Not Following The Cc

[dairygirl4u2c]

CC spokesmen said the CC's stance regarding Saddam is that he not be executed. I'd be interested in seeing a debate with people who think what they said was only a recommendation that doesn't need to be followed, versus a recommendatin that does need to be followed.

Also feel compelled to compare that situation with when the CC said invading Iraq was unjustified, or when the Pope said to burn protestant bibles, and both times many catholics didn't/don't follow the ideas.

Also feel compelled to interject the notion that says when a higher up says to do something, even if not a dogmatic declaration, even if you disagree, it's a mortal sin not to. and why that general notions doesn't apply here.

I ask this simply because it'd seem people would be more willing to say Iraq should try to give Saddam to the US for holding or something if they are unsure of his security in jail, rather than rationalizing a way to not follow the CC's position.


I suppose one could argue that you should follow even if you don't agree and not dogmatic if the situation won't hurt anything otherwise, but that you don't have to follow if it's a major error, arguablly like the Saddam situation. I suppose I answered my own ?, but feel free to add other ideas or say why you think the advice to let saddam must live be followed under pain of mortal sin.

Edited November 8, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

Evidently you haven't read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It tells us that Capital Punishment is allowable under some circumstances, i.e. for the protection of society. However in this day and age the need to protect societies from men because they might escape from prison for instance is almost non-existant. They do not say "is non-existant". Further Governments are the ones who are the final say in this manner. The papacy has never controlled when executions should and should not take place. They have interjected opinions in various cases but have never forced their judgements on anyone in this regard. The bottom line is that Capitol punishment is not forbidden by the Church and so each individual case is to be discerned by the proper authorities.

God bless

[Aloysius]

These are political statements by the Vatican telling The US not to go to war with Saddam and telling Iraq not to execute Saddam. They have basis in the religious doctrine of the Church, but they are advice towards temporal matters and the Church only has expertise and divine guidance as regards moral principals.

The problem here is that, after hearing great Catholic apologetic for how united the Church is in belief, you have arrived at the false conclusion that there is no intellectual freedom in the Church.

If a Catholic were to reject the advice of the Vatican on the basis that the moral principals from which that political advice stemmed were wrong, that Catholic would be sinning against the faith. If a Catholic were to reject the political advice of the Vatican on the basis that they believed the situation in Iraq, under those same moral principals, merited the execution of Saddam, then that person would be well within the bounds of Catholic doctrine.

Now, as inevitably you're going to seek a way to apply this to other subjects let me nip them in the bud: if the moral principal says something is always and everywhere evil and/or morally unacceptable, then there is a non-negotiable issue politically. Moral doctrine regarding abortion, for instance, has no political negotiablity because the Catholic principal is that it is always evil. While the political advice of the Vatican to another nation is not an absolute source of what must be followed, the principal is absolute.

[beatty07]

Actually, there are several shades between "this-is-defined-and-anything-else-is-heresy", e.g. the two natures of Christ, and "this-is-sort-of-a-suggestion-for-now-until-we-figure-this-all-out", e.g., bioethics in the first stages of emergence.

A statement regarding the execution of Saddam has two important components: first, the moral principles and second, the application to a specific case. On the moral principles, such as the sanctity of human life, the Church speaks with full authority. However on the application to a particular circumstance, she makes no such claim. It is a prudential judgment. While it would be foolhardy to disagree without being very well informed, it does not make one less of a Catholic.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I appreciate beatty's response most.

I also appreciate Al's and thes, but their response was based on my unclarity. I meant to acknowledge that the CC allows for execution sometimes. I also understand that a Catholics cannot disagree with the moral principles, but perhpas with the political followings. I like beatty's response because it approaches where I intended the conversation to go. Prudential judgement. I know StThomas for example says that if the Pope says to burn protestant bibles, then you must do it under the pain of mortal sin. What I mean to get at is that many seem to say that the application, the political stance at a time, must be followed by Catholics as a deferrence to authority. Perhaps I am mistaken in that they do not need to defer to POLITICAL stances, perhaps it's only things like how to act in growing in holiness or settling a civil dispute or something. I suppose a distinguishment between the pope saying to burn the bibles, and the iraq and now teh saddam examples are warranted. and also growing in holiness type advice and political. (growing in holiness type advice is mandatory, right?)
And some people say following the CC's teaching on political issues like welfare is mandatory while others say not. Prob jus tpeople pontificating their views unjustifiedly saying it's official when it's not, but clarity would help.
would disagreeing with the bioethics be a sin then or?

standards need to be set if they are not already regarding what is and is not mandatory. but that's just me.

Edited November 9, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[jswranch]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1116086' date='Nov 9 2006, 01:29 PM']
I know StThomas for example says that if the Pope says to burn protestant bibles, then you must do it under the pain of mortal sin.[/quote]

Have you noticed the "hello. I do not rep the church" under his name?

[dairygirl4u2c]

Good point. I guess I am also looking for what the official stance is, if there is one regarding all I said. If there's not, can it be stated as certain that there's no stance? Is it just varying people giving their interpretations?

Edited November 9, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[beatty07]

First regarding the bioethics thing... I only meant that as an example of an area where there might be an official Church position that is provisionary and likely to develop. For example, we don't know very precisely what death is. It's just really hard to pin down medically in some cases, especially related to brain death. The Church makes statements based on what is now known and thought. It is understood that expansion of our medical knowledge might cause these positions to change or develop. Until they do, however, I would hold that every Catholic should abide by them.

Regarding political situations, I think your welfare example is well-chosen. The Church teaches a preferential option for the poor, that it is our social responsibility to care for the poor among us. This includes the functions of the state. It is fitting, then, that the bishops speak regarding political action for the poor. However, being a bishop does not make them experts in economics! They exhort us to seek beter justice for the poor, but are not competent to say "Jesus wants the minimum wage to be $6.43." Right there you can see the difference between moral principle and prudential judgment.

The same principles might apply to determining whether a particular war is just, whether a particular execution is necessary, etc. A really common phrase you'll see Catholics using is "faith and morals." It is in those realms that the Magisterium of the Church is infallible. Faith means things like the creed, morals means things like euthanasia. There's no room for prudential judgment about the divinity of Christ, or the permissibility of rape. In other matters, like whether a given tax cut is advisable, prudential judgment is the order of the day. I hope that's somewhat helpful...is the distinction clear?

Edited November 9, 2006 by beatty07

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Have you noticed the "hello. I do not rep the church" under his name?[/quote]

It's extremely rude that you would say that. A modern Holy Roman Pontiff declared in his Catechism that a Christian must burn a Protestant Bible or turn it in to his priest if a protestant his given him one, so I believe that I must obey him. I don't think that it is crazy or out there to obey the Holy Father. Also, I think I rep the Church very well seeing as I[b] CONFESS AND FIRMLY BELIEVE IN ALL DOGMATA AND TEACHINGS OF THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC AND ROMAN CHURCH WHOSE CURRENT VISIBLE HEAD IS HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI[/b].

[dairygirl4u2c]

So is the saddam statement the equivalent of a CC spokesman saying that the official stance of the CC is that the minimum wage should be 6.45? And if CC said that, Catholics would not be bound to follow that?

Is burning protestant bibles the equivalent of saying the minimum wage should be 6.45, and saying we shouldn't go to war with Iraq the same as saying the minimum wage should be 6.45?

Edited November 11, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1116306' date='Nov 9 2006, 06:52 PM']
It's extremely rude that you would say that. A modern Holy Roman Pontiff declared in his Catechism that a Christian must burn a Protestant Bible or turn it in to his priest if a protestant his given him one, so I believe that I must obey him. I don't think that it is crazy or out there to obey the Holy Father. Also, I think I rep the Church very well seeing as I[b] CONFESS AND FIRMLY BELIEVE IN ALL DOGMATA AND TEACHINGS OF THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC AND ROMAN CHURCH WHOSE CURRENT VISIBLE HEAD IS HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI[/b].
[/quote]
But that disciplinary measure about burning Bibles is no longer in force, but you post it anyway.

[Resurrexi]

It is still in force. It would only no longer be in force if it were declared declared no longer in force which it has not been.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1118422' date='Nov 12 2006, 07:36 PM']
It is still in force. It would only no longer be in force if it were declared declared no longer in force which it has not been.
[/quote]
Old disciplines can be superceded by new ones.

[Cam42]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1118435' date='Nov 12 2006, 06:48 PM']
Old disciplines can be superceded by new ones.
[/quote]

Yes they can, but only when they are stated as doing so, if there is no statement as to the discipline being superceded, then it cannot be assumed. The Church doesn't work that way. Never has, never will.

Although, I would say that in the Spirit of Interreligious dialouge, I would not engage in Bible burning. I would simply refuse the Bible, in a nice way, of course.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]So is the saddam statement the equivalent of a CC spokesman saying that the official stance of the CC is that the minimum wage should be 6.45? And if CC said that, Catholics would not be bound to follow that?

Is burning protestant bibles the equivalent of saying the minimum wage should be 6.45, and saying we shouldn't go to war with Iraq the same as saying the minimum wage should be 6.45?[/quote]

bump