The Self Contradicting 'catholic Church'

[Anomaly]

Development of Doctrine.

The State can execute.

The State cannot execute.

Developing is not saying something cannot be after it's been declared it is. That's not developing, that's a 180 degree change.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Anomaly

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1161616' date='Jan 11 2007, 02:37 PM']
Development of Doctrine.

The State can execute.

The State cannot execute.

Developing is not saying something cannot be after it's been declared it is. That's not developing, that's a 180 degree change.
[/quote]

You have an amazing ability to take a statement that I make out of context and use it to belittle me and try to make me look ignorant of Chruch doctrine. I do hope it is without malice. I have stated several times that the Church allows the death penalty and therefore if the word he spoke mean what they do on face value he is in error. But you choose to distort my position once again. Once again this man is not a Pope, nor is he a counsel so his words are not infallible. The Church teaching on infallibility has not been violated. I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you. If this causes you distress you might want to go to confession or read Sheen's "Peace of the Soul" or both. You clearly don't have peace. I'm through arguing with the walls.

Edited January 11, 2007 by thessalonian

[rkwright]

Anomaly if you would just read the offical teaching of the Church this is very very simple. Go back and read your chatechism. Thats the teaching of the Church. Debate over; its that easy.

Then go back and read your chatechism about infalliability, dogma, doctrine, and discipline. Just because some Cardinal, even when speaking on the behalf of the Vatican says something does not make it doctrine. The Church's teachings have not changed because of his statements.

Then re-read the statement at the beginning, you'll find that it is in line with Church teaching.

Edited January 11, 2007 by rkwright

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1160568' date='Jan 10 2007, 08:52 AM']
That won't be possible. Why?

Because there is a lot of scope for thought within the Church's laws. As people who are strongly pro-life, we are obliged to assess each case on its merits and take whichever course of action is most strongly in keeping with a pro-life ethos. Catholics will naturally disagree on how best to do that. You're expecting the Church to have the kind of mindset that is prevalent in some Protestant denominations: every last thing must be defined by the man in the pulpit. Believe it or not, Phatmassers are entitled to disagree with the Holy See on occasion - not every word that comes out of the Vatican is binding and infallible. [i]Beliefs[/i] are clearly stated by the Catholic Church, certainly. But the lay faithful have to work out the best ways to apply those beliefs in their own lives. This is why there is room for debate within the Church - especially where topics as delicate as the death penalty are concerned. It is very difficult to say that the death penalty is [i]always[/i] acceptable or that it is [i]always[/i] wrong, as circumstance has a lot to do with it.
[/quote]
Well said!

Dogma and moral teaching of the Church are infallible.
Applications to particular cases are not.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1161616' date='Jan 11 2007, 03:37 PM']
Development of Doctrine.

The State can execute.

The State cannot execute.

Developing is not saying something cannot be after it's been declared it is. That's not developing, that's a 180 degree change.
[/quote]
The Church has never taught that the state does not have the right to execute.

[Anomaly]

I DO read Church documents. This is what the past Catechisms say.
Then you have the Church speaking through the Cardinal in his official capacity in the Vatican and the Church speaking in the current Catechism. How has the Church been consistent?

Feeble 'arguments' that it can't be as I say because the Church is Infallible don't cut it. The Church commands obedience and submission of will in order to be Catholic, because the Chruch says it's infallible. Yet it is clearly contradicting itself whereas Murder is a crime deserving death and within the authority of civil law at one time, to the current Catechism that murder is not deserving of death, but only a means to protect others and it is no longer within the scope of civil authorities.

[u]The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquainas.[/u]The Execution of Criminals.--Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill. Thus, we read: "I will kill and I will make to live."[5] It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God: "By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things."[6] And again: "For if thou dost that which is evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain. Because he is God's minister."[7] To Moses also it was said: "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live."[8] And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For "the wages of sin is death."[9] Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of "Thou shalt not kill" is that one shall not kill by one's own authority.[10]
[u]Catechism of Trent[/u]Execution Of Criminals Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment� is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
[u]Catechism or St. Pious X [/u] 3 Q: Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?
A: It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one's own life against an unjust aggressor.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]The Catechism of The Council of Trent[/b]
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, [u][b]by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent[/b][/u]. [u][b]The just use of this power[/b][/u], far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. [b][u]The end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life[/u][/b]. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, [u][b]since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence[/b][/u]. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
[url="http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/TenCommandments-fifth.shtml"]http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechu...nts-fifth.shtml[/url][/quote]In this writing you quote it says the legal and judicious exercise to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Judicious means thoughtful and well though out while legal means lawful and permissible. In protecting the innocent in certain time period and places of the world it is sadly safer to lawfully execute a prisoner rather than run the risk of endangering society or the innocent.

Which then the quote writes about the “just use” of power where the State may execute prisoners (that the Catholic Church has never bluntly revoked). But rather the teaching follows in the just use of execution is written, “the end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life” Therefore execution is used in the perseveration of security and human life, which the Church teaches that if it is possible to not execute someone and still maintain such them it no longer morally acceptable.

Then moreover in this writing it says, “Since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.” This writes of the same thing, that the State exercises this authority to execute not to execute “just because” but to have the result of having civil order so violence and outrage may be suppressed. Likewise the Church teaches still that execution is permissible when there is no other means to protect civil order.

Regardless the issue of execution although, it has never been formally defined or infallibly decreed and for this reason alone one could not accuse the Church of changing doctrine even if the Church at one time said bluntly the State always had the right to execute (which it hasn’t). But sufficient to say I would say theses quotes are taken out of context with the whole of Catholic teaching and the documents that they are written.

Edited January 18, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1168803' date='Jan 18 2007, 12:40 AM']
Regardless the issue of execution although, it has never been formally defined or infallibly decreed and for this reason alone one could not accuse the Church of changing doctrine even if the Church at one time said bluntly the State always had the right to execute (which it hasn’t). But sufficient to say I would say theses quotes are taken out of context with the whole of Catholic teaching and the documents that they are written.
[/quote]The Beacon and Light of Truth can't even be clear or consistent in a teaching about the Death Penalty, yet it expects it's faithful to adhere and submit their will.
The reality is, the Clergy within the Church, otherwise known as the 'Ordinary Magisterium', teaches and preaches any which-a-way they feel. The Lay then pick and choose which Bishop or Cardinal they want obey and point to the other Catholics and call them disobedient. The Church Bureacracy continues to churn along with their own internal politics. Then we have stuff like V-II happen and priests leave, no new vocations, etc. It became too obvious the Church's claims at consistency were and are very over-stated.
If the Church could stay consistent in it's teachings, it would be able to control and discipline it's Cardinals and Bishops and Priests. If it's so obvious to you the Church has been consistent, how do you explain the Cardinal, President of the Pontifical Council of Justice etc., being unaware of the Catholic Teaching and proclaiming "[b]Cardinal Martino said. “And no one can give death, not even the state.”[/b] "
And you are surprised when Cardinals say condoms are okay because they're a lesser evil and Catholics don't vote against embryonic research?

[Mr.Cat]

And Judas the Apostle our Blessed Lord chose betrayed Him and Saint Peter the Apostle (the first Pope) denied Him three times. If some Bishops of the Church betray the teachings of Christ it does not destroy the Church, for example a Bishop in the middle ages said proudly that if a Priest could not make it for one’s last confession that the people confess to each other suggesting that they could absolve sin. Clearly this is not true and not in line with the Church, so if one wants to pick apart wordings of Bishops we can go all the way back to the Bible.

Theses cardinals do not act in the Authentic Magisterium of the Church therefore no one is bound in any manner to respect theses beliefs. Although, to be reasonable to show links to respectful websites that provide this quote in order to secure this quote is not out of context. Also it would be useful to look at the quote I took apart showing that death is used to preserve social tranquility and order. I think that there is room to say that the world has advanced far enough that the death sentence is no longer morally acceptable since there are other means to deal with criminals, although like I said before this matter is left to the Local Bishops of the Church.

As I said before the Church has never clearly defined that the State has the right or does not have the right to use execution, therefore this teaching does not fall into the "Dogmatic Laws" of the Catholic Church.

Edited January 18, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1169145' date='Jan 18 2007, 03:22 PM']
And Judas the Apostle our Blessed Lord chose betrayed Him and Saint Peter the Apostle (the first Pope) denied Him three times. If some Bishops of the Church betray the teachings of Christ it does not destroy the Church, for example a Bishop in the middle ages said proudly that if a Priest could not make it for one’s last confession that the people confess to each other suggesting that they could absolve sin. Clearly this is not true and not in line with the Church, so if one wants to pick apart wordings of Bishops we can go all the way back to the Bible.

Theses cardinals do not act in the Authentic Magisterium of the Church therefore no one is bound in any manner to respect theses beliefs. Although, to be reasonable to show links to respectful websites that provide this quote in order to secure this quote is not out of context. Also it would be useful to look at the quote I took apart showing that death is used to preserve social tranquility and order. I think that there is room to say that the world has advanced far enough that the death sentence is no longer morally acceptable since there are other means to deal with criminals, although like I said before this matter is left to the Local Bishops of the Church.

As I said before the Church has never clearly defined that the State has the right or does not have the right to use execution, therefore this teaching does not fall into the "Dogmatic Laws" of the Catholic Church.
[/quote]I couldn't quite understand your grammar, but if you read the beginning of this thread, I did profide a 'respectful' website where this quote was gleaned. Just do a quick Google and you'll find tons.

I never said that this contradicition 'destroys the Church'. It destroys the mis-perception of a broad application of the idea the Church is infallible in all matters of faith and morals.

How do these people NOT represent the Authentic Magesterium of the Church? They hold high office within the Vatican and were chosen by the current Pontif. But you then claim: "no one is bound in any manner to respect theses beliefs." Catholics aren't bound to obedience of the Church Bishops in matter of faith and morals? What, pray tell, are Catholics supposed to follow?

Also, your position that the world has changed to the degree that the death penalty is no longer needed is ludicrous. People were held in prison for decades for thousands of years. The Church taught that the Death Penalty was a just punishment for murder, is adminstered by the State after due course. The opportunity to repent is required, etc. The Church did not teach (prior to JP-II) that the death penalty was only an option lacking the State's abilty to incarcerate for life. If they have, please destroy my argument with some sort of historical evidence.

I'd love to find some record of the Church sanctioned Canon of 'Dogmatic Laws'. Are you telling me Ott's book carries the Catholic Church's Seal as being definitive?

Or is it more accurate to say the Church claims to preach in black and white certainty whilst reality is a murky world of current opinion of the Clergy in power?

[Aloysius]

it is correct that many take the idea of infallibility too far. especiall Catholic Apologists in their zealousness to show to protestants why the Church is so necessary.

the Church's promise of infallibility says that the Magisterium cannot bind the faithful in error on a matter of faith or morals.

what officials of the Church say about political situations in the current world are not binding upon the faithful. they deserve respect as high level officials in the Church and as influential world leaders of the Vatican City State, but they are not binding principals of faith or morals: they're how those who are currently in places of teaching authority in the Church apply principals of faith and morals to modern situations.

they can be totally wrong about modern situations. there could be a cardinal who thinks that electricity is actually powered by demons and advises everyone to throw out all their electronic devices. his authority and infallibility in teaching that demons are evil things to be avoided is not voided by his misconception about how electronic devices work.

the principals put forth in the Catechism say that the state has the authority, in principal, to execute those who are guilty of grave crimes. it introduces a new principal of a greater good in showing mercy: saying that this greater good only applies when non-lethal means are sufficient to protect society.

the cardinal can be absolutely wrong without voiding the teaching of the Church. no Catholic is bound to agree with this prince of the Church. the human leadership of the Church is not infallible. it is the Church which is infallible.

“And no one can give death, not even the state.”

ehh... maybe an imprudent statement given the teaching of the Church. if I really wanted to (my mother says I should be a lawyer for my ability to twist words, though, so this prolly won't convince ya) I could see it as in line with the principals. I won't pretend it totally is, because my faith does not require me to believe the Cardinal is right. but anyway, the traditional teaching of the Church is that, in committing a grave crime, a criminal commits suicide. capital punishment thereby would not be giving death, but completing the act of his forfeiture of his own life.

ehh... but like I said: I'm completely comfortable saying that the Cardinal is wrong but the Church is not.

you know as well as any of us what makes something an infallible statement of the Church, and what is just the current stance of the Church in its relation to the modern world. The Church's stance in relation to the world not only can change, it has to change because, well, the world changes.

Catholics throughout history, well at least those who were ever actually connected to political affairs, understood the difference between the Church's temporal power and the mystical body of doctrine, what its teaching role is and then its role as advising the world as a temporal power.

but yeah:cardinals can be wrong, even speaking officially, the Church cannot be wrong. the cardinal is probably aware of the intricacies of Catholic doctrine, but in advising the world against use of the death penalty makes statements that seem to have extensive implications on principal like “And no one can give death, not even the state.” but in reality, it's the way they're making political statements.

but you know all this: you know the difference between the teaching role and the temporal role of the Church. yeah, some folks go overzealous in talking about the necessity of the magisterial authority and you've proven your point that they are wrong... but nothing else.

where does the teaching authority of the Church contradict the previous teaching authority of the Church? it doesn't, and that's all that the Church has ever said it doesn't do.

[Mr.Cat]

I will ignore such comments directed at me, namely in regards to grammar of which I am unsure to what the reference is since none is cited but I have difficulties understanding the dialect and writing styles of other people. This although shouldn’t be mentioned unless in the means of ligament correction (which here could have been done in private) or otherwise it is just a ploy to strengthen one’s argument in conditions that one fears their argument has been seriously weaken or one has become aggregated. I do not wish to fall to the same ploy since I do not condone its usage for it takes away for any real discussion.[quote][quote][b]The Catechism of The Council of Trent[/b]
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
[url="http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/TenCommandments-fifth.shtml"]http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechu...nts-fifth.shtml[/url][/quote]In this writing the above quote it says the legal and judicious exercise to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Judicious means thoughtful and well though out while legal means lawful and permissible. In protecting the innocent in certain time period and places of the world it is sadly safer to lawfully execute a prisoner rather than run the risk of endangering society or the innocent.

Which then the quote writes about the “just use” of power where the State may execute prisoners (that the Catholic Church has never bluntly revoked). But rather the teaching follows in the just use of execution is written, “the end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life” Therefore execution is used in the perseveration of security and human life, which the Church teaches that if it is possible to not execute someone and still maintain such them it no longer morally acceptable.

Then moreover in this writing it says, “Since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.” This writes of the same thing, that the State exercises this authority to execute not to execute “just because” but to have the result of having civil order so violence and outrage may be suppressed. Likewise the Church teaches still that execution is permissible when there is no other means to protect civil order.

Regardless the issue of execution although, it has never been formally defined or infallibly decreed and for this reason alone one could not accuse the Church of changing doctrine even if the Church at one time said bluntly the State always had the right to execute (which it hasn’t). But sufficient to say I would say theses quotes are taken out of context with the whole of Catholic teaching and the documents that they are written.[/quote]A proper response to what I wrote above in light of what one quoted has not yet been sufficiently answered. For why would the Church Scholars whom put together the Catechism of Trent elaborate so fully on the just and sensible use unless they were referring to the fact that they felt it was dependent upon social conditions otherwise they would of briefly stated that the authority is reserved by the State when implored in ligament punishment, this isn’t the case.

To what the Authentic Magisterium contains let us look to the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite that makes a pretty clear picture.[quote][b]Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite[/b]
[b]Can. 752 [/b] Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

[b]Can. 753 [/b] Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

[b]Can. 754 [/b] All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM[/url][/quote]So here the only place that one can come close to saying that the Authentic Magisterium contains individual Bishops or Cardinals is Canon seven hundred and fifty three that states, “whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils”. But even here we see that they are regarding to matters of faith universally agreed upon by the Church for the previous line says, “the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college”. Therefore the individual statements of the Bishops of the Church do not exercise the Authentic Magisterium.

To extend a question that I raised before, in the Middle-Ages a Bishop decreed that if a Priest was not able to hear the confession of a person dying of the plague that anyone could hear the confession and absolve. This is clearly false in light of the teachings of the Catholic Church; in fact not even Deacons can impart valid absolution. So if one wishes to argue that this is also the Authentic Magisterium because it is an individual bishop speaking on a matter of faith and morals please explain.

Although because the Venerable Pope John Paul the Second started to teach extensively about just punishment and capital punishment, thus we are to respect the intellect of the Holy Father for Canon seven hundred and fifty two binds us to such. Also there has not been proved that the Church has declared by definitive act that the state retains the right to execute for punishment.

It is true although that Catholics are to honor and obey their local Bishops and even Priests, but this is only as far as they do not violate those teachings, morality, and laws of the Catholic Church. Prisons have been used for centuries but normally any long detainment would result in death of the person because of poor living conditions, labor, and crime inside of the prison. Simply put, sometimes it was better to die a quick death rather than a prolonged death in prison. So the argument I proposed is valid. Also, it is reasonable to argue that there were points in human history that to detain certain persons would be nearly impossible or to keep alive would be harmful to society, to if this state exists any longer is normally left up to the local Bishops of the Church. Although many Bishops have expressed that on a global level this condition no longer exists.

The Church time to time does publish (or at least certain persons publish) writings that include all the known defined teachings of the Church, those teachings even though not defined are accepted, and then those teachings that are condemned. My home actually has one (even though a little old) and I know of others who have something of the same. If every Catholic has one of theses, I wouldn’t know. But the Church does profess that there are “Dogmatic Laws” that are to be believed by all the Catholic faithful by the legal binding of the Church. Thus to disobey such a binding of the Church is to commit a grave sin (thus could be mortal) and to come into heretical doctrine (thus could be a heretic).

To an example of incarceration I would look to Mexican History the prison known as Grand Crotay (sp?) Prison. In the prison existed from about the 1700’s to the late 1800’s if I recall my history correctly. It was more common to die of exhaustion or sickness (prisoner of guard) within the first few months (prisoner) or few years (guards). But you have not provided sufficient evidence to say that the Church definitely taught this is an absolute right of the state (which would have to be proved apart of natural law) and that this contradictions previous teachings of the Church.

I will make the concession although that there exists some teachings that are not apart of the Dogmatic Law or are not assured to be infallible by the Holy Church, thus one cannot say the Church is “always” infallible. This appears to be more rooted in a misunderstanding of Catholic Theology regarding infallibility and indefectibility along with Church Authority.

My objection to capital punishment is more political than it is religious. If one claims that you can use capital punishment you are presuming the infallibility of the state to judge innocence and guilt. I do not hold such an august level of the state and therefore I feel in the protection of the innocent that capital punishment being universally abolished would be a good thing. Which the quote I posted above says is the chief responsibility of the state, to protect the innocent, and that only under this pretence can capital punishment be used. Therefore I would say that to argue the Church does oppose capital punishment when other means of punishment are accessible it makes sense, because once you kill someone you can’t take the punishment back but if you put them in prison for fifteen years you can. On the news the other day I was listing to a man convicted of rape and was in prison for many years from his young adulthood. He has now been released due to new genetic evidence that shows he could not be guilty. This man is fifty years old now and imagines how many years have been whisked away from him because of that? It is although better that he was not executed because we would have killed an innocent man.

Do you think the innocent should suffer because there is evil?

[Apotheoun]

[img]http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/metamorphosis/edith-pop.jpg[/img]

[Selah]

[img]http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/129178117511136617.jpg[/img]

Edited May 18, 2010 by Selah

[Anomaly]

What's with dredging up old posts?

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='18 January 2007 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1169155325' post='1169266']
Do you think the innocent should suffer because there is evil?
[/quote]
I can certainly tell you innocent suffer all the time because of purposeful evil acts and because of unintended consequence.

If you believe in God, ask Him that. If you don't believe, I guess you have to ask yourself.

Either way you believe, innocents suffering is a fact of life.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='18 May 2010 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1274219638' post='2113110']
What's with dredging up old posts? [/quote]
My apologies. This thread was briefly referenced in another thread, so I bumped it for context.

God bless.