If the recent teaching about CP is not a prudential judgement, then it is at odds with (not a development of, but in contradiction with) prior church teaching. Is that possible in your view? If so, could a future Pope do a 180 degree reversal and bind the faithful to a reverse position?
While you address this to Ender - I’d offer my response as follows. You correctly identify the subject teaching as directed to “our times” which places it in the category of prudential judgements. There is not to my knowledge any church doctrine requiring Catholics to accept such judgements which are at odds with their conscientiously held differing judgement.
Rather than label him entrenched - identify (if you can) where his reasoning is flawed.
Your statements clearly suggest you see the recent CP teaching as a prudential judgement, addressing the merits of CP in our time, not it’s per se nature.
JP II’s addressing of the topic was plainly a prudential judgement - referencing the capabilities of the penal system. He plainly argued for it not to be used. But he saw circumstances when it’s use could be warranted.
Yes, I understand what a prudential judgment is. That said, your question doesn’t make sense to me. Are you suggesting that all developments in doctrine must be “prudential”? There have been an lot of developments to Catholic doctrine over the last 2,000 years. Are they all “prudential”? Many of them have been more significant that this one (IMHO).
There is a huge difference between “not accepting such judgments” and promoting one’s own judgment against the Magisterium as the correct moral stance for Catholics. It begs the question of what is conscionable.
This is what I am trying to bring out. If a Catholic holds a different moral assessment than the magisterium, what is the going on in the conscience?
These were only theoretical, not reality. The end of the DP involves an acceptance of reality, even if we want to kill evildoers.
I am suggesting that a prudential judgement is in a different category to a matter of doctrine. Whether CP “these days” is wise or not might be made in light of various doctrines, but it is not itself a matter of doctrine.
I don’t believe the current teaching is merely a prudential judgment. The previous teaching allowed for prudential judgment on individual cases, but the current teaching does not. I read it as a development of doctrine that removes the admissibility of the death penalty from prudential judgment.
So it’s ok to disagree, but keep quiet about it?
It is in the nature of prudential judgements that they are quite uncertain. There is no question that the Pope’s exhortation to see CP as doing more harm than good deserves respect. But the church herself says it does not obligate acceptance.
Sorry, I’ve no idea what that means. Personally, I favour abolition of CP as unnecessary and doing more harm than good - I’ve no wish to kill evildoers, and it is wrong of you to keep suggesting those in opposition to your viewpoint are motivated by some kind of vengeance against evildoers.
Carefully edited quotations reflect poorly on any poster. I actually wrote:
Correct. Otherwise, one is claiming a special connection, over that of the Magisterium.
It depends on what you mean by “obligate”. Do you have a quote from a doctrine on this?
I’m confused. You favor abolition of the capital punishment?
But you must admit that many people wish to do so. It is a reality. If we see someone kill someone else, those who seek justice will naturally want to end the life of the perpetrator. Are you denying this?
The Church teaches us that the Spirit guides the Church in matters of morality.
Abolition - or abandonment of it - by civil authorities. I’ve said it many times. No post of mine argues the reverse. There is no basis in my posts for your confusion.
Pope Francis modifies the wording from “fully determined” to “fair trail” but one cannot interpret the word change to be a lightening of the state’s burden of evidence as that would go against the entire theme of the revision.
No, its an honest answer.
This is what a non-answer looks like.
If in a future time the conditions were such that the death penalty was the last resort, the Church isn’t going to comment unless there’s a consequent claim that the dp is murder in all cases or similar. Are you willing to allow that people can disagree with that prudential judgment too?TMC:
If the recent teaching about CP is not a prudential judgement, then it is at odds with (not a development of, but in contradiction with) prior church teaching. Is that possible in your view? If so, could a future Pope do a 180 degree reversal and bind the faithful to a reverse position?
Do you understand the nature of a prudential judgements in the context of moral theology - and why Francis I’s condemnation of CP can only be that?