Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[vern_humphrey]

You are right. I will provide the announcement here…

Attention Catholics: you are free to dismiss papal, Vatican, USCCB and all other official Catholic statements on war and captial punishment as “opinion.” Feel free to support as many executions and unjust wars as you want. You are in no way obligated to agree with the Church on these life issues.

Have fun with it.

You seem to have run out of substance in you posts.

 

[Ender]

Attention Catholics: you are free to dismiss papal, Vatican, USCCB and all other official Catholic statements on war and captial punishment as “opinion.” Feel free to support as many executions and unjust wars as you want. You are in no way obligated to agree with the Church on these life issues.

We are not free to dismiss either ordinary or infallible teachings of the Church. We are, however, free to disagree with prudential ones.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

We are not free to dismiss either ordinary or infallible teachings of the Church. We are, however, free to disagree with prudential ones.

Ender

As Cardinal Ratzinger himself said, one may differ with the Holy Father on matters of war or the death penalty, but no on abortion or euthanasia.

But again, this is the smokescreen – if we don’t agree with everything (based on the liberal interpretation), even those things that the Holy Father says are subject to prudential judgement – then we aren’t perfect, and so it’s okay to vote for pro-abortion politicians.

 

[bilop]

As Cardinal Ratzinger himself said, one may differ with the Holy Father on matters of war or the death penalty, but no on abortion or euthanasia.

But again, this is the smokescreen – if we don’t agree with everything (based on the liberal interpretation), even those things that the Holy Father says are subject to prudential judgement – then we aren’t perfect, and so it’s okay to vote for pro-abortion politicians.

It certainly seems like that’s the game. Unless people are being very dense.

God Bless

 

[fix]

But again, this is the smokescreen – if we don’t agree with everything (based on the liberal interpretation), even those things that the Holy Father says are subject to prudential judgement – then we aren’t perfect, and so it’s okay to vote for pro-abortion politicians.

And this is basically the entire point.

 

[Super_Grover]

Starwynd,

Getting back to your original post, please study the Church’s position on abortion, as I am confident you will. As you can see here, the death penalty is often used as means to obscure and confuse the issue of abortion. But the USCCB voting guide to which I posted a link, makes it clear that abortion is “not just one issue among many.” The killing of the innocent “must always be opposed.”

You posted here as a relatively recent convert with genuine concerns about an important issue. Any honest and well-informed Catholic would recognize abortion as THE dominant social justice issue of our time, and would have told you such. Many here have recognized that. Others on this post have engaged in a sad and predictable pattern of non-prioritizing abortion. We often can only speculate as to what motivates such people to introduce confusion into an issue with such clarity.

I think that if you are personally opposed to the death penalty in all instances, that is wonderful, and you should cultivate and enrich this position. It is clearly within the sound teaching of the Church that you are entitled to hold such an opinion. At the same time, please respect the opinions of those who maintain a prinicipled support for the imposition of the death penalty in certain, rare instances, which is also within the sound teaching of the Church. Such people are not the frauds, and phonies, and poseurs that a couple posters here would have you believe. Those who pretend that they are clearly have their own, independent priorities.

Abortion is always the taking of an innocent life, and it is always wrong. I wish you well in your journey.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Frankadams:

Hate to quote myself, but you never answered either question. Perhaps that was an inadvertence. If you don’t answer them, I will understand what your answers would be.

Not disputing you, **That the Pope said the U.S. should ban capital punishment.**but I have not seen that particular quote. Would you reproduce it here for us?

Just curious, but would you vote for a candidate who favored the continuing legality of abortion because that candidate opposed the death penalty for first degree murder?

I’ll wait.

 

[SoCalRC]

However, since he is speaking outside of his area of authority, we are not bound to agree with him.

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ

This is elaborated on by the Second Vatican Council:

“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” - Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (emphasis added)

What I find peculiar about the argument that abortion is important, but other teachings, like the death penalty are optional, is the last sentence above.

Our current understanding of the death penalty was first promulgated in EVANGELIUM VITAE. It was then written and spoken about by Pope John Paul II literally hundreds of times during his tenure. It is included in the Universal Catechism.

So, we have Encyclical and Catechism (“character of the documents”) and frequent repetition (“manner of speaking”). His “manifest mind and will” seems to have been clear. The only question for Catholics is rather or not we respond with “religious submission of mind and will” in a “special way”.

There is a strong voice here that says “no”. The arguments vary, ‘it is beyond the Pope and Bishop’s authority…’, or ‘the teaching is prudential…’ But whatever the reason given, and regardless of rather or not it has a theological basis, the one thing they have in common is that they assert that the Pope, in this matter, is wrong.

But the same people asserting that the Pope and Bishops (and hence Church) are wrong on this matter, do not ever seem to think through the ramifications of that point of view. In EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II was explaining the inalienable rights of the human person, expressed in the Pastoral Constitution of the Church (Second Vatican Council) as a clear and coherent whole. If his understanding of the fundemental principle was in error, then all his applications in the Encyclical become suspect.

cont.

 

[SoCalRC]

cont.

Remember, Christians have always rejected abortion as a sin. This dates back to the Halacha (Jewish law) at the time of Jesus. But, at different points in Church history the gravity of the sin has been perceived differently and there is a long tradition of exceptions, particularly birth defects and maternal health. As we can see from the Catholic encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

Abortion as an absolute ban, including cases of maternal heath, dates only from 1884 and 1889. The Church was answering questions about possible exceptions (ectopic gestations) in 1902. The Church was still explaining the absolute nature of the ban through most of the 20th century - Pope Pius XII’s Allocution to Midwives in 1951 is a good example.

The teaching gained Ecumenical Council validation with the Second Vatican Council. But it was Pope John Paul II, arguably our most pro-life Pope in history, who presented the most coherent and seemless understanding of “right to life” and used the Dogmatic foundation to give all aspects of the teaching, abortion, stem cell research, IVF, euthanasia, and yes, the death penalty, the high priority it has today.

He approved the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s Declaration on Procurred Abortion in 1974, and DONUM VITAE (The Gift of Life) in 1987. These were followed by EVANGELIUM VITAE, in which he declared three particular teachings (including abortion) to be infallibly absolutes in 1995. But the teachings are not a random collection, but a reasoned outcome of the foundation laid in the text. Words like “The incomparable worth of the human person”.

It is convenient, as folks have done here, to quote snippets and say ‘See! ‘Right to life’, most fundemental, that means abortion is most important…’ But is intellectually dishonest. Let’s look at a bigger quote from CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, instructions from the Pope to the lay faithful:

"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI

We cannot quote the middle paragraph without noting those that surround it. If Catholics want to argue that the Pope did not have a complete or proper understanding of our beliefs about life, fine, do so. But just understand that you are attacking the foundation of the most quoted statements from the Church used to elevate abortion to special status.

 

[frankadams]

Frankadams:

Hate to quote myself, but you never answered either question. Perhaps that was an inadvertence. If you don’t answer them, I will understand what your answers would be.
I’ll wait.

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Not disputing you, **That the Pope said the U.S. should ban capital punishment.***but I have not seen that particular quote. Would you reproduce it here for us?

*Just curious, but would you vote for a candidate who favored the continuing legality of abortion because that candidate opposed the death penalty for first degree murder? *

Answer 1: “The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Pope John Paul II, St. Louis, MO, January 1999)

Answer 2: No.

 

[bilop]

His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." - Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (emphasis added)

This proves my point.

The anti-death penalty stand is not part of the ordinary magisterium because in has not been “frequently repeated”.

Every Pope and the vast majority of theologians on record prior to JP II stated support for the death penalty in certain circumstances.

Bendedict XVI, himself, as head of the CDF said that Catholics are free to disagree on just war and capital punishment.

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

The consistent teaching of the Church has been to allow the death penalty.

God Bless

 

[SoCalRC]

Frankadams:

Hate to quote myself, but you never answered either question. Perhaps that was an inadvertence. If you don’t answer them, I will understand what your answers would be.

I’ll wait.

It is in the UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CATECHISM FOR ADULTS. This is the local Catechism, approved by Rome, for US Catholics.

However, it is not singular, see also:

Pope John Paul II, Christmas Day Message, 1998
Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America January 1999
Pope John Paul II, St. Louis, MO, January 1999
Pope John Paul II, Jubilee Homily to Prisoners, Rome, July 2002
Pope John Paul II, World Day of the Sick, Washington, DC, February 2003

 

[vern_humphrey]

We cannot quote the middle paragraph without noting those that surround it. If Catholics want to argue that the Pope did not have a complete or proper understanding of our beliefs about life, fine, do so. But just understand that you are attacking the foundation of the most quoted statements from the Church used to elevate abortion to special status.

Where does it say it’s okay to vote for pro-abortion politicians when there is a candidate who espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly?

 

[SoCalRC]

The anti-death penalty stand is not part of the ordinary magisterium because in has not been “frequently repeated”.

It is in Encyclical and the Catechism. It is repeated, widely, by Catholic Bishops world wide.

Every Pope and the vast majority of theologians on record prior to JP II stated support for the death penalty in certain circumstances.

And JP II allows for it in certain circumstances. He simply asserted his undisputed moral leadship on proper application.

A more accurate example would be abortion. Until the end of the 19th century, we permitted abortions for health reasons and considered pre-quickening (before movement) abortions a far less grievous sin. Does that make our current teaching incorrect?

Bendedict XVI, himself, as head of the CDF said that Catholics are free to disagree on just war and capital punishment.

That is false. Then Cardinal Ratzinger simply argued that disagreement on war and the death penalty did not rise to the level of CIC 915 - grievous public sin worthy of denial of holy communion.

This is also an extremely strange argument. On the one had you are arguing that Pope John Paul II’s authority is somehow diminished because of tradition (though, if you look carefully, his arguments on the death penalty date back to the Council of Trent and were beginning to be stated in similiar terms just prior to the Second Vatican Counil). But, on the flip side, you seem to be arguing that a Cardinal, who later becomes Pope, has the authority to overturn the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

 

[frankadams]

This proves my point.

The anti-death penalty stand is not part of the ordinary magisterium because in has not been “frequently repeated”.

Every Pope and the vast majority of theologians on record prior to JP II stated support for the death penalty in certain circumstances.

Bendedict XVI, himself, as head of the CDF said that Catholics are free to disagree on just war and capital punishment.

The consistent teaching of the Church has been to allow the death penalty.

God Bless

And the consistent teaching of the Church (multiple papal encylicals) has been to deny persons freedom of religion. By your reasoning and your words, “the anti-(forced religion) stand is not part of the ordinary magisterium because it has not been “frequently repeated”.”

And: “The consistent teaching of the Church has been to allow (denying freedom of religion).”

 

[SoCalRC]

Where does it say it’s okay to vote for pro-abortion politicians when there is a candidate who espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly?

Where does it say that it is OK to vote for the compromise on life?

Here is the Doctrinal Note:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

See #4. Certain moral principles are absolute, specifically excluded from any application of “limiting the harm”.

Here is Pope Benedict writing on Communion:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

See #83. It cites the Doctrinal Note above, and it’s ‘non negotiables’.

You have professed that people who do not act as you are “couch potatoe Catholics”. You have referred to yourself as a “real” Catholic. Given your proclamation of superior Catholicism, surely it should be no problem to go through the documents and show how they support your point of view.

After all, why should we keep trying to twist a confidential letter on a different subject in a different context, when we have declarations from Rome directly on the subject at hand?

 

[bilop]

It is in Encyclical and the Catechism. It is repeated, widely, by Catholic Bishops world wide.

In terms of the ordinary magisterium we’re dealing with repetition over CENTURIES not years.

And JP II allows for it in certain circumstances. He simply asserted his undisputed moral leadship on proper application.

A more accurate example would be abortion. Until the end of the 19th century, we permitted abortions for health reasons and considered pre-quickening (before movement) abortions a far less grievous sin. Does that make our current teaching incorrect?

This is a flat out lie. The Church has NEVER permitted abortion. See this link.

catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

From the 1st century Didache

]“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

That is false. Then Cardinal Ratzinger simply argued that disagreement on war and the death penalty did not rise to the level of CIC 915 - grievous public sin worthy of denial of holy communion.

No. Check his wording.

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

The difference of opinion is “legitimate”. You can hold either opinion in good conscience.

This is also an extremely strange argument. On the one had you are arguing that Pope John Paul II’s authority is somehow diminished because of tradition (though, if you look carefully, his arguments on the death penalty date back to the Council of Trent and were beginning to be stated in similiar terms just prior to the Second Vatican Counil). But, on the flip side, you seem to be arguing that a Cardinal, who later becomes Pope, has the authority to overturn the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

JPII authority is not diminished. He doesn’t have the authority to make a binding ruling on capital punishment, and HE NEVER TRIED TO.

I am citing Benedict b/c as head of the CDF he knew what JP II was trying to do on this subject, and he confirmed that Catholics were free to hold either opinion on matter of capital punishment and war.

God Bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

Where does it say that it is OK to vote for the compromise on life?

Ah, there it is – if the pro-life candidate isn’t perfect, we must vote for the pro-abortion candidate.

Thank you for illustrating it so well.

You have professed that people who do not act as you are “couch potatoe Catholics”.

I have indeed used that phrase (although I spell it “potato”) to refer to those who sit on the couch and cheer for the team or government program of their choice, but who do nothing to move the ball themselves.

You have referred to yourself as a “real” Catholic.

I have never said anything approaching that. I challenge you to produce a quote.

Given your proclamation of superior Catholicism,

Please post a quote where I proclaimed “superior Catholicism.”

surely it should be no problem to go through the documents and show how they support your point of view.

Here ya go:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

After all, why should we keep trying to twist a confidential letter on a different subject in a different context, when we have declarations from Rome directly on the subject at hand?

Are you referring to the PM where you accused a member of this forum of being the product of incest?

 

[fix]

After all, why should we keep trying to twist a confidential letter on a different subject in a different context, when we have declarations from Rome directly on the subject at hand?

You think the letter and magisterial documents are in conflict?

 

[SoCalRC]

In terms of the ordinary magisterium we’re dealing with repetition over CENTURIES not years.

So we should ignore the Church’s teachings on IVF, stem cell research, and things like Plan B until it has been repeated for centuries?

This is a flat out lie. The Church has NEVER permitted abortion. See this link.

You are not reading what I wrote. We have always viewed abortion as a sin, but the gravity and absolute nature was not always understood as it is today. Saying that this is a “lie” is foolish. The distinction regarding the “animated” fetus (post ensoulment, held to be at the point of quickening for about 1400 years) was in the Catechism until the 1920s. As late as 1869 the Church refused to rule on rather or not an abortion to save the life of the mother was licit.

A good example would be your link. All such articles quote Tertullian from his treatise on the soul. But the two quotes you include have a paragraph in between them where Tertullian argues that a gruesome form of late term, partial birth abortion, is a “necessary cruelty”, inarguable moral and just. This is not what we teach and believe today.

We had the right idea, the fetus was precious, representing human life, but our understanding and application was incomplete.

The same could be argued about the death penalty. Folks like yourself, arguing that the death penalty has always been supported, tend to use quotes, like the Catechism from the Council of Trent, but if we look at the full quote, we find that the Church argued that the fundemental purpose of the law was to promote life.

Like abortion, JP II wa not changing the fundemental teaching, just improving and perfecting our application.

I am citing Benedict b/c as head of the CDF he knew what JP II was trying to do on this subject, and he confirmed that Catholics were free to hold either opinion on matter of capital punishment and war.

You are citing a letter, written in a specific context, that was made public, but never officially distributed. If you want to get Pope Benedicts official understanding, try his Encyclical GOD IS LOVE. If you want his official capacity as CDF, look at documents promulgated by the body officially.

But, I cited the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church and the Pastoral Constitution of the Church. No letter, signed solely by a Cardinal, can refute those sources, regardless of the Cardinal’s position.