L
lil_user
Guest
Not the opposite. That would be impossible.
Something may not be intrinsically evil but today may be called inadmissible. The Church has this authority.
- Status
Something may not be intrinsically evil but today may be called inadmissible. The Church has this authority.
L
lil_user
Guest
Last edited:
L
lil_user
Guest
The Church explained its reasons in the Catechism and elsewhere, as quoted here.
Also the Church never said capital punishment is good or necessary. Allowed when necessary, yes.
Some examples? Augustine speaks of God’s authorized killing or limited time commission. Aquinas states someone’s life may be an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society, and he’d agree that if they can be removed without killing them, or even rehabilitated, that would be better.
Trent taught lawful slaying was allowed to repress outrage and violence. Would you argue that Napoleon was in the right when he turned the cannons on the crowd? What about Tian An Men square? We need to read things in the light of the Gospel.
John Paul II wrote very well:
Also the Church never said capital punishment is good or necessary. Allowed when necessary, yes.
Some examples? Augustine speaks of God’s authorized killing or limited time commission. Aquinas states someone’s life may be an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society, and he’d agree that if they can be removed without killing them, or even rehabilitated, that would be better.
Trent taught lawful slaying was allowed to repress outrage and violence. Would you argue that Napoleon was in the right when he turned the cannons on the crowd? What about Tian An Men square? We need to read things in the light of the Gospel.
John Paul II wrote very well:
Last edited:
K
Kima
Guest
All doctrine is originating from somewhere. A lot is based on the Scripture, and on the Tradition. Tradition also consists of literature from the Saints, the works of great Church doctors such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Catherine of Siena, etc.
As an example St. Augustine were not a part of the magisterium, but he made a part of the foundation of western Christianity and its moral theology. The fact that he is not a part of the magisterium doesn´t make his philosophy less interesting. Per se, it is the magisterium that declares doctrine, but the teachings they declare doesn´t necessarily come from them.
Per se, he has officially changed the Church´s view on death penalty in the Catechism. I think that´s pretty intense.
K
Kima
Guest
It was accepted by the Church for hundreds of years, but then Pope Francis decided to change it in the Cathechism to what you state, he did this, this year. THIS YEAR. That is basically contradicting former doctrine, which is not okay. And he didn´t even do this ex-cathetra!! That means he has basically made his own personal opinion doctrine…
K
Kima
Guest
Because in some cases, very few, it´s actually legitimate. In most cases it´s not, of course. But why should we spend our tax money on caring for people who have done terrible things (like murder, child abuse, etc.) and don´t regret it at all? Do they deserve our money more than the children that starve to death in many places in Africa? We could help so many and change so many lives with that money! It´s not justice to pay for the daily bread of murderers instead of the poor and innocent children. Because as a matter of fact it is either or.
Last edited:
K
Kima
Guest
And how is that humane? That´s worse.
Also, those prisoners that we speak about are dangerous. We can´t let them out.
Also, those prisoners that we speak about are dangerous. We can´t let them out.
Last edited:
I work in care. Many times I work 16 hours per day without a break, that is life.
M
Maximus1
Guest
And let’s not forget the catechism. Today.
N
nfinke
Guest
This is what I specifically draw issue with.
They worded this as if the morality of sentencing someone to death has suddenly come to light. there is an “increasing awareness”? what is that supposed to mean? The Catholic Church for 2000 years, with tradition that is supposed to be divinely guided and inspired, just had an insufficient awareness of human dignity that is only complete now in 2019? Did God Himself need an increased awareness of human dignity when He said over and over again in the OT that murderers need to pay with their lives for destroying something He made in His own image?
T
TK421
Guest
It seems you don’t agree with the Pope / bishops’ views and you’re making more out of the issue than necessary.
The Catechism isn’t the Bible. It’s a teaching compendium published by the Congregation on the Doctrine of Faith. It has been revised before and it is going to be revised again.
Capital punishment is a civil law and the Church and bishops have had all sorts of views on civil law throughout history. We used to burn heretics because they were a precursor to rebellion and war, and protestants used to do the same thing. There used to be a system of indentured servitude in the Roman world. The Church used to openly support monarchs, and it still cooperates with monarchs in some places, but it also mostly works with democracies. I could keep going and going.
Capital punishment isn’t a dogmatic part of the faith the way something like the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union or the Eucharist or Holy Orders or Apostolic Succession are, and you know that. If evolving views of capital punishment constitutes abandoning doctrine then I guess we’ve already abandoned all sorts of “doctrines”. I guess that means the protestants were right all along: the Church does not have authority.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
The short answer is yes. The theological basis has to do with restoration from the fall which manifests in a change in consciousness.
Biblically, you see it in the discourse and Jesus teaching on divorce. The idea of the Mosaic law WHEN MANS HEARTS WERE HARD.
Biblically, you see it in the discourse and Jesus teaching on divorce. The idea of the Mosaic law WHEN MANS HEARTS WERE HARD.
T
TK421
Guest
Correct. Even within the books of scared scripture we see a development of teaching. This is the Holy Spirit in the present moment laboring to make society more Christlike before the Paraousia.
Last edited:
A
Anrakyr
Guest
In order for a mortal sin to be mortal; a sin is grave, you have to know a sin is grave but you do it anyway.
Article 1859 of The Catechism Of The Catholic Church.
If any of those is not met it’s not a mortal sin.
Period.
Article 1859 of The Catechism Of The Catholic Church.
If any of those is not met it’s not a mortal sin.
Period.
S
steph03
Guest
K
Kima
Guest
I´m not saying you´re obligated, but it´s as a matter of fact doctrine. It´s importance are to be question as this is more than anything a matter of politics. That´s why I believe it can´t be right that death penalty is intristically evil, like Pope Francis describes it. It breaks all ties to traditional doctrine on the topic.
However, feel free to think whatever you want about it, but for the record there aren´t any doctrinal reasons for being against it. I´m not very for death penalty either, but I accept the traditional way of seeing it, no matter if I agree or not
M
Maelstrom1
Guest
Most of the issues exist due to confused and irrational teachings from the Vatican. Many people would oppose the death penalty if a sentence of life without parole was available. But…“If you close hope in a cell, there is no future for society,” And so for a life sentence we have, “Never deprive one of the right to start over.” Of course a life sentence is almost never life but…So if we have a prisoner who has killed a fellow inmate or a guard and may well kill again we have this option: "In addition, Francis said isolation in so-called “supermax” prisons, which are sometimes used for convicted terrorists or the most dangerous criminals, can be “a form of torture.” That’s because such treatment can lead to “psychic and physical sufferings such as paranoia, anxiety, depression, and weight loss and a significantly increased chance of suicide.” And a writer to the Jesuit Magazine “America” offered this opinion: I pardoned a convict who killed again. Here’s why I still believe in mercy. | America Magazine. So it is not that people are somehow relishing a death penalty as much as church leadership does not believe at all in the right nor the capability of society to protect itself from violent criminals. Any form of deterrence is a punishment devoid of forgiveness and thus to be avoided. It is the Christian life as pure theory and theory only.
L
lil_user
Guest
He’s the Holy Father, it’s within his authority to do so, and we are supposed to listen when he exercises his prerogatives on matters of faith and morals. And like I said, the change bears no contradiction. It’s just a change of perspective. What worked before no longer is necessary now.
This kind of thinking says one would rather have the State kill someone than allocate State resources for the good of the State. Not pointing fingers at anyone here, just curious. Is it because killing is cheaper? Because it is the Gospel approach to the issue?
That today we’re less likely to butcher people on the public square.
It seems so, given that His Son addressed this same issue in a different way when presented before a case where the death penalty applied.
Where did he say this? The Catechism speaks of inadmissible, not intrinsically evil. If as a private person the Holy Father said that, it was likely a slip of the tongue.
Last edited:
- Status