Confused about 'Theology of the Body'

[Corki]

Right then next question: Would then be incorrect to say that one can believe the death penalty is acceptable while remaining in union with Rome?

And if not, then what is the difference between this and the TOB? I have read in an official Catholic voter’s guide that one doesn’t need to agree with the Church opinion on the death penalty, and unless I am missing something there is no difference between the John Paul II’s teaching (or re-statement I suppose, since there seems to be much disagreement above on this point) of the TOB and his teaching/statement on the death penalty.

No,it would not be correct to say that you could disagree with the Church’s teaching on the death penalty and remain in good standing. But you mistate the Church’s teaching (the Church, by the way, doens’t offer opinions). The Church teaches that CP is allowable by a government if necessary to safeguard the people. But, in this modern age, it should be unneccesssary or extremely rare. So, if you said that, no, you belived it needed to be expanded to include executions for many more minor offenses, you would be out of step with the Church. The tricky part is what is “rare”. This is where there can be differences of opinion by different Catholic individuals.

JPII was of the strong opinion that the executions weren’t rare enough. You can agree or disagree with him on that.

I am not sure what Voter’s guide you are referring to. The one most people here know is the Voter’s guide for serious Catholics. It does NOT say that you do not have to agree with the Church on the death penalty. It says you are free to disagree with the government (or with other Catholics) on whether the death penalty is needed in your own country, how often and how it is carried out.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Right then next question: Would then be incorrect to say that one can believe the death penalty is acceptable while remaining in union with Rome?

And if not, then what is the difference between this and the TOB? I have read in an official Catholic voter’s guide that one doesn’t need to agree with the Church opinion on the death penalty, and unless I am missing something there is no difference between the John Paul II’s teaching (or re-statement I suppose, since there seems to be much disagreement above on this point) of the TOB and his teaching/statement on the death penalty.

On the death penalty… from this section of the Catechism…

2267
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."68

I’m not sure what voter’s guide you were referring to, or how it relates to TOB… ???

Hope that helps answer your question???

 

[jwashu]

No, it is not correct. It’s a good thing you added the question mark or it would have been a slanderous statement against the Bishops.

What is true:

40 years ago, when Humanae Vitae came out, there were a number of Canadian Bishops who signed a letter of dissent from the teaching. I doubt any of those Bishops are still active so making your statement in the present tense makes it doubly wrong. They were corrected for their error but even then, no Bishop that I know of and certainly no whole nation of Bishops has taught that contraception is allowable.

Many American priests signed a similar statement. It was a sad time for the Church. Some individual’s, for reasons only God truly knows, “leaked” information that the Pope was going to allow contraception by married couples. Although this was untrue, it would have made many confessors’ lives easier. When HV was actually released the misled clerics were understandably unhappy.

The only current dissenting “official” voices of the Church have been those discussing the use of condoms when one spouse has AIDS. There is a theological/philosophical debate as to whether such use would fall under the principle of double effect. Some of those who take the “yes” position have been Bishops. But even under this discussion, it is the use of condoms for protection against a disease and not contraception that is thought to be possbly allowable.

Thank you for the information, there was another thread here were some Canadian Bishops were quoted… and that people for an entire generation never knew it was wrong until they came here to CA… I’ll try to find the post but what you said makes complete sense. Thank you for the correction!

Joe

 

[Corki]

Thank you for the information, there was another thread here were some Canadian Bishops were quoted… and that people for an entire generation never knew it was wrong until they came here to CA… I’ll try to find the post but what you said makes complete sense. Thank you for the correction!

Joe

Not being catechized about contraception isn’t the same as being told it’s “ok”.

I got married in the early 90s and contraception was not covered in my pre-cana program. I had the typical wishy-washy kum-bay-ya catechesis in the 70s. I knew that contraception was not “approved” by the Church but never considered it a sin. Boy was I surprized when I decided to read some catechetical material. But even in those days, I don’t think the Bishop would have said it was “ok”. (this was the US, not Canada).

 

[SeekingHoliness]

Thanks for asking this question, Muffinmojo. I also have been confused about how you figure out whether something is binding or not. It was good to learn from PJM and Other Eric about the difference between something being infallible versus being binding (although not necesarily infallible). And more importantly, that the teachings PJPII was providing arguments for were indeed infallible. It’s just the arguments themselves that are only considered the pope’s opinion. This is very enlightening for me!

It seems like just the other day that my husband was questioning why Catholics should obey the Wednesday teachings on TOB from PJPII if he wasn’t speaking ex cathedra when he taught them. I don’t think was able to reply with anything intelligent! Maybe if it comes up again, I will actually be able to express something that makes sense

 

[PJM]

Thanks for asking this question, Muffinmojo. I also have been confused about how you figure out whether something is binding or not. It was good to learn from PJM and Other Eric about the difference between something being infallible versus being binding (although not necesarily infallible). And more importantly, that the teachings PJPII was providing arguments for were indeed infallible. It’s just the arguments themselves that are only considered the pope’s opinion. This is very enlightening for me!

It seems like just the other day that my husband was questioning why Catholics should obey the Wednesday teachings on TOB from PJPII if he wasn’t speaking ex cathedra when he taught them. I don’t think was able to reply with anything intelligent! Maybe if it comes up again, I will actually be able to express something that makes sense

Reply:
Thanks for actually listening

May God fill your home with Love, with Joy and with peace!

God bless you both:thumbsup:

PJM m.c.