PhatPhred Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Norseman82' date='Mar 30 2004, 11:45 PM']By the way, could someone explain more about this term "prudential judgement"? This is the first time I've ever heard that term used.[/quote] A prudential judgment is an evaluation of real-world circumstances as part of the application of a moral principle to those circumstances. For example, applying the Catholic moral theory of just war to the Iraqi situation involved a prudential judgment as to the likelihood of weapons of mass destruction, etc. This is the appropriate section from Dunningan's essay as regards prudential judgments: [quote]Dulles and Rutler draw a crucial distinction between actual Church teachings and the prudential judgments of the pope. Both Evangelium vitae and the Catechism rely heavily on an evaluation of contemporary penal systems. This evaluation might be correct as applied to some penal systems, but incorrect as applied to others. In addition, it might be correct today, but might become incorrect in the future as a result of a decline in penal systems. Finally, it is a matter about which people—even orthodox Catholics—legitimately might disagree. Catholics are obliged to give “a religious submission of the intellect and will” to the ordinary Magisterium, but this duty attaches only to doctrines and teachings of the Church [cann. 212 §1, 752]. This same duty of submission does not attach to the mere prudential judgments of the Church’s pastors. The conclusion that the circumstances justifying the death penalty are “practically nonexistent” is based on a prudential judgment about the state of the penal system. As a result of the fact that a Catholic legitimately might disagree with this judgment, it follows that he legitimately might disagree as well with the conclusion that the circumstances justifying capital punishment are “practically nonexistent.”[/quote] It is important to note that Keating and Dunningan dissent not only from the prudential judgment of the Holy Father and the U.S. Catholic bishops (that the U.S. penal system can adequately protect society from criminals without recourse to the death penalty), but with the moral teaching of the Holy Father as well (that capital punishment is only moral when required to protect society from those criminals). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatPhred Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 The canonization of saints is an example of the Church making infallible prudential judgments. Under Dunningan's argument, I guess we could also consider these as optional beliefs for Catholics to hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 (edited) [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 30 2004, 11:08 PM'] Nonsense! [/quote] Good comeback Jason. I know I'm convinced by your stunning refutation. I have said it what seems like thousand times that development cannot involve essential change. If you all are correct, then there has been an essential change in the teaching of the church as reagrds the death penalty. This is not development but rather is a novelty. Furtermore, to phatphred, prudential judgements are based upon that facts as known by the Holy Father. These judgemnts are not infallible as the very "facts" he bases them on could be wrong. They are simply his assesment of the situation. Good Catholics can disagree on these matters. Secondly, the US Bishops, as a national conference, have NO JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY AND ISSUE NO BINDING DOCUMENTS except those directly commissioned by the Holy Father, which become particular law for that "region". This is not the case with the issue at hand. Edited March 31, 2004 by popestpiusx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=877"]HERE[/url] are some more facts on the issue!!! Read it before posting please! Notice a Bishop wrote the letter!! God Bless Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatPhred Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 31 2004, 12:31 AM']Furtermore, to phatphred, prudential judgements are based upon that facts as known by the Holy Father. These judgemnts are not infallible as the very "facts" he bases them on could be wrong. They are simply his assesment of the situation. Good Catholics can disagree on these matters.[/quote] This is completely wrong on several different levels:[list] [*]Just because a Church teaching involves a prudential judgment doesn't mean that it isn't binding on faithful Catholics. This is stated in canon law number 747 that I quoted earlier. [*]Just because a Church teaching isn't infallible doesn't mean that it isn't binding on faithful Catholics. This is stated in canon law number 752. [*]Just because a Church teaching involves a prudential judgment doesn't mean that it is more likely to be in error. The Holy Spirit is aware of all the particulars circumstances of a situation, and is quite capable of guiding the Church's magisterium. [/list] Also recall that Keating and Dunningan's dissent extends to the non-prudential part of the Holy Father's teaching as well. [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 31 2004, 12:31 AM']Secondly, the US Bishops, as a national conference, have NO JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY AND ISSUE NO BINDING DOCUMENTS except those directly commissioned by the Holy Father, which become particular law for that "region". This is not the case with the issue at hand.[/quote] This is true. The authority of the USCCB teaching on this issue derives directly from the authority of the individual bishops endorsing the USCCB statement. I don't see what difference this makes, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrndveritatis Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 [quote]QUOTE "Development of doctrine" does not apply here. Nonsense! [/quote] I hope by saying nonsense you are not claiming that that Church has reversed her earlier (and it can be argued current) teachings on the death penalty. Because if you are, you are attacking the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church as guided by the Magisterium led by the Pope. However, development of doctrine could apply if the Church were revealing a fuller understanding of her doctrine without contradicting herself. Now many will argue that this is what has happened, but I still have not seen anyone refute Dunnigan's/Rutler's/Keating's/Dulles' analysis. [quote]The canonization of saints is an example of the Church making infallible prudential judgments. Under Dunningan's argument, I guess we could also consider these as optional beliefs for Catholics to hold. [/quote] No, actually prudential judgments are by definition not infallible. Therefore, canonizations, if they are infallible, are not prudential judgments. Therfore Dunnigan would not hold them as optional. Dunnigan is clearly upholding the teaching that infallible teachings must be obeyed: to do otherwise is heresy/schism. [quote]the US Bishops, as a national conference, have NO JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY AND ISSUE NO BINDING DOCUMENTS except those directly commissioned by the Holy Father, which become particular law for that "region". This is not the case with the issue at hand. [/quote] Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatPhred Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 31 2004, 12:46 AM'] [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=877"]HERE[/url] are some more facts on the issue!!! Read it before posting please! Notice a Bishop wrote the letter!! God Bless Jason [/quote] Good find!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 My brain hurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 30 2004, 10:03 PM'] God is Mercy! God is Judge! "Vengence is mine says the Lord!" This could go on forever! Again I will suggest St. Faustinas Book on Divine Mercy. "The greater the sinner the more he has the right to my Mercy," He said to St. Faustina. The point of the Gospels is Mercy. Be careful on this topic to much Theology debating can lead to trouble. God is Mercy. Long Live JPII!!! and The Holy Catholic Church! Amen. God Bless Jason [/quote] Well, some may argue that the death penalty is showing mercy to the innocent people in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 [quote]I hope by saying nonsense you are not claiming that that Church has reversed her earlier (and it can be argued current) teachings on the death penalty. Because if you are, you are attacking the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church as guided by the Magisterium led by the Pope.[/quote] You are not reading my posts are you? lol Of course I follow The One True Catholic Church and I love JPII! Read more of the post please before making such statements! God Bless You Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Norseman82' date='Mar 31 2004, 12:57 AM'] Well, some may argue that the death penalty is showing mercy to the innocent people in society. [/quote] It can be argued that you can show mercy to the innocent people by putting the criminals in jail for life, therefore the innocent people are not in danger AND noone is being killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrndveritatis Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 [quote]Also recall that Keating and Dunningan's dissent extends to the non-prudential part of the Holy Father's teaching as well.[/quote] For example? [quote]HERE are some more facts on the issue!!! Read it before posting please! Notice a Bishop wrote the letter!! God Bless Jason [/quote] Martino also said that he felt sorry for Saddam Hussein because supposedly the U.S. was treating him like a cow. Seriously, that is what he said. I really don't see how giving Saddam medical treatment is treating him like a cow. Martino is an individual bishop. Not the pope. Just like any priest, it is possible that he could fall into error. Martino says it is "cruel and unnecessary". The Holy Father did not say this. In fact he said it is required when the protection of society is required. [quote] Just because a Church teaching involves a prudential judgment doesn't mean that it isn't binding on faithful Catholics. This is stated in canon law number 747 that I quoted earlier. Just because a Church teaching isn't infallible doesn't mean that it isn't binding on faithful Catholics. This is stated in canon law number 752. [/quote] Anyone have a response to these canons? I wonder what Dunnigan would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Norseman82' date='Mar 30 2004, 10:57 PM']Well, some may argue that the death penalty is showing mercy to the innocent people in society.[/quote] Did you read the article. And yes I agree my brain hurts too!! he!he! God Bless You Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhatPhred Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='jrndveritatis' date='Mar 31 2004, 12:52 AM']No, actually prudential judgments are by definition not infallible. Therefore, canonizations, if they are infallible, are not prudential judgments. Therfore Dunnigan would not hold them as optional.[/quote] Now this *is* nonsense. Prudential judgments are, [b]by definition[/b], the application of teachings on faith and morals to the particular circumstances of a situation. The canonization of a saint is the application of the Church teaching of what leads a person to end up in heaven instead of hell to the circumstances of the life of a particular individual. If you think this is not a prudential judgment, then you don't have the slightest concept of what a prudential judgment is. It is not a synonym for "a teaching of the Church that I want to be able to disagree with and not be called a cafeteria Catholic." [quote name='jrndveritatis' date='Mar 31 2004, 12:52 AM']Dunnigan is clearly upholding the teaching that infallible teachings must be obeyed: to do otherwise is heresy/schism.[/quote] Even non-infallible teachings must be obeyed. As I have stated, this is contained in canon law number 752. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 30 2004, 11:46 PM'] [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=877"]HERE[/url] are some more facts on the issue!!! Read it before posting please! Notice a Bishop wrote the letter!! God Bless Jason [/quote] Notice: 1) Bishop Martino has NO authority over me (or anyone else for that matter excepting his staff at the UN). His opinion is not binding in any way shape or form, regardless of the fact that he is a bishop. 2)Bishop Martino (nor any other bishop) has the authority to change what the Church teaches or mold it to their personal preferences. 3)That is exactly what he is trying to do. I have already shown why reliance on the CCC does NOT support the argument. He also fails to address the fact that what he is saying directly contradicts what has been stated very clearly by Popes, saints, doctors and councils. By not addressing these, they make it nearly impossible to make a case for a "development of doctrine" rather than a novel belief. 4)The so-called "facts" he attempts to use against the death penalty are not backed up by anything. He makes assertions without supporting them. 5)He has a distored view of what constitutes a "right". He fails to distinguish between the various kinds of rights. 6)The last paragraph is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now