S
sealabeag
Guest
The definition of “per se” is “intrinsically”. He said it was “per se contrary to the Gospel”. So what does that mean?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
o_mlly
Guest
No need to do that; I’m aware of the teachings.What I’m going to provide you with is supporting evidence for the fact that the Church has always taught that the death penalty is a just and acceptable punishment and not intrinsically evil.
What we need is a citation to back up your claim that within that body of magisterial documents there is one or more that contradicts Pope Francis by teaching that “the death penalty was indeed not contrary to the Gospel”.
S
sealabeag
Guest
Ok now we’re engaging in word play. How could the Church for 2000 years approve of the death penalty if it was “contrary to the Gospel”. Teaching that the death penalty is morally just = not contrary to the Gospel. Contrary to the Gospel = a sin/immoral/evil.
So you believe that the Church has always taught that something “contrary to the Gospel” was morally just?
Pedantics is an unpleasant business.
So you believe that the Church has always taught that something “contrary to the Gospel” was morally just?
Pedantics is an unpleasant business.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Couldn’t find anything to support your claim?Ok now we’re engaging in word play. How could the Church for 2000 years approve of the death penalty if it was “contrary to the Gospel”.
Words are important. Pope Francis’ statement stands., “The death penalty is contrary to the Gospel.”
Simple enough to do. Show us a magisterial teaching on the state’s right to execute that cites a gospel passage in support. If you cannot then the church’s teaching on the state’s right to execute relies on scriptural references other than the gospels as I posted earlier. You said I was wrong. Just wanted to be sure I didn’t miss anything. Looks like I did not.How could the Church for 2000 years approve of the death penalty if it was “contrary to the Gospel”.
S
sealabeag
Guest
Why? Are you suggesting that the Church’s teaching, if not supportable by scripture, is invalid? Again, how is it possible for the Catholic Church to teach something that is “contrary to the Gospel”?Show us a magisterial teaching on the state’s right to execute that cites a gospel passage in support.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. It means “as such” or “by itself.” It can take on the connotation of “intrinsically”, but the phrase “intrinsic evil” is a term of art, so to speak, in the Church, and therefore we can’t apply a casual usage of the term as if it implied the more precise meaning.The definition of “per se” is “intrinsically”. He said it was “per se contrary to the Gospel”. So what does that mean?
(As an example: let’s suppose I saw a book lying in the street, and exclaimed, “well, that book is sitting in a public place. Therefore, it’s in the public domain and I can thereby copy and use it however I wish!” See how that wouldn’t hold up? Same thing here: “per se” doesn’t get you all the way to “intrinsic evil”, as such.)
I would (again) point out two things:
- to say “per se contrary to the Gospel” – in a non-magisterial setting – does not imply “intrinsic evil”
- on its face, the phrase in question seems to mean “we cannot square the two”. That’s an affirmation about our understanding of the Gospel and, as such, it’s conditioned upon a particular point in time. Saying that we’ve reached this understanding today only implies a development of doctrine, not a repudiation of it.
Last edited:
S
sealabeag
Guest
So what does “per se contrary to the Gospel” mean, in your opinion?to say “per se contrary to the Gospel” – in a non-magisterial setting – does not imply “intrinsic evil”
The Holy Father’s words were not “due to current circumstances and our times the death penalty is _______”, his words were - “the death penalty is per se contrary to the Gospel”. What does that mean and how do you reconcile it with Church teaching?it’s conditioned upon a particular point in time
Last edited:
S
sealabeag
Guest
WHAT DOES PER SE MEAN?
Per se is a Latin phrase literally meaning “by itself.” It has the sense of “intrinsically,” or “in and of itself.”
S
sealabeag
Guest
PS I think it is tragic that lay Catholics are having to debate this. This should be clarified for good of the Church. @Gorgias I have no doubt you are a good and faithful Catholic.
G
Gorgias
Guest
“contrary to the Gospel in its entirety, as such”.So what does “per se contrary to the Gospel” mean, in your opinion?
Those were John Paul II’s words.The Holy Father’s words were not “due to current circumstances and our times the death penalty is _______”
Again: you’re taking a connotation and attempting to use it as if it were an instance of a use of a term of art. That’s an invalid approach.WHAT DOES PER SE MEAN?
Per se is a Latin phrase literally meaning “by itself.” It has the sense of “intrinsically,” or “in and of itself.”
O
o_mlly
Guest
Simple. Any teaching that does not find its authority in the gospels, e.g., purgatory, communion of saints, indulgences, Mary’s assumption, the equivalence of Scripture and Tradition, etc.Again, how is it possible for the Catholic Church to teach something that is “contrary to the Gospel”?
S
sealabeag
Guest
Ok, and how do you square that with the past 2000 years of Church teaching on this topic?“contrary to the Gospel in its entirety, as such”.
S
sealabeag
Guest
Ohh, ok. So you think those teachings are contrary to the Gospel? Sorry, I presumed you were a Catholic.
Last edited:
J
Johann_du_Toit
Guest
I would highly recommend Edward Feser’s book By Man’s blood shall his blood be shed: A Catholic Defence of Capital Punishment (2017, Ignatius Press). One might disagree with his conclusions on whether it is prudent or necessary to use the death penalty today, but his citation of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church, together with scripture, supports the argument that Traditional Catholic teaching is in favor of Capital Punishment, provided it is imposed after a fair trial and it is in fact necessary to safeguard a just society.
It has even been praised by clerics who are generally against the use of the death penalty today, such as Fr. Thomas Petri OP and Fr. Robert Sirico.
It has even been praised by clerics who are generally against the use of the death penalty today, such as Fr. Thomas Petri OP and Fr. Robert Sirico.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
“Doctrine develops”.Ok, and how do you square that with the past 2000 years of Church teaching on this topic?
On one hand, you had reasonable interpretations that looked at the validity of self-defense. On the other, you have an interpretation which merely points out that the tension between the two dynamics (self-defense and the dignity of human life) should resolve itself in favor of the dignity of human life.
Last edited:
S
sealabeag
Guest
But this is not the issue at hand - that is the prudential judgement issue, and I am in agreement with JPII and Francis that the death penalty is rarely necessary. The question is whether the death penalty is in and of itself morally just or not.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Correct me if I’m wrong: didn’t JPII say that it’s not clear how it would ever be necessary these days (and not ‘rarely necessary’)?I am in agreement with JPII and Francis that the death penalty is rarely necessary.
Let’s try another approach, since you seem to be hung up on this.The question is whether the death penalty is in and of itself morally just or not.
“The death penalty” is not a matter of doctrine, per se. Rather, it’s an opportunity to apply the teachings of Christ in real-life situations. In other words, it’s an opportunity to apply moral theology through discernment and the use of our conscience.
Therefore, it’s a question of an application “in the here and now”. Pope Francis is merely teaching that, as we approach these questions now and in the future, an application of the Gospel message in its entirety would lead us to conclude – in all times and places in which will make this discernment – that the Gospel message compels us to reject the use of capital punishment.
Is that a message that is contrary to historical Church teachings? I think not.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I’m not an apologist for Protestantism so I suggest you google one of their websites for arguments.So you think those teachings are contrary to the Gospel?
What I do defend is the truth in Pope Francis’ statement that the death penalty is contrary to the gospel. His argument to support the claim follows:
Where does his argument fail?because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor. No man, “not even a murderer, loses his personal dignity” ( Letter to the President of the International Commission against the Death Penalty , 20 March 2015), because God is a Father who always awaits the return of his children who, knowing that they have made mistakes, ask for forgiveness and begin a new life. No one ought to be deprived not only of life, but also of the chance for a moral and existential redemption that in turn can benefit the community.
S
sealabeag
Guest
If you’re not a Catholic we’re approaching this from totally different perspectives so it’s futile to continue.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I am Catholic. Please cite your magisterial reference that contradicts Pope Francis’ statement on the death penalty or withdraw your claim.If you’re not a Catholic we’re approaching this from totally different perspectives so it’s futile to continue.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.