“A prudential judgement is not the same as a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium.”
Please show me where the specific guidelines show this. The Catechism articles you pointed out do not lead to this conclusion.
“Do you really think Cardinal Dulles was confused on this fairly elementary point?”
When contacted by ZENIT, Cardinal Dulles clarified his position in his April article.
“In my First Things article of April 2001 and several subsequent talks,” said the theologian, “I have made two principal points: first, that the death penalty is not a violation of the right to life of a person who has committed a deliberate and heinous crime; second, that, given the current situation in countries like the United States, it is generally undesirable to impose the death penalty. The first of these theses is a reaffirmation of Scripture and long-standing tradition; the second is a prudential application of the principles, dependent on contingent circumstances,” the cardinal stated. “Pope John Paul II and the bishops, in my opinion, have never said that the death penalty is unjust in principle or that it is a violation of the criminal´s right to life," he said. “But it is their considered opinion that the death penalty should be applied only in rare and extreme cases.” “I support their judgment for a variety of reasons which I have spelled out elsewhere,” Cardinal Dulles added. “Among them would be the likelihood of miscarriages of justice, the difficulty of assessing the personal guilt of the offender, and the danger of fostering a mentality of vindictiveness, which would be contrary to the teaching of the Gospel.” “They also fear that the frequent use of the death penalty may lead to disregard for the value of human life. If the Pope and the bishops were denying that the state ever had the right to inflict the death penalty, they would be outside the Catholic mainstream, but I do not understand them as doing so.”
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=23852
…
“Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. (Karl Keatin, 2004)”
Theologians, insofar as they are theologians, are not pastors in the Church. When they instruct the faithful that the teachings of those who are pastors in the Church (the pope and bishops) are false and that the faithful can put those teachings aside and put in their place their own theological opinions, they are harming the Church and arrogantly assuming for themselves the pastoral role of pope and bishops.
“At what level do you need it confirmed that a prudential opinion is not the same as a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium?”
On the level of evidence.
“This makes the point: the argument you make is that capital punishment is immoral because This is why there is no Church teaching involved here - the Church’s moral laws are not determined by statistical analysis.”
Again, this is not my argument. I am saying that they have instructed us, quite clearly, that in the case of the United States at this point in time it is not justified. Just as in the cases of some wars. Would you argue that the Church cannot make judgments about the morality of certain wars, and that our consciences are all free to support or not support any military action (no matter how clearly just or unjust it may be)? If you are not saying this then you are saying that, while fighting a war can never be said to be inherently evil, fighting certain wars is immoral. That is the case here.
“What is being said here is not that capital punishment is now immoral but that it does more harm than good. That is a prudential evaluation of the effects of its use; it is not a doctrinal teaching on its morality.”
You are arguing against something I am not saying. I am saying the death penalty, as Cardinal Dulles points out above, cannot be said to be always and everywhere immoral on the level of abortion. However, the hierarchy has repeated as nauseum their opinion, and as the original post pointed out:
The magisterium, moreover, is an authoritative teacher of Catholic faith and morals when it exercises its teaching authority in a manner that is not clearly intended to be infallible. When the bishops teach on matters of faith and morals in their capacity as bishops, they “speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (obsequium religiosum) of soul. This religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will”
…
“Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report on Recidivism of Prisoners released in 1994.”
You are creating a false dichotomy here by saying that, instead of putting these women and men to death, that we would release them back into society. This is clearly not what the Church hierarchy is proposing.
“Stubbornness, hypocrisy, and not courageous are not generally understood as positive values.”
These are not insults; they are observations of character. Unless you are saying Jesus is insulting his flock by calling out their sinful actions.
“What you refuse to acknowledge is that a prudential judgment is not an ordinary teaching and, as Cardinal Dulles and others have pointed out, does not require our assent.”
You haven’t dissected where the line is, so as of now you are in complete contradiction with the original posts conclusions. This is fine, but point out the illogic in those statements: otherwise your argument remains fractured and illogical.
