Ahead of inmate’s execution, Florida Catholic bishops seek clemency

[Rence]

Then throughout history the Church, or more precisely the men of the Church, were correct in all secular matters, even through appearances of an absence of action leaving us to speculate the correct reason. Does this include the inquisition?

Rather than “correct in all secular matters”, I’d rather say that the Church didn’t take a position against their actions to execute those who broke secular laws. Did they? To my knowledge, they didn’t command the secular authorities to stop, and they didn’t applaud them. So I guess they stayed out of it. What about the Inquisitions are you asking?

It seems that arguments are being made that one can go by their own conscience, which is based on what the Church has taught throughout time. That teaching was based on, what Ender refers to as, ‘prudential judgements’ of the men of the Church. Why are older teachings on the subject more correct than what John Paul II taught?

JPII’s teachings were clarification of older teachings. He didn’t come up with anything new.

Throughout the history of the Church, different men have made different statements on the necessity of the death penalty. Based on the times, of each man of the Church existence, couldn’t it be possible that the different statements were correct according to the systems to protect society during those different eras? For example, what was necessary in 410 is no longer necessary in 2011.

Again, it’s not that the teachings were different, it’s the interpretation of them that apparently is different. The secular goverment was always expected to protect its citzens from criminals. That’s their job.

So if we don’t hear of any bishop asking for mercy, we are to assume it is an example of being for the death penalty?

That’s not what I said. I said that some bishops are asking for mercy, and others are not. Since there are Bishops who are not asking for mercy on behalf of the criminal, we can assume that either they choose to remain silent, or agree that sometimes it is necessary to execute criminals to protect society.

In my opinion, that’s a dangerous way to look at it. It would be more convincing to see a bishop stating the condemned should be put to death.

Would a Bishop state that the condemned should be put to death? In todays times I mean? they did in the past. But do they do that now?

 

[Ender]

What is clear to you still appears to be selective interpretation. If it were clearly addressed by the Church to mean retribution it would be more certain, or if the Church had actually used the term retribution instead of ‘redressing the disorder’.

One thing at least must be undeniably clear: “redressing the disorder” cannot possibly mean protection as the prevention of new crimes does nothing whatsoever to rectify the damage done by past crimes, so it is simply unarguable that, when section 2267 bases its entire opposition to capital punishment on protection, it is ignoring the primary objective of punishment - whatever you happen to believe that to be.

To agree with your view, one would have to disregard other teachings from other men of the Church, the scriptures, and the Catechism itself.

Of the sixteen citations I just provided, name one of them that is in conflict with anything I’ve said. As to “other teachings from other men” you have yet to provide a single reference to anything other than 2267 (and EV 56 on which it is based).

Looking at the quote by Cardinal Dulles … the statement does not specifically reference the death penalty.

He was speaking on the nature of punishment in general, of which capital punishment is but one example. The entire article was about the death penalty; surely not every sentence needs to make that point.

Looking at what Pius XII wrote, how does death bring about the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium?

It is the punishment itself that accomplishes this; that is the nature of retribution. Sin incurs a debt that can be paid only via punishment.

Does the Baltimore Catechism supercede the current Catechism of the Catholic Church?

The Baltimore Catechism as well as all Catechisms with the single exception of the 1997 revision are all in agreement on this point. Given that morality does not change with the times why would we expect to find any disagreement in any of them?

let’s look at ‘temporal punishment’. Isn’t this the punishment required by God as satisfaction for sin to prevent falling to the same sin again?

Punishment is required as satisfaction for sin (this is retribution). Period. Punishment also has secondary objectives, such as rehabilitation.

If so, why is that punishment removed from God?

This is an argument against the State having the right to impose any punishment at all; it would not apply solely to capital punishment, and the Church has clearly said that the State has a duty to punish criminals.

The USCCB clearly states ‘reform’. Does death reform an individual?

No punishment can guarantee reform but we punish the guilty nonetheless. We cannot guarantee that any of the secondary objectives will be attained; we can guarantee only that the primary objective is satisfied.

The same questions, and absence of ‘death penalty’, come with St. Aquinas’ statement. Isn’t he also speaking of a ‘punishment’ due for all sins and not a specific sin as you seem to think?

I was talking about punishment. Aquinas was talking about punishment. Capital punishment is a … punishment. Are you not able to see the principles involved?

I cannot agree with your interpretation of the statements being provided.

Is it really so difficult to “interpret” what this means? “The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment …”

Ender

 

[Ender]

Going back further in time, or bringing out more statements that have a distinct appearance of cherry picked …

Your obstinate refusal to acknowledge, recognize, or understand the consistent and traditional teaching of the Church in the face of massive documentation prior to 1995 does not constitute “cherry picking” on my part.

It just places more conflict on the men within the same Church and places one’s prudential judgment over another, and in a position of contradicting each other.

The contradictions are not of my doing; I’m simply pointing out that they exist. You deny their existence because a priori you deny the possibility that they could exist. This is why you cannot honestly account for all the citations I provide; you simply dismiss them.

It’s not about who can post the most quotes, according to a private interpretation. It’s about understanding the issue through the light of the Church, and Christ Himself.

And how are we to understand what the Church teaches if you deny the validity of … citing what the Church has taught? What you derisively dismiss is nearly 2000 years of Church teaching.

Yes, it is cherry picking and ignoring, or discounting other great men of the Church to support a single view.

This is the second time you’ve made reference to the comments of “other great men”. I challenge you to provide a single relevant citation from anyone prior to JPII that supports 2267.

I have asked you a few times, that if this is truly a matter of prudential judgments, isn’t is possible those men you are relying on are ‘wrong’?

Yes it is. On the other hand, the arguments they make are compelling while the arguments presented by those holding the opposite view, such as the Florida bishops, are (as I said before) at best weak and at worst wrong.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

JPII’s teachings were clarification of older teachings. He didn’t come up with anything new.

Evangelium vitae

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.48

Again, it’s not that the teachings were different, it’s the interpretation of them that apparently is different. The secular goverment was always expected to protect its citzens from criminals. That’s their job.

We cannot rely on all government’s laws as being just. If we did, we place abolishing abortion in jeopardy because they have legislated it legal in the interest of the citizens, which can also be called ‘their job’.

Would a Bishop state that the condemned should be put to death? In todays times I mean? they did in the past. But do they do that now?

It would be more appropriate to speak teachings, as opposed to teaching by saying nothing, or taking no action. Silence, and inaction, can mean they support it, or question it in their own minds without the confidence to teach on it, but it’s not taught.

 

[Ender]

JPII’s teachings were clarification of older teachings. He didn’t come up with anything new.

Wellll … yes, he did. It is not doctrinally valid to base the use of capital punishment on a secondary objective of punishment while ignoring the primary objective. Fortunately, 2267 is not doctrine. What JPII was doing was addressing the prudential nature of using capital punishment in modern society; what he was not doing was changing Church doctrine. But we should not think for a moment that, if 2267 was doctrinal, it isn’t an entirely new one. Worse, it would be inconsistent with past (and present) doctrine.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

One thing at least must be undeniably clear: “redressing the disorder” cannot possibly mean protection as the prevention of new crimes does nothing whatsoever to rectify the damage done by past crimes, so it is simply unarguable that, when section 2267 bases its entire opposition to capital punishment on protection, it is ignoring the primary objective of punishment - whatever you happen to believe that to be.

Ender

John Paul II speaks of ‘redress the disorder’ and on the train of thought goes on to say

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

Now, it seems you’ve been supporting the ‘general’ idea of the death penalty, without a particular consideration of a case by case basis. What makes this condemned man stand out as a direct threat to society, if he were to spend the rest of his natural life in prison?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Is it really so difficult to “interpret” what this means? "The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment …"

Ender

Then you’re saying all statements, throughout history, on this subject are made through prudential judgment. You have chosen to accept those prudential judgments that seem to support your view. Are we allowed to search through Church documents and only set our consciences to those things that seem to support what we believe?

I believe we have to read everything in context with each other, and consider the eras of which they were written. Then we set our beliefs, and consciences, to what is taught in it’s totality.

As you say everything is so clear to you that you have chosen to use for support of your view, what do you have to say about what Pope John Paul II, and the Catechism of the Church, have to say? I remember you said the Catechism contained prudential judgements and was wrong on some instances.

I have been trying to say that even if everything is only a prudential judgment, they all may well be true according the eras in which they were written.

Our Church, and our faith as taught through the Church, has evolved over time. At least that’s some of the explanations I see given to Protestants who question those things that have appearances of changing.

 

[Rence]

Evangelium vitae

According to Church teaching, the Pope doesn’t come up with anything new. He clarifies past teachings. There is a difference between creating new teachings and expounding on ones that already exist. EV was a clarification of existing teachings.
Prodigal Son1;8298122:

We cannot rely on all government’s laws as being just. If we did, we place abolishing abortion in jeopardy because they have legislated it legal in the interest of the citizens, which can also be called ‘their job’.

I never said we had to rely on all government laws as being just. That’s why I said the Bishops who were fighting for what they believed on behalf of inmate. But I also said that they were basing their position on citations from Church teachings. I also base my position on Church teachings, like everyone else. I am of the position (and am not the only one) that this man is a threat to others still and the death sentence is warranted. I am in favor of it in this case. You can do as you like, but I am not wrong in my position. My position is supported by the following:

is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.

And I believe it is necessary to protect not only other citizens, but more importantly, the prison guards. If you are not of that position, I respect that, but I don’t share it. You’re entitled to it, but it’s not the only right answer. Real life isn’t as clear cut as black and white. Going by the case that prosecuted him, there is a genuine concern for others, and I agree with the decision.

It would be more appropriate to speak teachings, as opposed to teaching by saying nothing, or taking no action. Silence, and inaction, can mean they support it, or question it in their own minds without the confidence to teach on it, but it’s not taught.

There is more than one way to either show being in favor or not being in favor of something. I’d rather see the Bishops who are NOT opposed to the death penalty showing quiet support over seeing them petitioning in conflict with other Bishops. But that’s just me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is the second time you’ve made reference to the comments of “other great men”. I challenge you to provide a single relevant citation from anyone prior to JPII that supports 2267.
Ender

Rom 12:19 Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.
Rom 12:20 But if the enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.
Rom 12:21 Be not overcome by evil: but overcome evil by good.

Mat 5:38 You have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.
Mat 5:39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other:
Mat 5:40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.
Mat 5:43 You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:
Mat 5:45 That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And I believe it is necessary to protect not only other citizens, but more importantly, the prison guards. If you are not of that position, I respect that, but I don’t share it. You’re entitled to it, but it’s not the only right answer. Real life isn’t as clear cut as black and white. Going by the case that prosecuted him, there is a genuine concern for others, and I agree with the decision.

There is more than one way to either show being in favor or not being in favor of something. I’d rather see the Bishops who are NOT opposed to the death penalty showing quiet support over seeing them petitioning in conflict with other Bishops. But that’s just me.

I’ve tried to say that the idea of us choosing statements to support our views and being of different minds just doesn’t seem right as we claim to be the Church of the one truth; one mind and judgment.

As for protecting society, please share the evidence of this 61 year old man being a danger to society, or even the guards within the prison, from behind bars. I’ve only seen the evidence of the crime that put him where he is, but nothing since. Neither of us has anything to show if he’s rehabilitated or not. Is death ‘rehabilitation’?

 

[Rence]

I’ve tried to say that the idea of us choosing statements to support our views and being of different minds just doesn’t seem right as we claim to be the Church of the one truth; one mind and judgment.

Well, I’m sorry, we’re not clones. You can’t disagree with a dogma, but the Church teachings regarding secular authority crime interventions is not that rigid, despite some believing it is.

As for protecting society, please share the evidence of this 61 year old man being a danger to society, or even the guards within the prison, from behind bars. I’ve only seen the evidence of the crime that put him where he is, but nothing since. Neither of us has anything to show if he’s rehabilitated or not. Is death ‘rehabilitation’?

A 61 year old man is not helpless. And you think you’ve seen evidence, but really have you? What evidence have you seen? Unless you were there at the court, you didn’t see much. Those who were there saw the evidence presented and came to their judements based on that evidence. Neither one of us has anything to show what kind of threat he would or wouldn’t be, because we haven’t seen the evidence and testimony. Not only that but the inmate has been in a perpetual state of appeal. If the sentence was changed, there is no evidence to support whether or not his behavior would change, however, I believe it’s not worth the risk. The only difference between us is: 1) I am in agreement with the State, and 2) you are not in agreement with the State. Again, I don’t wish to change your mind. I just wanted to share my views by participating in the thread. You can disagree with the State to heart’s content, and you can lobby alongside the Bishops. I have no problem with it. But I have no desire to do so because I am in favor of this execution. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, I’m sorry, we’re not clones. You can’t disagree with a dogma, but the Church teachings regarding secular authority crime interventions is not that rigid, despite some believing it is.

What about Church’s teachings regarding secular authority to legalize abortion?

1. I am in agreement with the State, and 2) you are not in agreement with the State. Again, I don’t wish to change your mind. I just wanted to share my views by participating in the thread. You can disagree with the State to heart’s content, and you can lobby alongside the Bishops. I have no problem with it. But I have no desire to do so because I am in favor of this execution. That’s all I’m saying.

I am not so concerned about being in agreement with the state as I am about trying my best to be in agreement with Christ. That’s how I arrive at my view.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. May God grant us all the intellect, knowledge, wisdom, counsel, piety, strength of faith, and a fear of the Lord.

 

[Rence]

What about Church’s teachings regarding secular authority to legalize abortion?

The Church’s stance on abortion is crystal clear without any wiggle room afforded the death penalty.

I am not so concerned about being in agreement with the state as I am about trying my best to be in agreement with Christ. That’s how I arrive at my view.

That’s all you can do, and that is what is most important. That’s all I can do as well, and it’s very important.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. May God grant us all the intellect, knowledge, wisdom, counsel, piety, strength of faith, and a fear of the Lord.

Amen! :hug1:

 

[Orleans_Attny]

I used to believe the same thing some of you Cafeteria Catholics are posting here: “Kill 'em all, Let God Sort them out”. Having been absent from the Church for almost twenty years, I was led back to The Way as a result of a miraculous event at the hands of Our Holy Mother.

Since then, I have a newfound appreciation for the Magisterium. As a former poker player, I am “all in” this time. I know I don’t have many posts here and my next statement is going to greatly ruffle the feathers of you posters with several thousand entries that act like they have all the answers. However, if you don’t understand the concept of the Sanctity of Life under any circumstances – from conception to natural death then perhaps the Catholic Church is NOT for you.

I know this has been posted previously: The Catechism is crystal clear on is matter:

I also struggled with accepting the teachings of The Church on this one. If you have a modicum of understanding of the teachings of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and the concept of Old versus New Covenant/Testament you would understand that Lex Talionis has been supplanted with His teachings of love and forgiveness.

Our death penalty here in Florida is via lethal injection since “Old Sparky” was retired. I know it is cliché but consider this: Would Jesus Christ push the plunger down on this man? You Café Catholics have to ask yourselves - Vengeance is whose?

Have a Blessed Day!!

Welcome my friend. If this post is any indication of more to come - you’re likely to have a strong compatriot in me.

I waffled on the Death Penalty issue for some time. My father was a trial judge who sentenced people to death. He was then a state appellate judge who upheld death sentences handed down below. I think he eventually came to loathe those decisions and his part in them.

As a lawyer, this is an easy calculation for me: We’ve killed innocent people (without any shadow of a doubt - it’s not debatable). Every year we release people from death row after they’re proven innocent (again, not debatable - notice I didn’t write that doubt was raised… I wrote “innocent”). And so long as we have the death penalty, we’ll kill more innocent people on accident.

To those who support the DP: Are you really OK with that? Are you a parent? Imagine your son or daughter strapped onto a bed while poison is pumped into their system and a dozen or so strangers look on as witnesses of barbaric justice. That happens - and if you think it can’t happen to your child, or you, you’re dead wrong. (On the bright side, the odds are in your favor is your white or a woman. And if you’re a white woman…you’re golden - even if your guilty there’s almost no chance of the death penalty for you!).

But as a Catholic, how do you rob a person of the chance to repent? How do you snuff out a life on the basis of RETRIBUTION? I understand self-defense or defense of others, which isn’t applicable to prisoners.

And before the squealing starts, let me remind you that if the death penalty were about self-defense we would execute the criminally insane. In fact, they’d be the first to go. And we also wouldn’t restrict the death penalty to adults or to only those who kill.

Pax,
OA

 

[louis91766]

"Tallahassee, Fla., Aug 24, 2011 / 06:19 am (CNA).- The Catholic bishops of Florida have asked Gov. Rick Scott to stay the execution of Manuel Valle, who was convicted in the 1978 shooting murder of a police officer. “True peace can only be achieved by forgiveness,” they said. “Governor, we ask you to stop state sanctioned killing.”

“Killing someone because they killed diminishes respect for life and promotes a culture of violence and vengeance,” the bishops said in an Aug. 3 letter. “We affirm the right and duty of the State to assure public safety and punish the guilty by incarceration, which allows the inmate an opportunity for reflection on their offenses and sorrow for the pain they have caused others.” "
Doesn’t this show that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on the death penalty?

 

[louis91766]

Welcome my friend. If this post is any indication of more to come - you’re likely to have a strong compatriot in me.

I waffled on the Death Penalty issue for some time. My father was a trial judge who sentenced people to death. He was then a state appellate judge who upheld death sentences handed down below. I think he eventually came to loathe those decisions and his part in them.

As a lawyer, this is an easy calculation for me: We’ve killed innocent people (without any shadow of a doubt - it’s not debatable). Every year we release people from death row after they’re proven innocent (again, not debatable - notice I didn’t write that doubt was raised… I wrote “innocent”). And so long as we have the death penalty, we’ll kill more innocent people on accident.

To those who support the DP: Are you really OK with that? Are you a parent? Imagine your son or daughter strapped onto a bed while poison is pumped into their system and a dozen or so strangers look on as witnesses of barbaric justice. That happens - and if you think it can’t happen to your child, or you, you’re dead wrong. (On the bright side, the odds are in your favor is your white or a woman. And if you’re a white woman…you’re golden - even if your guilty there’s almost no chance of the death penalty for you!).

But as a Catholic, how do you rob a person of the chance to repent? How do you snuff out a life on the basis of RETRIBUTION? I understand self-defense or defense of others, which isn’t applicable to prisoners.

And before the squealing starts, let me remind you that if the death penalty were about self-defense we would execute the criminally insane. In fact, they’d be the first to go. And we also wouldn’t restrict the death penalty to adults or to only those who kill.

Pax,
OA

If what you say is true, how come the Catholic Church was in favor of burning heretics at the stake, It is rather painful to be burned alive like Joan of Arc was.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If what you say is true, how come the Catholic Church was in favor of burning heretics at the stake, It is rather painful to be burned alive like Joan of Arc was.

Has men of the Church been correct on everything in the Church’s history?

 

[Hastrman]

We’ve killed innocent people (without any shadow of a doubt - it’s not debatable). Every year we release people from death row after they’re proven innocent (again, not debatable - notice I didn’t write that doubt was raised… I wrote “innocent”). And so long as we have the death penalty, we’ll kill more innocent people on accident.

To those who support the DP: Are you really OK with that? Are you a parent? Imagine your son or daughter strapped onto a bed while poison is pumped into their system and a dozen or so strangers look on as witnesses of barbaric justice. That happens - and if you think it can’t happen to your child, or you, you’re dead wrong. (On the bright side, the odds are in your favor is your white or a woman. And if you’re a white woman…you’re golden - even if your guilty there’s almost no chance of the death penalty for you!).

Yes, I am absolutely okay with that. What you are suggesting is that nobody ever take any action unless they have 100% mathematical certainty.

I have two problems with our death penalty. First, is we should use the guillotine: quick, painless, reliable, but it makes a mess, so we as a society remember we did something. And second, we need to actually execute the people we sentence: they get one appeal, only on substantive grounds. The fact Death Row inmates die from old age more than any other cause is not only scandalous—it would be considered cruel, in some cultures—it removes any deterrent effect of the death penalty.

PS. You’re wrong about the statistics. White men are more likely to be sentenced to death for the same crimes than minority men. I also question how many of those exonerations were really convincing, rather than politically or emotionally motivated (honestly, I don’t have a problem with that, as long as they’re not letting absolute monsters out).

 

[Ender]

Then you’re saying all statements, throughout history, on this subject are made through prudential judgment.

I don’t know why you would make such an statement; you surely must know I’m saying nothing of the sort.

You have chosen to accept those prudential judgments that seem to support your view. Are we allowed to search through Church documents and only set our consciences to those things that seem to support what we believe?

I have provided analysis and argument to support my position and have based all of my comments on statements the Church herself has made. Your entire position boils down to “2267 is right because it is in the current Catechism and I don’t need to consider anything else.”

I believe we have to read everything in context with each other, and consider the eras of which they were written. Then we set our beliefs, and consciences, to what is taught in it’s totality.

The “eras of which they were written.” This might be reasonable for some subjects but not for morality, which we are taught does not change from time to time or from place to place.

Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2). (Fr. John Hardon)

As you say everything is so clear to you that you have chosen to use for support of your view, what do you have to say about what Pope John Paul II, and the Catechism of the Church, have to say? I remember you said the Catechism contained prudential judgements and was wrong on some instances.

What I said was that 2267 contained prudential judgment and error; I certainly never said either about anything else in the Catechism. Nor was that my position alone as it was Cardinal Dulles who claimed it was prudential and Kevin Flannery S.J. of the Pontifical Gregorian University who claimed it was in error.

Our Church, and our faith as taught through the Church, has evolved over time. At least that’s some of the explanations I see given to Protestants who question those things that have appearances of changing.

Whatever Protestants may believe, Catholics are taught that morality does not change over time.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t know why you would make such an statement; you surely must know I’m saying nothing of the sort.
I have provided analysis and argument to support my position and have based all of my comments on statements the Church herself has made. Your entire position boils down to “2267 is right because it is in the current Catechism and I don’t need to consider anything else.”
The “eras of which they were written.” This might be reasonable for some subjects but not for morality, which we are taught does not change from time to time or from place to place.

Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2). (Fr. John Hardon)
What I said was that 2267 contained prudential judgment and error; I certainly never said either about anything else in the Catechism. Nor was that my position alone as it was Cardinal Dulles who claimed it was prudential and Kevin Flannery S.J. of the Pontifical Gregorian University who claimed it was in error.
Whatever Protestants may believe, Catholics are taught that morality does not change over time.

Ender

And where does that leave John Paul II’s statement of ‘very rare, if not practically non-existent’?