not his to take. Murder is abomination .....life is God given, it isn't for us to determine a life or the ending of a life.  The thread also has moved onto slavery, also an abomination in my opinion, all men are created equal in the sight of God, why should then man determine if he is better on some nonsensical idea of caste,ethnicity,gender or economic strata.  Just my penny's worth.

[KnightofChrist]

Keep in mind people Pope Francis also condemned life in prison not just putting murderers to death.

“the Magisterium of the Church understands that life imprisonment, which removes the possibility of moral and existential redemption, for the benefit of the condemned and for the community, is a form of the death penalty in disguise.” - Pope Francis

So if someone murders a group of children, not only can we not put that person to death for those crimes, according to Pope Francis, we cannot put that person in prison for life either. Strange, very strange.

Edited February 3, 2020 by KnightofChrist