Not Following The Cc

[beatty07]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1117758' date='Nov 11 2006, 05:42 PM']
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]


I wouldn't say "they're the same" but I did mean to point out a limited similarity. I think Catholics are pretty much required to hold that the death penalty is a) not wrong always and everywhere, and b) should not be resorted to if there's another option. The first statement is somewhat more firm in the tradition, but the second has been stated with some force in the last decades.

After that, prudential judgment comes in to determine where and when the death penalty might be required. A faithful Catholic would be no less faithful were she to say "I believe that the circumstances surrounding Hussein are such that his execution is necessary to protect the innocent, and that the Church leaders who say otherwise are honestly mistaken."

The 6.45 thing was an illustration taken to the point of silliness, to clarify a concept. I don't believe that this matter is silly. Nevertheless, disagreement is legitimate here. I would add that it should be based on very substantial knowledge and/or experience, not simply a hunch.

All that nuancing aside, I think you pretty much got my point, even if you overstated it a little. "We should not execute Saddam" is MORE LIKE "the minimun wage should be 6.45" than it is like "Christ is truly God and truly man" or "stealing is wrong."

oh, I forgot about the burning Protestant Bibles. um, I'm really not familiar with this whole thing. I can say this: just because a discipline of that type hasn't been formally rescinded doesn't mean it's still in force. There are all kinds of examples. Secondly, I would point out that burning is the preferred way to dispose of any Bible. Catholic bibles that are just really worn out should be burned rather than thrown in the trash - so it's about respect for God's Word, not about disrespect. What that discipline really means is that Catholics shouldn't keep books which say they're the Bible but are really only most of the Bible. I can understand that. If someone published a Bible with the Gnostic Gospels, or missing the Torah, I don't think Protestants would encourage it either.

Edited November 14, 2006 by beatty07

[Matty_boy]

I take the "Air Force One" movie scenario for my argument. They could use Saddam as a reason to wreak havoc on "fill in the blank" until he is released. Then we have havoc PLUS a free Saddam. If he is dead, there is nothing they can try and win back. He's a chess piece.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I wouldn't say "they're the same" but I did mean to point out a limited similarity. I think Catholics are pretty much required to hold that the death penalty is a) not wrong always and everywhere, and b) should not be resorted to if there's another option. The first statement is somewhat more firm in the tradition, but the second has been stated with some force in the last decades.

After that, prudential judgment comes in to determine where and when the death penalty might be required. A faithful Catholic would be no less faithful were she to say "I believe that the circumstances surrounding Hussein are such that his execution is necessary to protect the innocent, and that the Church leaders who say otherwise are honestly mistaken."

The 6.45 thing was an illustration taken to the point of silliness, to clarify a concept. I don't believe that this matter is silly. Nevertheless, disagreement is legitimate here. I would add that it should be based on very substantial knowledge and/or experience, not simply a hunch.

All that nuancing aside, I think you pretty much got my point, even if you overstated it a little. "We should not execute Saddam" is MORE LIKE "the minimun wage should be 6.45" than it is like "Christ is truly God and truly man" or "stealing is wrong."

oh, I forgot about the burning Protestant Bibles. um, I'm really not familiar with this whole thing. I can say this: just because a discipline of that type hasn't been formally rescinded doesn't mean it's still in force. There are all kinds of examples. Secondly, I would point out that burning is the preferred way to dispose of any Bible. Catholic bibles that are just really worn out should be burned rather than thrown in the trash - so it's about respect for God's Word, not about disrespect. What that discipline really means is that Catholics shouldn't keep books which say they're the Bible but are really only most of the Bible. I can understand that. If someone published a Bible with the Gnostic Gospels, or missing the Torah, I don't think Protestants would encourage it either.[/quote]

So you are not saying the statements to go to war with Saddam or not to kill him are eqivalent to the 6.45. The 6.45 demonstrates to the absurd when you odn't have to follow. Apparently, though, there are times when you don't have to follow, except when it's a moral declaration, such as teh going to war and not killing statemetns. Is this a teaching offically from the CC?
Surely some like StThomas would say the statements are binding under pain of mortal sin, evne if not a moral declartion, but simply as a matter of following authority even with prudential judgement, but I want the offical teaching.

[beatty07]

I'm away from my library and can't look it up, but the most relevant recent teaching is JPII's, who wrote that while the death penalty is allowable and affirmed by our tradition, the circumstances in which it should be used in modern nations are practically nonexistent. As Church teachings go, that's lower on the ladder of weightiness. But just because there are degrees of weight to teachings doesn't mean that the lower degrees aren't important!

Anyway, that line from JPII re: "practically nonexistent" qualifies as a teaching on morals. But you can see how much room there is for discussion, development, and debate about what exactly is behind the statement and when exactly it applies. The Gospel hasn't changed, but the world has, so the application of the Gospel to the world might look a little different from one millenium to the next. The need for capital punishment to protect the innocent is just such a case.

However, "Saddam should not be executed" is not a teaching on morals. It's an application of the teaching to a particular circumstance. The Pope's teaching allows room for this debate: "is Iraq a modern nation like he was talking about?" "Could this be one of the practically non-existent times he allowed for?" etc.

So those questions are completely in-bounds for Catholics. Out-of-bounds positions would be those which exclude the moral teaching, e.g., "Capital punishment should be liberally applied in every nation", or "Capital punishment is evil always and everywhere."