R
Rau
Guest
Have you seen the video where one US bishop asks that question of other bishops? No meaningful answer could be given.
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
That it is wrong “now” but not necessarily “then” is precisely a prudential judgement about the act in the relevant circumstances. If in the past we lacked moral awareness and for that reason said it could be justified, then the prior statement must be accepted as error.
If one follows the development concerning slavery, it can be understood more clearly.Motherwit:
This (sloppy wording suggesting “heightened moral awareness” can occur that justifies completely contradicting previous authoritative Church teaching) is the exact reason we must patiently await a more clarifying re-wording of the catechism entry.
Because obviously with the wording as-is, it suggests a previous moral deficiency sufficient to disprove the Church and justify leaving her.
No actual authoritative Church document supports this catechism wording (“inadmissible” doesn’t even mean anything precisely defined), so we may continue to await the correction to the wording that will eliminate this new confusion.
Aquinas - Summa Theologic
Objection 1. It would seem unlawful for parents to strike their children, or masters their slaves.
On the contrary, It is written (Proverbs 13:24): “He that spareth the rod hateth his son,” and further on (Proverbs 23:13): “Withhold not correction from a child, for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell.” Again it is written (Sirach 33:28): "Torture and fetters are for a malicious slave."
Baltimore Catechism.
(2) The scourging of Our Lord at the pillar. This also has been explained. What terrible cruelty existed in the world before Christianity ! In our times the brute beasts have more protection from cruel treatment than the pagan slaves had then. The Church came to their assistance. It taught that all men are God’s children, that slaves as well as masters were redeemed by Jesus Christ, and that masters must be kind and just to their slaves.
Pope John Paul II Catechism.
2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord.”
I think it’s fairly predictable where the Church is going and will do as with the issue of slavery, reference the 5th Commandment to shed light for those who still can’t see it.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
With respect, though you suggest it of others, I think you might be the one placing undue confidence in your own private reasoning and perspective, and not attending to the full body of evidence regarding the possible range of interpretive options open to the Church.
Your analogy to slavery doesn’t hold. The history of Church teachings on these different subjects are, simply, different.
Last edited:
If teaching on abolition of the death penalty now is the Popes prudential judgment then prior teaching by Popes that it can be legitimately used is also a prudential judgment is it not?Motherwit:
That it is wrong “now” but not necessarily “then” is precisely a prudential judgement about the act in the relevant circumstances. If in the past we lacked moral awareness and for that reason said it could be justified, then the prior statement must be accepted as error.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
I have not expressed my opinion on this teaching. I have certainly acknowledged that this is what the Church teaches. The Church teaches what it teaches whether I (or you) agree or not.
This is simply untrue. You are saying that this teaching is somehow optional. The Church does not. Can you explain where you derive the authority to determine which Church teachings are optional? What other parts of the Catechism are optional, in your view?
It is not my confidence but by faith that I submit to the living Magisterium.Motherwit:
With respect, though you suggest it of others, I think you might be the one placing undue confidence in your own private reasoning and perspective, and not attending to the full body of evidence regarding the possible range of interpretive options open to the Church.
Why are they different? At some point the Church affirmed the admissibility of slavery and then she taught it’s inadmissibility. Both those states at different points in time served God and the common good.
P
Pug
Guest
That line of argument was not about relativism. It is about how if a person does something that is grave matter, it might not for him (subjectively) be a mortal sin.
This is the implication that I’m see also. If something isn’t ‘intrinsically’ evil than it isn’t evil at all, only poor judgment.Rau:
This is simply untrue. You are saying that this teaching is somehow optional. The Church does not. Can you explain where you derive the authority to determine which Church teachings are optional? What other parts of the Catechism are optional, in your view?
But if it were introduced today by say, Texas, would you consider it immoral or just poor judgment?
R
Raxus
Guest
We no longer exist in a society where a death penalty is sometimes required to keep others safe; therefore, as practicing Catholics, we need to take the life stance and stand against the death penalty.
R
Rau
Guest
No. That can’t be concluded. A prudential judgement that it can be used “now” requires that it not be intrinsically evil. A prudential judgement that its unacceptable “now” sits comfortably with the position that it’s not intrinsically evil. The “problem” with the current teaching is that it tends to read doctrinally, but that is not reconcilable with the past.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
If it is not intrinsically evil, then the other fonts of morality are consulted for the act at hand. If we act with evil intent, our act is immoral. If we act despite a judgement that more harm than good arises, our act is immoral.
Is mandatory detention of illegal immigrants and separation of parents from children intrinsically evil? No. But a good case can be made that particular instances reflect poorly on the instigators - and in some cases those instigators likely act immorally.
Is putting a hungry 12 year old to death for stealing a loaf of bread a moral act? I would suggest that the evil consequences vastly outweigh any good - so no, it’s not moral imho.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
I take that view also.
E
Ender
Guest
No, the need for the death penalty cannot justify it if it is contrary to the gospel, inadmissible, and an offense to man’s dignity. That ship has sailed.
This is the point under discussion, although “no longer allowed” is itself ambiguous in that it doesn’t address the question of whether it is evil without exception, or is judged harmful in modern societies.
The alternative is if the teaching is a judgment, in which case there is no conflict and nothing to resolve.
The opposition is not to the church but rather your understanding of what the church teaches.
The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
If you lack the authority to say what the church teaches why are you so insistent that arguments contrary to yours are wrong? This is what the whole debate is about: what exactly does Francis’ change mean (which includes dealing with the very serious problems that arise from interpretations like yours.)
In the (unlikely) circumstance where the legitimate defense of a community can’t be served by imprisonment any longer, it would become a necessary sentence, because it would be doing more good than harm. The ultimate purpose of civil law is the common good.Motherwit:
No, the need for the death penalty cannot justify it if it is contrary to the gospel, inadmissible, and an offense to man’s dignity. That ship has sailed.
I completely accept that capital punishment is inadmissible and I know what that means.Motherwit:
The opposition is not to the church but rather your understanding of what the church teaches.
Right back atcha.
R
Rau
Guest
Therefore, CP remains as the church has always said an acceptable measure in appropriate circumstances. Therefore - it would be readily clear that what Francis 1 has written is a statement about what is acceptable in current circumstances. That is a judgement - even when a Pope makes it.
R
Rau
Guest
Fair enough. But there is only 1 argument here that can stand alongside what the church has said for 2000 years.Ender:
Right back atcha.
Are you interchanging the word ‘acceptable’ with the word ‘inadmissible’? I need clear language to know what you are talking about.Motherwit:
Therefore, CP remains as the church has always said an acceptable measure in appropriate circumstances. Therefore - it would be readily clear that what Francis 1 has written is a statement about what is acceptable in current circumstances. That is a judgement - even when a Pope makes it.
- Status