The teachings of Unitatis Redintegratio are extremely clear
Pope Benedict, above all in his pilgrimage to Erfurt in memory of Martin Luther, was extremely clear. To the Lutherans gathered to pray with him where Martin Luther had lived, His Holiness said:
All of us, Catholic and non-Catholic, must learn to live the faith anew – and to be converted from our past ways.
Exactly.
Abortion and artificial birth control are being advocated openly, notoriously and cause much harm to souls and in the case of abortion, cause much harm to unborn living human beings. I would not agree with the burning of heretics.
Well yes, wrongful deceiving is always wrong and wrongful taking of anothers property against their will is also always wrong. Its inherent in the very definition of such commands.
Yes, of course. I said as much myself.
This is a real concern but it is a practical objection, not a moral one. There are certainly cases where guilt is not in question.
This is another practical objection, but if this is a concern for you we can limit (for our purposes) its use to first degree murder. If it is ever valid it must surely be valid there.
The doctrines, which are based on moral truths, are not dependent on circumstances and conditions. The applications of the doctrines are very much dependent on these transitory concerns. The question we’re dealing with is whether or not the new version of 2267 is a new doctrine where capital punishment is always immoral, or is a judgment that its use today is inadvisable.
You suggested that the church could change her teaching on capital punishment as (you believe) it did on usury. I pointed out that the church’s teaching is based on Gn 9:5-6, which is part of God’s covenant with Noah which can never be rescinded. Whatever you think the history is for other doctrines is irrelevant here. This doctrine cannot be changed. Not everything is open for revision.
What are those constraints you refer to?
If capital punishment is evil “in any contemporary scenario” then that conclusion must be a prudential judgment as it based on current conditions.
If the teaching is a judgment then, as it is not doctrinal, assent would seem not to be an obligation.
Deciding to burn someone at the stake can be opposed as an invalid application of the doctrine, but it says nothing about the doctrine itself.
…the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. 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)
Are they not obvious to you.
You’ve missed the point of my comments. I have never held that capital punishment is always justifiable. What I am saying is that it can never be absolutely condemned as intrinsically evil so there will always be situations where its use is justifiable. All objections to its use are prudential, not moral.
The “fact” you claim is so small it is no fact at all. The prohibition against eating blood was not part of the covenant. Please, you can look this stuff up.
Whatever you think the “tradition” regarding usury was, the church is no more likely to edit the words of the covenant with Noah than she is to edit one of the ten commandments.
Since there is no such thing as an intrinsic good this is not surprising.
If this is true of capital punishment it is equally true of all punishment. Anything can be abused and misapplied. I’m unsure as to what a “class” of executions refers to. Certainly a brutal form would be evil, as would an application where it is manifestly undeserved, but these go to the validity of the particular application, not to the validity of its use per se.
Please reread my uncompleted response above.
I can only observe its in the same list as what you see as Gods alleged covenant command for the State to always kill killers.
Yes, stangely the Church sees merit in defining intrinsic evils but not intrinsic goods. Yet there is no principled reason why this is not possible.
.As The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
[Emphasis added]
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/category/categories/reports/reports
That is a complete logical non sequitor sorry.
There is no question. It is beyond inadvisable. It is inadmissible.
I have every confidence that those Catholics in the United States who give full assent to the Magisterium will realise precisely what the Cardinal Prefect articulated.
The object or species of an act is either good, evil, or indifferent. So yes, there are acts that are intrinsically good or good in their very nature, i.e, the object or species. Acts of all the virtues are good in their object such as faith, hope, charity; the four cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, and their many speices. On the contrary, the acts of the vices are evil in their object. Some acts are indifferent in their object such as walking, running, sitting, standing, etc.Ender:
Yes, stangely the Church sees merit in defining intrinsic evils but not intrinsic goods. Yet there is no principled reason why this is not possible.
Charitable giving is always and everywere good is it not?
The problem with that statistic is that many prison murders are committed by inmates not previously convicted of murder or serving life. They are there for burglaries, drug offenses etc. The South Carolina prison riot in April that left 7 inmates dead, was the result of prison gang politics and involved prisoners of a range of crimes and sentences. A policy of executing murderers alone is not going to prevent prison murder.