- Status
E
Ender
Guest
You are mistaken. There is no obligation to assent to prudential judgments.
“Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.” (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
The church is not a legislative body passing laws about good and evil, and what you want would be contrary to existing doctrine. Church doctrines must all work together without contradiction; she cannot ignore what she said over there because it might clarify things over here.
It is church doctrine that prudential judgments do not have the same level of authority as doctrines, infallible or ordinary, and it is only the doctrines that oblige our assent. If Francis’ comments are in fact prudential judgments then in fact they are not binding.
All the talk of “semantics” and “highfalutin theology” are just pleas to ignore inconvenient facts. The church has not, because she cannot, define capital punishment as evil per se. It’s use cannot be unconditionally condemned.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
I agree, but…
See? Lots of Catholics are trying to make this teaching “optional.” Of course, it is not.
J
Johann_du_Toit
Guest
. . . . America Magazine. The same publication that last year published “The Catholic Case for Communism”. With due respect, I don’t think they are a reliable source on Catholic doctrine and morality in the least. And . . . Father James Martin, SJ, even less so.
Last edited:
C
christofirst
Guest
I’m not seeing any respect in your post. The article in America was just the first I had seen concerning the new encyclical and the Church’s stand against the death penalty. There is now one in the National Catholic Register, if that meets with your approval, which also determines that to support the death penalty is to go against the teaching of the Church.
J
Johann_du_Toit
Guest
Here is commentary on Fratelli Tutti by a faithful Catholic priest, Father John Zuhlsdorf, which I concur with.
I’m sorry, but the Holy Father will have to do better than cite as the basis of the change…himself, as opposed to Church Councils of Scripture. A Pope’s authority is based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, not Pure Will.
I’m sorry, but the Holy Father will have to do better than cite as the basis of the change…himself, as opposed to Church Councils of Scripture. A Pope’s authority is based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, not Pure Will.
E
Ender
Guest
Given that I cited one of the 20th century’s most notable Catholic theologians in explicitly contradicting you I think a little more is required here than “I’m right, he’s wrong.” There are other citations that confirm my point:
…there can exist legitimate differences of opinion as to how to best to respond to a social problem. By recognizing these differences in “prudential judgment,” the Church acknowledges that at the level of concrete political action various views and methods can exist without running afoul of Catholic teaching. (North Dakota Catholic Conference)
Disagreements about prudential judgments are legitimate and should be expected, because not all contemporary circumstances can be perfectly known or future circumstances safely predicted. Aspects of this uncertainty constitute the proper matter for deliberation, balance, and debate. (Prof Dennis Teti)
The conclusion about the inadmissibility of capital punishment in today’s circumstances is an instance of the fourth (and weakest) form of church teaching, prudential admonitions that command the attention of the faithful, but for which believers who conscientiously disagree are never denied communion with the Church. (Prof Steven A. Long, 2018)
I can provide other citations saying exactly the same thing: prudential judgments are not binding. If you have even one source saying the opposite I think everyone would like to read it.
E
Ender
Guest
I would probably share your opinion of the magazine, nonetheless the argument needs to be addressed, whatever it is.
Can you provide the link please so we can address the arguments.
T
TMC
Guest
That is an extraordinarily disingenous citation, and I think you know that.
Cardinal Dulles never said that Catholics could disagree with the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. He said that, under the teaching at that time, whether a particular death penalty case comports with Church teaching was a matter for prudential judgment. The Church’s teaching has changed, as you obviously know. I am sure that if Cardinal Dulles were alive today, he would say that Catholics must follow the Church’s teaching in the matter, just as he did when he was alive.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Back at it again, eh?
There remain two issues, questions that you have left unanswered:
- Who gave you, or the sources you prefer, the authority to determine that the Spirit does not continue to work in the Church, always making the most recent moral teachings by the Magisterium the most appropriate for our time?
- There is an underlying part of our nature that desires to put people to death who have done great evil, to punish them in a way that hurts, or makes them “pay” (I can say that I have this part!). Is it merciful, is it en-light-ened to let that part of ourselves be in charge?
C
christofirst
Guest
I still haven’t mastered linking webpages from my phone. The article is at ncregister.com entitled Does Fratelli Tutti Change Church Teaching on the Death Penalty. In it, Domincan theologian Thomas Petri argues that our current stance against the death penalty is not a rupture with the past, but a proper development.
Father Petri concludes that the teaching against the death penalty requires our assent, and should not be dismissed as a matter of prudence.
His conclusion will likely not convince you, so strongly entrenched as you seem to be, but it made perfect sense to me.
Father Petri concludes that the teaching against the death penalty requires our assent, and should not be dismissed as a matter of prudence.
His conclusion will likely not convince you, so strongly entrenched as you seem to be, but it made perfect sense to me.
E
Ender
Guest
The Spirit does not guide individuals in their prudential opinions, otherwise the church would not teach this:
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. (Donum Veritatis, CDF)
There won’t be any “deficiencies” where the Spirit is involved.
You may presume you are influenced this way, but you may not presume it of others, including me. I have never presented an argument based on hate or anger. Deal with the arguments I make, and do not ascribe evil motivations.
E
Ender
Guest
Thank you; I will read the article and address his comments.
The first thing to note here is that Fr. Petri seems to recognize (contra TMC) that prudential matters in fact do not require our assent. Nor have I ever claimed that prudential judgments can be simply dismissed, only that assent is not an obligation and that we may legitimately disagree with them.
I don’t expect to be convinced either. What I expect is that I can reasonably rebut his arguments, which is what is required in order to maintain my position.
O
OneSheep
Guest
You can see how that is addressed here, in its context:
Yes, there can be. And theologians can bring up counterpoints about things, but these are discussions. None of this give you or some other source a better discernment of the Spirit than the Magisterium.
A discussion about the DP in the Magisterium begins with a theology of the human, the dignity of the human person. Does your position consider the dignity of the human person?
These are not “evil motivations”, they are the normal workings of the healthy conscience. Okay, your argument is not based on hate or anger, but anger is indeed part of the normal functioning of the conscience. We react to injustice.
Would you say that your support for the DP comes from a reaction to injustice?
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
This seems pretty extreme. You are suggesting that the Spirit’s guidance of the church can sometimes be in error.Ender:
Yes, there can be.
Mostly my position consists of citing the opinions of the Fathers, Doctors, and Popes who have addressed the subject.
My support for capital punishment originated out of my reaction to the bad arguments being made against it. That caused me to investigate the subject, and the more I learned the more convinced I became that there is no valid moral objection to its use.
E
Ender
Guest
In the very beginning Fr. Petri makes this unremarkable (but crucially important) observation:
“When you talk about the development of teaching, you’re always talking about growing from what has come before, and never sort of a rupture”…
…and then adds these points:
- “I definitely think it’s in the line of what previous popes have taught”
- The Church’s position on the death penalty has always been part of the ordinary magisterium, Fr. Petri said, the teaching that “states have the right to inflict the penalty of death.”
- In the 2018 revision to the Catechism, the pope referred to the death penalty as “inadmissible” but did not call it “intrinsically evil” — and this was a significant choice in words.
- John Paul II put “protecting society” at the “front and center” of the Church’s teaching on punishment, Fr. Petri said, and Pope Francis has continued this teaching in his magisterium, which reflects a new understanding of punishment.
- While Popes Francis and John Paul II are making prudential applications of the Church’s teaching in areas of faith and morals, the level of assent required to their teaching is not just “prudential,” Fr. Petri explained.
(3) is important as it clearly shows that CP is not intrinsically evil. The problem here is that if something is not intrinsically evil then there will be instances where its use is proper, so how can it be both proper and inadmissible?
As for (4), I have a serious problem with this. I don’t think JPII simply redefined the nature of punishment to make protection its primary objective. Nor is this interpretation reasonable in light of CCC 2266 which explicitly defines the primary objective as “redressing the disorder caused by the offense.” Amid all the other changes, that doctrine is unchanged, and there is no way to understand that phrase as meaning protection against future offenses. There is more to be said about this, but this particular claim simply won’t stand up.
In (5) Fr. Petri, even as he acknowledges that this is a prudential teaching, claims that our response to it is not determined by the church’s teaching on the assent such teachings require. Apparently this is some sort of super-prudential teaching that we have to treat as doctrine, which is much like treating capital punishment as intrinsically evil even though we know it is not.
Last edited:
C
christofirst
Guest
I wish Fr. Petri was here to reply to you 
O
OneSheep
Guest
No, the Spirit is not in error. Revelation unfolds, so the Magisterium discerns over time. We can clearly see what has been happening over time with the DP.
Okay, what is your position about human dignity?
Okay, from where came that reaction? The Church is constantly clarifying statements as revelation unfolds, but this particular one caused a reaction in you. It truly sounds like you want the DP to continue. Does it come from a reaction to injustice?
E
Ender
Guest
This doesn’t answer my objection. Prudential opinions are not guaranteed to be free from error; this is what the church teaches. You claimed the Spirit guides the church even in prudential judgments, but that cannot be the case if those judgments are prone to error, therefore the Spirit cannot be guiding the church in such cases.
Not to hold a person fully accountable for his actions is an offense against his dignity; it is to treat him as less than a morally accountable being.
But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom… (JPII, Reconciliatio et paenitentia)
You are so caught up in the belief that your position is what the church teaches that you cannot grasp that my objections are to you, not the church. It is your understanding that I challenge, not church teaching. We fundamentally disagree over what the church does in fact teach.
That is correct.
I have never been affected in any way by either murder or capital punishment. I have no personal knowledge or experience with either. My position is based entirely on what I understand the church teaches on the subject.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
People are capable of not having a perfect discernment of the Spirit, even though the Spirit is perfect. Catholics have faith that the Spirit guides the Magisterium on moral teaching. Because the most recent teachings on the DP are consistent with doctrine about human dignity, we can see that the teachings are valid.
Yes, people are to be held accountable, but the DP is a contradiction with human dignity in today’s world, where we have can protect society without killing people that have been apprehended. JP II also made statements against the DP, so quoting him in this context is inappropriate.
What is your position about human dignity? Do all people have dignity? Do all people have value, and are to be treated with respect for their humanity?
The Church teaches that revelation unfolds over time, and the most accurate moral teachings are the most recent ones. You are relying on teachings centuries old, not the teachings that have unfolded over time. You are disputing this.
Friend, this is such an important subject to you. You want the DP to continue, as you stated. Why is this important to you?
- Status