Execute Them!

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 5 2005, 03:06 PM'] And as I stated above  Lumen gentium is a pastorial document and neither infallable nor even authoritative in the manner in which you speak, further as I said we are required by it to submit mind and will to all writings of the Roman Pontiff, So what about previous popes who disagree with the JPII or more than that, it is obvious that Ratzingers writings disagree with JPII on certian matters particularly on the matter of dissent on Capital Punishment and War. He is now Pope so either ALL Popes opinions are equally valid or JPII don't count anymore anyway, so which is it? [/quote]
I've decided I will respond

First of all, can you back up where Pope Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger) disagreed with Pope John Paul II? I want to see evidence.

Next, Popes can disagree. They don't owe each other that assent, as do we. We follow the current Pontiff, unless were Sede Vacantanists.

And you better believe Lumen Gentium has authority.

Edited May 5, 2005 by Q the Ninja

[Q the Ninja]

Here's the main part of the First Vatican Council, which I believe falls under infallible.

[quote]2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,
o by divine ordinance,
o the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
o this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
§ episcopal and
§ immediate.
o Both clergy and faithful,
§ of whatever rite and dignity,
§ both singly and collectively,
o are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
§ not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
§ but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.[/quote]

We are faithful. We are singly and collectively bound to submit to the power by duty of hierarchical subordination and [b]true[/b] obedience, no only in matters concerning faith and morals...

Well, this concerns faith and/or morals.

[Aloysius]

[quote]. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. [b]There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty[/b], but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.[/quote]
-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI

there may be disagreement about applying the death penalty, not about the doctrine of the death penalty. meaning all Catholics must believe as part of the deposit of faith those things that Trent et cetera have said about the death penalty: that it is the just right of the state, that people who murder absolutely deserve it, that by the principle of forfeiture homicide is akin to suicide, that any time the death penalty is administered to a person that person receives it justly.

now it has been proposed that in the modern world it is not necessary and the state ought to consider non-lethal means. this is not doctrinal in the least, it is a prudential judgment in regards to the application of the doctrine. notice before i said that the person always receives it justly, THIS IS DOCTRINE that must be believed, any time a person who is actually guilty of a capital crime is executed by the state that person receives the death penalty justly. the question arises as to whether or not it should be administered when non-lethal means are available. the pope has expressed the idea that in the modern world there ought to be prudential judgement and avoidance of these just means whenever possible. here's where I part ways:

1) do modern times have such non-lethal means available that they didn't have in the past? no, and the Holy Father has no teaching authority to say we do have such non-lethal means. his expertise is in faith and morals, not in whether or not the modern society has the ability to do something they couldn't do in history

2) are cases where the death penalty "rare if practically non-existant"? no, I do not believe so. the CDF specifically clarified in my above Ratzinger quote that I may disagree about the APPLICATION of the death penalty. The Holy Father's expertise is not in specific dp cases throughout the world. he is wrong in saying the cases are rare if non-existant; I say they are quite common and I am in no way threatening any peice of doctrine he has laid forth be it ex cathedra or not.

he has expressed his opinion about prudential judgement in application of the death penalty, and it has no binding force fallible or infallible. Catholics must accept doctrine that is pro-death penalty, the ONLY viable Catholic anti-dp position is "while the DP is the just right of the state and what a guilty person actually deserves, the state should decide to use non-lethal means when possible ; however any time the state does execute it does so justly if the person is actually guilty"

[Q the Ninja]

Our disagreement stems well beyond just disagreeing with the Holy Father.

[Q the Ninja]

Al, reread what you left bold.

We can disagree on the application of the death penalty and just war, but we cannot disagree on what is taught behind that, as everyone here is.

[Anna]

I haven't read a single post on this thread. I will only say that anyone caught in the act of scandalizing a little one should have a millstone tied around his neck and be immediately cast into the sea. Period. -_-

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 5 2005, 06:06 PM'] And as I stated above  Lumen gentium is a pastorial document and neither infallable nor even authoritative in the manner in which you speak [/quote]
Wrong.

Edited May 5, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[MichaelFilo]

Cmother, you know very well you have to have a reason. I am pretty interested, actually. This is something that has been going back and forth in my mind and I have spent some time praying about...

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

Its been posted several times.

"In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

[Aloysius]

exactly, we can disagree on the application of war or the application of the death penalty, but we cannot disagree on the teaching. i.e. every Catholic must believe that the death penalty is the just right of the state, that people who murder forfeit the right to their own life, that anytime a person guilty of murder is executed they are done so justly because that is what justice demands and what they deserve. those are the things we must agree upon, those are the things many Catholics dissent from in their ultra-pacifist anti-death penalty views where they put it on the same level as abortion et cetera.

where we can dissagree is APPLICATION; i.e. you say in the modern world it shouldn't be used that much I say it should be used now more than ever.

we can have a LEGITIMATE diversity of opinion in regards to this application, i.e. it is legitimate for a Catholic to argue that the death penalty still is absolutely necessary and still ought to be used often.

[Alpha Centauri]

Indeed. Kill them all.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='May 5 2005, 09:12 PM'] Its been posted several times.

"In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." [/quote]
So you believe that all acts of Councils are infallable and authorative... you are sure you want to hold to that position.

[MichaelFilo]

My sentiments exactly.

Alpha Centauri, while it is true you are entitled to your opinion, this is a debate table and therefore there needs to be reasons behind your opinion. Otherwise, your post was as effective to add to this post as posting nothing.

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 6 2005, 10:18 AM'] So you believe that all acts of Councils are infallable and authorative... you are sure you want to hold to that position. [/quote]
I am quoting Church teaching.

Edited May 6, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='May 6 2005, 12:40 PM'] I am quoting Church teaching. [/quote]
And so I ask agian, are you saying all acts of Councils are infallable and authoritive? Perhaps I should say currently authoritive but since one council cannot contadict anopther that seems redundent.