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

[Jack4]

.

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Jack4

[Peace]

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

______________________

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Emphasis mine. That the first and last sentence quoted are irrelevant is clear from what I've said elsewhere in this thread. The bolded part concedes that Magisterium may be problematic, especially in prudential judgements.

________

@KnightofChrist,

In Feser's article in CWR I've linked, he engages four of the Popes defenders on DP. Funnily enough, each of these four have four different interpretations of the Pope. It seems that Peace has another, fifth, interpretation. 

 

And they say that we are the ones who have to analyze and interpret orthodox doctrine. 

Yes, the Magisterium can, has and will make errors, if that your point. But I never doubted that.

The point is that it remains your general duty to follow the Magisterium regardless of the fact that it can make errors. To do otherwise, in my view, is to become a Protestant. You for yourself what is right and wrong, and follow your pastor only to the the extent that he agrees with your conclusions. This is a Protestant view of church authority.

[Jack4]

8 minutes ago, Peace said:

I don’t think they should have, no.

Should a Catholic living then have agreed with Pope John 22 on Beatific Vision?

 

9 minutes ago, Peace said:

The text means that the death penalty cannot be used today, what other explanation would you like?

The "how" and "why" of it is ambiguous. You say it's that the Church forbade the State from doing something legitimate in principle. You've given no other example - the private property issue is not legitimate in principle.

 

15 minutes ago, Peace said:

There is no indication that his comments are directed to the Catechism anyway, so your argument still fails. The letter he wrote to the US Bishops does not even mention the Catechism a single time.

The letter mentions Evangelium Vitae and the then-Holy Father [JP2]'s opinion on DP. EV is the source of the old CCC para on DP. 

Furthermore, when he says that a Catholic could disagree with a particular assertion in the CCC (the CCC was already released by then), then it is an implicit remark on its authority. 

21 minutes ago, Peace said:

No, I do not acknowledge it, because I do not know if the prerequisites set forth in the Catechism were true at that time.

But if we assume that if the prerequisites were met, one could have applied the death penalty without disobeying the Church.

OK. I'd like to let you know that the prerequisites were not invented out of thin air by JP2, these were already implicit in previous teaching. That's why even hardcore radical traditionalists did not claim that these prerequisites were wrong (ie, that requisites don't exist); they only disputed whether these requisites are practically, realistically met. 

26 minutes ago, Peace said:

When the Catechism was revised. 

But Ratzinger says that teachings do not become more authoritative by being included in the Catechism. http://jimmyakin.com/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html

They only have whatever authority they already did before getting into the CCC.

 

So, then, you'll either have to say that the Church authoritatively forbade all States from carrying out DP in one of his speeches.

Or, you'll have to say that the status of the CCC was "upgraded" such that assent to everything in it is required. If so, when was it "upgraded"? Was it upgraded along with the CCC revision on DP, one of Pope Francis' DP speeches, or some other occasion? 

[Jack4]

28 minutes ago, Peace said:

Yes, the Magisterium can, has and will make errors, if that your point. But I never doubted that.

The point is that it remains your general duty to follow the Magisterium regardless of the fact that it can make errors. To do otherwise, in my view, is to become a Protestant. You for yourself what is right and wrong, and follow your pastor only to the the extent that he agrees with your conclusions. This is a Protestant view of church authority.

If Magisterium makes an error, it teaches falsehood. Can there be a duty to affirm falsehood?

I agreed that there is a general duty to follow the Magisterium.

The only time we may disagree is when previous Magisterium contradicts it in a matter of doctrine. 

(even after every attempt to read it in continuity)

In this case, one is not ultimately believing himself, but indeed submitting himself to Magisterium. 

One cannot "interpret" traditional Magisterium into anything he wants  - eg. no one can "interpret" Vatican I to be teaching atheism or Casti Connubi to be affirming divorce and contraception. 

DV says that "a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions".

[Peace]

@Jack4 I’ll get back to you later. @ work.

 

[Peace]

15 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

None of the personal attacks, snarky, belittling, or whatever term you wish to use for less than respectful comments change that fact. 

Peace you'd be a great person to have a conversation with, if you could focus on the subject and not the negatives you see a person.

By the way, was it respectful when you asserted that that @Josh has made Pope Francis into an idol God?

Edited January 17, 2019 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

On 12/20/2018 at 8:13 PM, Josh said:

You can defend slavery all you want. I don't care. I'm against all forms of slavery and so is the Catholic Church in 2018. Deal with it.

Servanthood is a form of slavery, regular employment is a form of servanthood.

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by KnightofChrist

[Peace]

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Should a Catholic living then have agreed with Pope John 22 on Beatific Vision?

I don’t know. I am not very familiar with that incident so I have no opinion on it.

It seems that trads and Protestants tend to keep a running list of papal errors, while the rest of us are little less learned on these matters. Sorry. 

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

The "how" and "why" of it is ambiguous. You say it's that the Church forbade the State from doing something legitimate in principle.

The “how” is fairly simple. When a criminal has been convicted of a crime and is in custody, do not chop off his head, subject him to the firing squad, or inject deadly chemicals into his veins.

The “why” is explained here:

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html 

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

You've given no other example - the private property issue is not legitimate in principle.

1) You have already conceded that this is acceptable, because you accept the JP2 version of paragraph 2267 of the Catechism, and that is what it does. Why are we continuing to argue over a point when you have conceded that I am correct?

Or do you in fact reject the JP 2 version of the Catechism? I am still a little confused about what your viewpoint is.

2) I disagree with your statement on private property. You may start a new thread on it if you like, but before you go selectively quoting Rerum Novarum, be sure that you take a fine look at the teaching of St. Thomas in the Summa, among other things. And obviously Church teaches that the state may confiscate private property.

3) If you really must have another example, you may kindly take the example of heliocentrism. The church forbade anyone from teaching that heliocentrism was true for hundreds of years.

But let me guess. You don't like this example either and will demand yet another.

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

The letter mentions Evangelium Vitae and the then-Holy Father [JP2]'s opinion on DP. EV is the source of the old CCC para on DP. 

Furthermore, when he says that a Catholic could disagree with a particular assertion in the CCC (the CCC was already released by then), then it is an implicit remark on its authority. 

That's a stretch. I don't buy it. Sorry.

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

OK. I'd like to let you know that the prerequisites were not invented out of thin air by JP2, these were already implicit in previous teaching.

That’s nice, but I never said that they were invented out of this air. But thanks for clarifying anyway.

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

That's why even hardcore radical traditionalists did not claim that these prerequisites were wrong (ie, that requisites don't exist); they only disputed whether these requisites are practically, realistically met. 

No, this simply is not true. Plenty of people argued (and continue to argue) that the prerequisites set forth in the JP2 version of the Catechism are wrong. Our friend @KnightofChrist on this very forum has argued against it numerous times (and most recently in the August DP thread in this forum that someone created after the Catechism revision). That is, he argues that the state may apply the death penalty purely for retributive purposes, regardless of whether it is necessary for the defense of society, as the JP2 version of the Catechism teaches.

Justice Scalia and others argue against the prerequisites in a series of articles in First Things that you can find. And there are plenty of people all over the place who reject them.

So either I have misunderstood your assertion, or you have not looked at this closely enough. Sorry.

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

But Ratzinger says that teachings do not become more authoritative by being included in the Catechism. http://jimmyakin.com/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html

They only have whatever authority they already did before getting into the CCC.

So, then, you'll either have to say that the Church authoritatively forbade all States from carrying out DP in one of his speeches.

Or, you'll have to say that the status of the CCC was "upgraded" such that assent to everything in it is required. If so, when was it "upgraded"? Was it upgraded along with the CCC revision on DP, one of Pope Francis' DP speeches, or some other occasion? 

Tread carefully, young Tradawan.

Your argument in a nutshell is that you only have to accept what is written in the Catechism to the extent that it agrees with your own private interpretation of other documents. In other words, you argue that you are free to reject what is written in the Catechism if your own private analysis results in a conclusion that the teaching does not have an independent basis outside of the Catechism. But this is false, because you have no authority to decide for yourself whether a teaching has such an independent basis in the first place. Whether any given teaching is consistent with Catholic doctrine (found inside or outside of the Catechism) is within the authority of the living magisterium. It is not within the authority of lay Catholics to decide for themselves.

Now, the whole point of a catechism is to teach what the magisterium believes. The Pope declared that the Catechism is a sure norm for teaching the faith, and the placement of the revised text in the Catechism reflects the Pope’s and the other bishop’s judgment that the revised text is consistent with doctrine as it has developed in the Church (and this is precisely what Card. Ladaria’s letter to the bishops indicates).  What you are doing (again) is usurping the magisterium’s authority to make that judgment, and replacing it with your own personal judgment that the revised  text is not consistent with prior teaching, lacks precedent, or does not reflect an authentic development of previous doctrine. You simply have no authority to do this. It is not for lay Catholics to decide these matters for ourselves.

So whether the teaching is included in the Catechism, not included in the Catechism, and whether the teaching came about in an instant, developed over time, was first enunciated today, yesterday, a year ago, and whether the teaching is found in a speech, on the internet, in an encyclical, pronounced over a megaphone, or written down on a napkin, is irrelevant. The current teaching is that the death penalty is inadmissible, and the judgment of the magisterium is that this teaching is an authentically developed Catholic doctrine. We have an obligation to give it religious assent, regardless of whether we like it or not, and regardless of our own personal analysis or conclusions.

I obviously don't agree with your approach, but I won’t be sending a letter to the Pope asking for your excommunication. Do what you want to do. It's not like you need to justify your actions to me.

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

If Magisterium makes an error, it teaches falsehood. Can there be a duty to affirm falsehood?

I am not completely sure of the answer, but I would venture to say yes, at least insofar as unknown falsehoods are concerned. Take Heliocentrism as an example.

Questions of conscience, known versus unknown falsehood, and authority to determine truth versus falsehood would make the answer much longer and nuanced, but I would rather not get into all of that at this time.

I feel an "error has no rights" retort coming. Please try to think it all the way through before going there.

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

I agreed that there is a general duty to follow the Magisterium.

True, but you seem to interpret the exceptions so broadly that the exceptions are larger than the rule.

If you are free to reject the current on teaching on the death penalty because you conclude that it is incorrect, what is there to stop me from rejecting any and all other current teachings of the church that are not infallibly defined, as long as I reach my own personal conclusion that the teaching are incorrect? 

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

The only time we may disagree is when previous Magisterium contradicts it in a matter of doctrine. 

(even after every attempt to read it in continuity)

In this case, one is not ultimately believing himself, but indeed submitting himself to Magisterium. 

1) Again, you do not have authority to make a personal determination as to whether the current teaching of the church contradicts a prior teaching.

2) You seem to be of the opinion that "first in time" = "correct" but the Church does not teach this. If there are two propositions, A and B that legitimately contradict each other, you cannot merely assume that A is correct and B is wrong, because A came before B. Whether A or B is correct is for the magisterium to decide.

3) You are not submitting to the magisterium. You are making your own private determination that A is correct and B is wrong, instead of leaving this question to the living bishops that God has given legitimate authority over you. The basic issue here is that you want to decide for yourself, instead of letting those who have authority over you decide, and following their decision.

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

One cannot "interpret" traditional Magisterium into anything he wants  - eg. no one can "interpret" Vatican I to be teaching atheism or Casti Connubi to be affirming divorce and contraception. 

It is difficult to interpret Vatican I to be teaching atheism, but that does mean that you are capable of interpreting Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition other issues (such as the death penalty) for yourself. Here, you seem to venturing down the "perspicuity of scripture" (or in your case perspicuity of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) path but this is Protestant doctrine and is fundamentally incompatible with Catholicism. Research it for yourself if you like.

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

DV says that "a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions".

Again, you seem to want to take a narrow exception and run a truck through it.

First of all, obviously you are not a theologian. So just off the bat none of the exceptions in the document that are given to theologians apply to you.

[Peace]

@Jack4

Secondly, even if you were a theologian, you would still have gone far beyond what the document allows. Lets' take a look at it:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.

25. Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.

26. In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.

27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.

>>I think you would have overstepped here. You have already asserted your opinion here that the revised Catechism contradicts previous Church teaching, have you not? Likewise, your expression is public, and can hardly be said to be "timely". The revision was issued just a short time ago and here you are complaining about them in public and asserting that they are wrong.

28. The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.

Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

>>That is precisely the basis for your disagreement, is it not? You have subjectively concluded that the teaching in the revised Catechism is not evident, and that the opposite teaching is more probable. Thus you disagree.

29. In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.

>>Honestly, do you think that you have made an intense and patient reflection on the revised text, and strived to understand its contents, arguments, and purposes? You are here on the internet a few months after the fact. You have seemingly done nothing other than object to the new text and you have already concluded that it contradicts previous teaching or is so "ambiguous" that it must be rejected.

30. If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.

>>Have you contacted a Magisterial authority with your concerns, in an evangelical spirit? It doesn't seem like you have done this to me, because you already said that you don't even know what your bishop's position on the issue is.

What I am saying is, whatever exceptions the document lays out, you are abusing them and taking them way beyond what they authorize theologians to do. In no way, shape, or form does the document justify a random lay Catholic getting on the internet a couple months after the new text, and declaring to everyone that the Pope is wrong. But this is exactly what you have done.

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth.

>>Well obviously you are here on mass media complaining and objecting to the new teaching aren't you? Do you think you are being consistent with that the document teaches?

31. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.

For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Peace

[Jack4]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

But let me guess. You don't like this example either and will demand yet another.

 

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Tread carefully, young Tradawan.

 

@Peace,

On 1/17/2019 at 7:20 AM, KnightofChrist said:

None of the personal attacks, snarky, belittling, or whatever term you wish to use for less than respectful comments change that fact. 

Peace you'd be a great person to have a conversation with, if you could focus on the subject and not the negatives you see a person.

I'll get back to you later.

[KnightofChrist]

10 hours ago, Peace said:

By the way, was it respectful when you asserted that that @Josh has made Pope Francis into an idol God?

After being accused of being unworthy to receive communion, not faithly Catholic and supporting slavery, yes. I let that get to me.

[Jack4]

12 hours ago, Peace said:

The “how” is fairly simple. When a criminal has been convicted of a crime and is in custody, do not chop off his head, subject him to the firing squad, or inject deadly chemicals into his veins.

The “why” is explained here:

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html 

It doesn't make it clear. Even 4 of the Pope's defenders disagree on what he meant.

12 hours ago, Peace said:

You have already conceded that this is acceptable, because you accept the JP2 version of paragraph 2267 of the Catechism, and that is what it does.

 What did I concede? The JP2 CCC does not forbid the state. It only offers its judgement. 

[Peace]

4 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

It doesn't make it clear. Even 4 of the Pope's defenders disagree on what he meant.

There are 1 billion Catholics on the Earth. It ain’t hard to find 4 that disagree on something.

[Jack4]

12 hours ago, Peace said:

No, this simply is not true. Plenty of people argued (and continue to argue) that the prerequisites set forth in the JP2 version of the Catechism are wrong. Our friend @KnightofChrist on this very forum has argued against it numerous times (and most recently in the August DP thread in this forum that someone created after the Catechism revision). That is, he argues that the state may apply the death penalty purely for retributive purposes, regardless of whether it is necessary for the defense of society, as the JP2 version of the Catechism teaches.

The para immediately above the DP para says:

Quote

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

 

[Peace]

Just now, Jack4 said:

The para immediately above the DP para says:

 

That’s nice, but it doesn’t change the fact that he and many others disagree with the other conditions set forth in that paragraph.