Death penalty question

[LongingSoul]

Lay people shouldn’t be rash, but they have minds and souls as well

We are obligated to assent to the doctrines of the church, both infallible and ordinary. We are not obligated to assent to the prudential judgments of anyone, even of popes, although we must give them serious consideration. It is a mistake to believe that everything a pope says is necessarily true. The charism of infallibility is actually quite limited and certainly doesn’t apply to their everyday pronouncements. Nor is it true that popes get to create or change doctrines as they choose; that is not the authority that has been given them.

This whole idea that the Church has no real authority to navigate through the times but is simply in charge of a vessel that is permanently on autopilot, is a scary proposition to me. If a pilot sets the flight coordinates to the same settings that were used by pilots 50 years ago without any consideration of weather conditions, increased flight traffic or changes in technology, his trip is surely doomed. The pilot is a vital and active component of the craft responsible for the passengers safety and confidence in his leadership. To disagree with his so called ‘prudential judgements’ in this task requires some sort of proper expertise and genunine regard for the welfare of the passengers… not someone who just thinks they know it all via googling.

We should certainly adhere to the ones He gave Noah as that covenant is still in force. And how about addressing the points I raised in post #128?

Ender

I’ve addressed the same thing over and over. My position is one with the Church and comes from consistently orienting my perspective to Church teaching throughout my lifetime. It comes from far more than a legalistic interpretation of the bible and it comes from more than blind subservience to the seat of Peter.

It seems our primary disagreement here is over the meaning of the phrase “redress the disorder.” We should at least be able to agree that this is the primary objective of punishment since the catechism explicitly states this.

You have argued that “‘Redressing the disorder’ means fixing the mess caused to the relationship between men by the crime.” (Post #118) Dulles stated that punishment has four objectives. Is it your position that “redressing the disorder” includes all four separate objectives and does not refer to any one of them in particular?

Yes, that is my position. It would be the same as saying that the primary scope of medicine is to redress the order of the body. The objectives are to cure disease, to prevent further disease, change the lifestyle and achieve balance between pleasure and health. Like the principle of ‘retribution’, balance in health is something plastic. The principle is sound but it defies a static definition. We cannot say that death is the definitive cure for murder any more than we can state that amputation is the definitive cure for infection. Cardinal Dulles qualifies his description of the objective of retribution very clearly…

Retribution. **In principle, **guilt calls for punishment. The graver the offense, the more severe the punishment ought to be. In Holy Scripture, as we have seen, death is regarded as the appropriate punishment for serious transgressions. Thomas Aquinas held that sin calls for the deprivation of some good, such as, in serious cases, the good of temporal or even eternal life. By consenting to the punishment of death, the wrongdoer is placed in a position to expiate his evil deeds and escape punishment in the next life. After noting this, St. Thomas adds that even if the malefactor is not repentant, he is benefited by being prevented from committing more sins. Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

Thomas Aquinas says pretty much the same thing…

All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others

.

The punishment of death in human justice is not justified by the perfect justice God is capable of redressing… but is justified by how the crime affects the community around the offender. ‘The grave undoing of others’. Crime differs from sin in that it relates to the community of men. The common good. Human justice has as its goal and final end… the common good. Aquinas again…

… continued

 

[LongingSoul]

As stated above (Article 1), the law belongs to that which is a principle of human acts, because it is their rule and measure. Now as reason is a principle of human acts, so in reason itself there is something which is the principle in respect of all the rest: wherefore to this principle chiefly and mainly law must needs be referred. Now the first principle in practical matters, which are the object of the practical reason, is the last end: and the last end of human life is bliss or happiness, as stated above (2, 7; 3, 1). Consequently the law must needs regard principally the relationship to happiness. Moreover, since every part is ordained to the whole, as imperfect to perfect; and since one man is a part of the perfect community, the law must needs regard properly the relationship to universal happiness. Wherefore the Philosopher, in the above definition of legal matters mentions both happiness and the body politic: for he says (Ethic. v, 1) that we call those legal matters “just, which are adapted to produce and preserve happiness and its parts for the body politic”: since the state is a perfect community, as he says in Polit. i, 1.

Now in every genus, that which belongs to it chiefly is the principle of the others, and the others belong to that genus in subordination to that thing: thus fire, which is chief among hot things, is the cause of heat in mixed bodies, and these are said to be hot in so far as they have a share of fire. Consequently, since the law is chiefly ordained to the common good, any other precept in regard to some individual work, must needs be devoid of the nature of a law, save in so far as it regards the common good. Therefore every law is ordained to the common good.

Reply to Objection 1. A command denotes an application of a law to matters regulated by the law. Now the order to the common good, at which the law aims, is applicable to particular ends. And in this way commands are given even concerning particular matters.

Reply to Objection 2. Actions are indeed concerned with particular matters: but those particular matters are referable to the common good, not as to a common genus or species, but as to a common final cause, according as the common good is said to be the common end.

Reply to Objection 3. Just as nothing stands firm with regard to the speculative reason except that which is traced back to the first indemonstrable principles, so nothing stands firm with regard to the practical reason, unless it be directed to the last end which is the common good: and whatever stands to reason in this sense, has the nature of a law.

Here is my position: “redressing the disorder” means retribution and the objectives of punishment are properly listed as having the aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense, of defending public order and people’s safety, and contributing to the correction of the guilty party.

I suggest that you have made up an order and rewritten Church teaching to support that, in a sort of begging the question fallacy.

 

[Elizium23]

This whole idea that the Church has no real authority to navigate through the times but is simply in charge of a vessel that is permanently on autopilot, is a scary proposition to me. If a pilot sets the flight coordinates to the same settings that were used by pilots 50 years ago without any consideration of weather conditions, increased flight traffic or changes in technology, his trip is surely doomed. The pilot is a vital and active component of the craft responsible for the passengers safety and confidence in his leadership. To disagree with his so called ‘prudential judgements’ in this task requires some sort of proper expertise and genunine regard for the welfare of the passengers… not someone who just thinks they know it all via googling.

This is a strawman that you have designed. Nobody has said the Church is on autopilot. Nobody has said that the Popes cannot respond to the changing times. But people are putting words and concepts and powers into the mouths of the recent Popes that were never there to begin with. thinkandmull keeps insisting that St. John Paul the Great’s declarations on Capital Punishment are doctrinal. They are prudential. Catholics and non-Catholics alike want to take certain of a Pope’s words as Gospel truth, as solid dogma, as absolute truth, when there is a whole mountain of other words that are ignored, disregarded, and ultimately discarded onto the ash heap of history.

If the Pope didn’t have the need or ability to respond to the changing times then an Ecumenical Council would never be called. Synods would never be convened, ad limina visits would be superfluous. The reality is that Popes often respond too-vigorously to the changing times. Along with other bishops. Currently in the USA, the USCCB is pushing for comprehensive immigration reform. While as a former liberal I can see the wisdom in some kind of immigration reform, I can’t envision it being good for the Church if liberals are given free rein to enact it, much like ObamaCare turned out after the USCCB pushed for that. Sometimes we need to stand up and respectfully disregard what the Pope or bishops are telling us to do; not when it is a matter of infallible faith and morals, but when it is a matter of prudential judgement then we have the sensus fidelium and the prerogative to act. It is the primary duty of the laity, not the clergy, to intervene in the political sphere.

I am not saying that we should rise up and canvass the populace for a return to the gallows and firing squad, and I am definitely not saying that the Popes or bishops are wrong in opposing the death penalty in this place and time. But I am saying, please stop muddling the issue and claiming that doctrine has changed when it has not.

 

[LongingSoul]

This is a strawman that you have designed. Nobody has said the Church is on autopilot. Nobody has said that the Popes cannot respond to the changing times. But people are putting words and concepts and powers into the mouths of the recent Popes that were never there to begin with. thinkandmull keeps insisting that St. John Paul the Great’s declarations on Capital Punishment are doctrinal. They are prudential. Catholics and non-Catholics alike want to take certain of a Pope’s words as Gospel truth, as solid dogma, as absolute truth, when there is a whole mountain of other words that are ignored, disregarded, and ultimately discarded onto the ash heap of history.

The big change that I’ve observed over my 52 years of catholicism, is a movement away from the maternal or parental model that has always defined our relationship with the Church. Even dissenters in the past perceived themselves as bucking against a ‘parent/mother’ they felt was too strict or too controlling. We now have a type of dissenter that negates that model altogether and I believe it is through a type of pride that afflicted dissenters like Luther.

St JPII’s teaching on capital punishment is doctrinal in so far as it is included in Catechism which “aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition.”

We can have ultimate faith that if we pick up the Catechism, we are presented with the official Catholic position on any subject.

If the Pope didn’t have the need or ability to respond to the changing times then an Ecumenical Council would never be called. Synods would never be convened, ad limina visits would be superfluous. The reality is that Popes often respond too-vigorously to the changing times. Along with other bishops. Currently in the USA, the USCCB is pushing for comprehensive immigration reform. While as a former liberal I can see the wisdom in some kind of immigration reform, I can’t envision it being good for the Church if liberals are given free rein to enact it, much like ObamaCare turned out after the USCCB pushed for that. Sometimes we need to stand up and respectfully disregard what the Pope or bishops are telling us to do; not when it is a matter of infallible faith and morals, but when it is a matter of prudential judgement then we have the sensus fidelium and the prerogative to act. It is the primary duty of the laity, not the clergy, to intervene in the political sphere.

If you are suggesting that the position on capital punishment presented in the catechism is a rash overly liberal position… you’d be wrong. Around the Christian world, conservatives of every shape and colour, have adopted a growing opposition to the death penalty. US conservative Christians are not the same as conservative Christians around the rest of the world so when you speak of the ‘sensus fidelium’ as only the voice of US conservative Christians… it is a very insular concept.

I am not saying that we should rise up and canvass the populace for a return to the gallows and firing squad, and I am definitely not saying that the Popes or bishops are wrong in opposing the death penalty in this place and time. But I am saying, please stop muddling the issue and claiming that doctrine has changed when it has not.

Your interpretation of my support for the Catechism teaching as ‘changing doctrine’ is only the fallback because you perhaps don’t believe in the natural development of our human understanding of the unchanging doctrine of the Church?

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

Is it your position that “redressing the disorder” includes all four separate objectives and does not refer to any one of them in particular?

LongingSoul:

Yes, that is my position.

Ender:

Here is my position: “redressing the disorder” means retribution and the objectives of punishment are properly listed as having** the aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense, of defending public order and people’s safety, and contributing to the correction of the guilty party.**

I suggest that you have made up an order and rewritten Church teaching to support that, in a sort of begging the question fallacy.

I think this is now as plain as we can make it, so let me restate “my” position, the one you rejected as invented by me.468. What is the purpose of punishment?
2266
A punishment imposed by legitimate public authority has** the aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense, of defending public order and people’s safety, and contributing to the correction of the guilty party.**
(Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I think this is now as plain as we can make it, so let me restate “my” position, the one you rejected as invented by me.468. What is the purpose of punishment?
2266
A punishment imposed by legitimate public authority has** the aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense, of defending public order and people’s safety, and contributing to the correction of the guilty party.**
(Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Where does it say ““redressing the disorder” means retribution”? This is what you are continually trying to assert without any basis in Catholic teaching. What the Church is clearly teaching us through the Catechism is that the order is restored by punishment appropriate for the crime but without going to the lengths of taking life if that is not necessary for public protection. An eye for an eye has proven itself to be a limited and incomplete way of redressing the disorder, hence ‘retribution’ as we know it is only of symbolic merit in human justice. (as per Cardinal Dulles essay). Today, redressing the disorder means restoring the wholeness of the body to the best of our capacities.

Your obsession with lists and chronological orders is coming from your own confusion and misunderstanding of the issue.

 

[LongingSoul]

It’s a poignant moment to focus on the purposes of punishment in Australia today with the execution of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukamarun in Indonesia five hours ago. Hopefully they will be remembered as examples of the restorative capacity of punishment… despite the cruel and unnecessary execution.

 

[Ender]

Where does it say ““redressing the disorder” means retribution”? This is what you are continually trying to assert without any basis in Catholic teaching.

Catechism section 2266, as explained in section 468 of the Compendium, lists three aims of punishment:

• redressing the disorder introduced by the offense
• defending public order and people’s safety
• contributing to the correction of the guilty party.

If you consider deterrence a means of defending public order you will have the same four objectives that Dulles listed: defense, deterrence, rehabilitation…and retribution.

The USCCB presented a similar list:*The three justifications traditionally advanced for punishment in general are retribution, deterrence, and reform. *
Again, considering defense and deterrence as two sides of the same coin, their list is identical to those of Dulles and the Compendium. Everyone but you recognizes that retribution and “redressing the disorder” mean the same thing.

What the Church is clearly teaching us through the Catechism is that the order is restored by punishment appropriate for the crime but without going to the lengths of taking life if that is not necessary for public protection.

If you don’t understand the meaning of the terms involved you won’t understand what is being taught.

An eye for an eye has proven itself to be a limited and incomplete way of redressing the disorder, hence ‘retribution’ as we know it is only of symbolic merit in human justice. (as per Cardinal Dulles essay).

Human retribution is symbolic of God’s final justice, but that absolutely does not mean it has only symbolic merit in human justice, unless you consider justice itself as merely symbolic. That was certainly not Dulles’ point.

Today, redressing the disorder means restoring the wholeness of the body to the best of our capacities.

This is absolutely false and I am astonished that even you can continue to push this nonsense after it has been shown to be completely wrong. You combined all of the separate objectives of punishment into one ball called “redressing the disorder” and rejected “my” description that distinguished that objective from the others. Yet even after showing you that it was not me but the Compendium that listed redressing the disorder as an objective separate from the others you continue to ignore the truth. You rejected the explanation given by the Compendium. Does that mean nothing at all to you?

Your obsession with lists and chronological orders is coming from your own confusion and misunderstanding of the issue.

Since nothing you say can be supported by any citation whatever it is hardly surprising you dismiss the citations I provide.*USCCB: The three justifications traditionally advanced for punishment in general are **retribution, deterrence, *and reform.

*Dulles: Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: **rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, *and retribution.

*Compendium: A punishment imposed by legitimate public authority has the aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense, of defending public order and people’s safety, and contributing to the **correction **of the guilty party.
*Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The irony of all this is that it is you that is here calling out the Church, criticising the Popes and the Catechism for not being correct and constantly undermining the authority of the Popes to guide the faithful. The Church is unequivocally opposed to the death penalty today and her calls for its abolition are not ‘opinions’. I unlike yourself, believe in the Church’s teachings without exception or doubt.

Now, I’m done with discussing this issue with you. It’s fruitless and pointless and gives you too much opportunity to continue to spread rubbish and undermine Church teaching.

 

[Ender]

The irony of all this is that it is you that is here calling out the Church, criticising the Popes and the Catechism for not being correct and constantly undermining the authority of the Popes to guide the faithful.

You were the one who explicitly rejected the what the church teaches. The fact that you thought it was just my opinion doesn’t change that. Since I am the one who has persistently cited the church it can hardly be true that I am “calling her out”.

The Church is unequivocally opposed to the death penalty today and her calls for its abolition are not ‘opinions’.

Cardinal Dulles and a whole lot of others believe they are prudential judgments, and a strong case can be made that Cardinal Ratzinger belongs in that group.

I unlike yourself, believe in the Church’s teachings without exception or doubt.

I accept the doctrines of the church. The opinions of the clergy, not so much.

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

This is incorrect. It is true that not all of the Mosaic Code is relevant to us today, but Gn 9:5-6 is part of God’s covenant with Noah, and that will be applicable forever.The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel. (CCC 58)
The caveat that prisoners could not be executed unless they were still dangerous was quite simply never a part of the doctrine. It was never explicitly stated that way because it was never considered relevant, just as the church never taught that a person had to be at least 18 to be executed. Neither restriction has ever been expressed (before 1995).
Your jibe at Ferrera is unwarranted; you have no idea what he believes, but surely it is not something as silly as you suggest. On this issue, however, he would have the stronger position.There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. (Fr. John Hardon)
And God said it is because of the victim’s dignity that the criminal should be put to death. Furthermore, the common good cannot be reduced solely to physical protection, nor is protection the most important concern.‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’. (Pius XII)
Protection is not a higher good than justice.
Insulting those who agree with the traditional teaching of the church is not much of an argument.
His teaching is almost surely prudential, not doctrinal.
Get it changed? Are the doctrines of the church so tenuous that swinging from yes to no and back again would be acceptable? You can see (especially) with the Anglican church the effect of abandoning their doctrines and changing with the times. A church that behaves that way is an irrelevancy.

Ender

You keep saying that John Paul II was speaking prudentially, but he gave a natural law reason for the restriction on the death penalty to cases of self-protection. As for Chris Ferrara, he dissents from post Pius XII teachings because he believes things said by Leo XIII, interpreted by him, are infallible, although they are not. Nor is Fr Hardon infallible. If every bishop in the world, with the Pope, teach something and each made it clear that they meant it to be infallible, that would be infallible, although they are not in the same place (“in Council”). We are still in the covenant of Noah, and Abraham, but we don’t religiously circumcise, no is it definite that the Bible says murderers should be killed by natural law. “God said it is because of the victim’s dignity that the criminal should be put to death”. That is the reason God gave the direct command that that era, ye.

 

[Ender]

You keep saying that John Paul II was speaking prudentially, but he gave a natural law reason for the restriction on the death penalty to cases of self-protection.

What was that reason: man’s dignity?

As for Chris Ferrara, he dissents from post Pius XII teachings because he believes things said by Leo XIII, interpreted by him, are infallible, although they are not.

There is reason to believe that the church’s teaching on capital punishment in fact is infallible (taught infallibly, not proclaimed), but there was nothing whatever in Ferrara’s statement that justifies your claim. You should also consider the dichotomy of your position in describing the church as having a pre and post Pius XII position on capital punishment. Are church doctrines so malleable they can be set or reversed whenever a pope decides to do it?

If every bishop in the world, with the Pope, teach something and each made it clear that they meant it to be infallible, that would be infallible, although they are not in the same place (“in Council”).

Actually, this is the case with regard to capital punishment. Moreover, it was done in council (Trent). This is exactly what Fr. Hardon claimed.*There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. *
If you think his claim is inaccurate then try to dispute it.

“God said it is because of the victim’s dignity that the criminal should be put to death”. That is the reason God gave the direct command that that era, yes.

Has man’s dignity changed since then? Is a man’s life more or less sacred now than it was before? If man’s dignity has not changed then on what basis can we say that the law that applied then, which was based on the sacredness of human life, does not apply now?

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

God can make a law and then change it. Has food changed? The Jews once has dietary laws. Also, something non-infallible can always be changed. To say something is infallible without it being proclaimed is a contradiction. For certainty on a question, it must be explicit from all the bishops that the world that they meant it to be infallible. Fr Hardon’s opinion is not grounded. People throughout history have claimed the Church’s “implicit consent” to something or other.

 

[thinkandmull]

Chris Ferrara co-wrote a book protesting the doctrines of Vatican II.

Also, you have only quoted the Catechism of Trent, which wasn’t from Trent at all, but was written by theologians and approved by the Pope apart from the Council. It has not been proven to be infallible

government “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.”

How can you say this part is not doctrinal.

Not that I am supporting it

 

[Rau]

government “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.”

How can you say this part is not doctrinal.

Not that I am supporting it

The CCC actually says:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

*2267Assuming 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 to 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 definitely 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*

The first para appears to me to be expressed as doctrine. It declares the better path in given circumstances. [Ender argues no such doctrine has been expressed in this way in the past.]

The second paragraph appears to be judgement. The reference to “today” suggests to me the position could be different at a different time. A statement about “today” surely has to be a judgement. The expression “are very rare” surely must be a judgement - suggesting that they probably arise in some place in some cases (few though they be).

 

[Ender]

God can make a law and then change it.

That is not what the church teaches.CCC 1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;

Has food changed? The Jews once has dietary laws.

The church has never put dietary laws in the same category as natural laws.

Also, something non-infallible can always be changed.

To an extent this is true; otherwise they would be infallible, but this is far from common, and the longer and more universally something has been taught the less likely it is to ever be changed.

To say something is infallible without it being proclaimed is a contradiction. For certainty on a question, it must be explicit from all the bishops that the world that they meant it to be infallible.

Not so. There are only two infallible proclamations, but there are any number of things the church has taught infallibly. Something does not have to be proclaimed infallible to be infallible. This was the explanation given for why women cannot be priests. That is an infallible teaching of the church even though no pope has ever proclaimed it.Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. (Lumen Gentium #25)
Ender

 

[Ender]

The first para appears to me to be expressed as doctrine. It declares the better path in given circumstances.

Either capital punishment is intrinsically evil or its use is determined prudentially based on specific circumstances. It is not possible to have a doctrine that makes a prudential declaration such as “a better path.” Something is either doctrinal or prudential; it cannot be both, and an assertion in the form “this way is better than that way” is clearly prudential.

Ender argues no such doctrine has been expressed in this way in the past.

I have never found a single example where any pope, catechism, council, Doctor, or Father of the church has stated the restriction that the use of capital punishment is determined by its need for protection. If this is really part of the traditional teaching of the church it is remarkable for how seldom it has been expressed.

The second paragraph appears to be judgement. The reference to “today” suggests to me the position could be different at a different time. A statement about “today” surely has to be a judgement. The expression “are very rare” surely must be a judgement - suggesting that they probably arise in some place in some cases (few though they be).

I agree.

Ender

 

[Elizium23]

God can make a law and then change it. Has food changed? The Jews once has dietary laws. Also, something non-infallible can always be changed. To say something is infallible without it being proclaimed is a contradiction. For certainty on a question, it must be explicit from all the bishops that the world that they meant it to be infallible. Fr Hardon’s opinion is not grounded. People throughout history have claimed the Church’s “implicit consent” to something or other.

It is proof of the desperation of your argument that you denigrate Fr. Hardon as “opinion” and “not grounded”. Fr. Hardon is one of the most respected theologians of recent times and many priests and bishops as well as laymen rely on his writings as a sure norm for the faith. I would ask you if your credentials and fame match or exceed his before you rudely dismiss his scholarship.

 

[thinkandmull]

That is not what the church teaches.CCC 1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;
The church has never put dietary laws in the same category as natural laws.
To an extent this is true; otherwise they would be infallible, but this is far from common, and the longer and more universally something has been taught the less likely it is to ever be changed.
Not so. There are only two infallible proclamations, but there are any number of things the church has taught infallibly. Something does not have to be proclaimed infallible to be infallible. This was the explanation given for why women cannot be priests. That is an infallible teaching of the church even though no pope has ever proclaimed it.Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. (Lumen Gentium #25)
Ender

How else can something be infallible than by us being let known about it? That is proclamation. And you are being really stubborn about this old Testament law. God ordered Abraham to kill his son and than revoked it.

 

[thinkandmull]

It is proof of the desperation of your argument that you denigrate Fr. Hardon as “opinion” and “not grounded”. Fr. Hardon is one of the most respected theologians of recent times and many priests and bishops as well as laymen rely on his writings as a sure norm for the faith. I would ask you if your credentials and fame match or exceed his before you rudely dismiss his scholarship.

There are thousands of theologians and they all have tons of disagreements with each other. You are as free as I am to make up your own mind thanks