capital punishment

[billcu1]

On the other thread on dp on this thread people were squaring off on whether John Paul II meant to teach that it is doctrine that the death penalty can only be used for self-defense, or whether he was speaking just for the modern situation. That is, John Paul II was speaking prudentially not only when he specifically said he was, but even when he did not. Before the thread closed I did get a chance to finish my discussion with Ender,

But how then do we know other Church moral teachings are not prudential-situational?

May I have the name of this teaching from JP2? Was this not faith and morals? A bull, an encyclical?

Bill

 

[LongingSoul]

Can you think of another teaching where that doubt might arise?

I’m thinking that some of the cases from the recent past that have created this same angst would be the one around ‘No salvation outside the Church’… the doubt about the biological reality of humanity coming from a single man and woman… Pope St JPIIs teaching that heaven, hell and purgatory are not places but states of the soul. In my lifetime there’ve been a number of other ‘changes’ that have created difficulty for some. My personal experience of being raised in a very Catholic environment was that the ‘changes’ were opportunities to reorient oneself even more closely to the unchanging truths of revelation.

 

[thinkandmull]

Evangelium Vitae 56 is here is was taught.

Take contraception. If we accept the position of those who believe that the John Paul II was speaking merely of the modern situation in prudential terms in the part in bold:

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.

… How, then, do we argue against those who may say that that contraception was condemned only phenomenogically, only for the consciousness of those times and places.

 

[Rau]

Evangelium Vitae 56 is here is was taught.

Take contraception. If we accept the position of those who believe that the John Paul II was speaking merely of the modern situation in prudential terms in the part in bold:

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.

… How, then, do we argue against those who may say that that contraception was condemned only phenomenogically, only for the consciousness of those times and places.

Contraception is taught explicitly as intrinsic evil. By definition, always wrong to choose. No chance of prudential judgement entering into that.

 

[billcu1]

Contraception is taught explicitly as intrinsic evil. By definition, always wrong to choose. No chance of prudential judgement entering into that.

Of course I agree. That’s always been my understanding of contraception. I believe that was spoken of by Paul VI. Before JP2. IIRC.

Bill

 

[Rau]

Of course I agree. That’s always been my understanding of contraception. I believe that was spoken of by Paul VI. Before JP2. IIRC.

Bill

I don’t understand your point. The other poster questions whether the contraception teaching results from prudential judgement. It is plain that it does not.

 

[billcu1]

I don’t understand your point. The other poster questions whether the contraception teaching results from prudential judgement. It is plain that it does not.

My only point was that contraception was written about by Paul VI. I believe. He was making clearer church doctrine because he must’ve felt that needed to be done at that time. Maybe the other poster should read him too. We have all these new things now that weren’t even in Paul VI’s day. IUDs, and implantable things under the skin. Does that make sense? Contraception is not prudential.

Bill

 

[Tomdstone]

The other poster questions whether the contraception teaching results from prudential judgement. It is plain that it does not.

Not according to the Eastern Orthodox Church or other churches which may allow ABC under certain conditions.

 

[Tomdstone]

Contraception is taught explicitly as intrinsic evil.

If ABC is intrinsically evil, why does the Roman Catholic Church allow members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which allows ABC under certain conditions, to receive Holy Communion?

 

[Rau]

Not according to the Eastern Orthodox Church or other churches which may allow ABC under certain conditions.

Tom - we’re on CAF. When I refer to Church teachings, I speak of the Catholic Church, and its teachings, such as: w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

 

[Rau]

If ABC is intrinsically evil, why does the Roman Catholic Church allow members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which allows ABC under certain conditions, to receive Holy Communion?

It’s not an “if” Tom, it’s a fact:
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

As to whom may receive Communion from a Catholic Priest:
catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion

 

[Tomdstone]

Tom - we’re on CAF. When I refer to Church teachings, I speak of the Catholic Church, and its teachings, such as: w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

I don’t deny that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that ABC is intrinsically evil. But the RCC has indicated that it desires union with the Eastern Orthodox Church which allows ABC under certain conditions.

 

[Rau]

I don’t deny that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that ABC is intrinsically evil. But the RCC has indicated that it desires union with the Eastern Orthodox Church which allows ABC under certain conditions.

How do you anticipate differences in doctrine will be addressed in the course of unification? I don’t believe it will be in a manner which authorises a component of the “unified” Church to disregard Church teaching.

 

[Ender]

On the other thread on dp on this thread people were squaring off on whether John Paul II meant to teach that it is doctrine that the death penalty can only be used for self-defense, or whether he was speaking just for the modern situation. That is, John Paul II was speaking prudentially not only when he specifically said he was, but even when he did not. Before the thread closed I did get a chance to finish my discussion with Ender,

But how then do we know other Church moral teachings are not prudential-situational?

Distinguish between a doctrine and the application of that doctrine. Any teachings on the application - asserting that option A is better than option B - would be prudential. Regarding capital punishment, the doctrine is unchanged: the State has the moral right to employ the death penalty for serious crimes. JPII did not alter that teaching. What I believe he said is that not using it (option A) is preferable to using it (option B). That is why his comments were prudential.

We may well encounter something very similar from Pope Francis if he releases an encyclical on global warming. The doctrine is that we are to be good stewards of the environment. Application of that doctrine may lead him to declare that the theory of AGW is valid and we are to act accordingly. That would clearly be a prudential statement, not a doctrinal one.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

Regarding capital punishment, the doctrine is unchanged: the State has the moral right to employ the death penalty for serious crimes. JPII did not alter that teaching.

Does the state have the moral right to use any form of capital punishment or are there restrictions on what forms are morally acceptable. For example hanging, burning alive at the stake, beheading, dragging the person along a street with a chain at the end of a truck, etc.

 

[Ender]

Does the state have the moral right to use any form of capital punishment or are there restrictions on what forms are morally acceptable. For example hanging, burning alive at the stake, beheading, dragging the person along a street with a chain at the end of a truck, etc.

Of course there are restrictions. They are governed by other doctrines, e.g. the prohibition against torture. We may also kill in a just war, but there are restrictions on that right as well. We are given free will, but again…with restrictions as to how it is to be used.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

Of course there are restrictions. They are governed by other doctrines, e.g. the prohibition against torture. We may also kill in a just war, but there are restrictions on that right as well. We are given free will, but again…with restrictions as to how it is to be used.

Ender

Does the state have the moral right to burn a criminal at the stake?

 

[Ender]

Does the state have the moral right to burn a criminal at the stake?

Where are you going with this? The right to execute is not a right to use any and all means to achieve that end. This is true of everything: the right to free speech does not confer on us the right to libel and slander someone else.

Ender

 

[Ignatius]

Ithe RCC has indicated that it desires union with the Eastern Orthodox Church which allows ABC under certain conditions.

First, not all Orthodox Churches permit Artificial Birth Control, Second, there are a number of issues that need to be worked out prior to reunification. Reunion with the Anglican Communion was anticipated not long ago. Sadly, it seems that things are going in the opposite direction.

 

[Ignatius]

Of course there are restrictions. They are governed by other doctrines, e.g. the prohibition against torture. We may also kill in a just war, but there are restrictions on that right as well. We are given free will, but again…with restrictions as to how it is to be used.

Ender

These things are all clearly delineated in The Catechism. Can somebody please give Tom a Catechism?

Sure, here you go: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm