B
BellsMom
Guest
No no no, you misunderstand history. The church was just an innocent bystander who could do nothing to stop the outrageous abuses of mid-evil governments at the time.
- Status
B
benjohnson
Guest
As a Lutheran, I’m all for finding examples where the Catholic church has changed dogma as a refutation of Papal Infallibly.
But this isn’t a change in dogma or even doctrine as I can see it - it’s a change in pastoral care. While there were lamentable burning of heretics in times past, the goal was not to inflict harm on any individual, but to protect the body of Christ from heretical influence.
Better that one man feel the fire in this life, than a thousand souls feel it in the next life was the reasoning.
We now understand better. That rather than spend the energy silencing heretics, we can use the same energy to proclaim the Gospel.
D
DebChris
Guest
Of course, I don’t really think you would want to find any change in doctrine since it would affect all Christian teaching. As Catholics we hold to Apostolic Tradition, that what we have received is protected by the Holy Spirit as it is handed down unchanged through the ages exactly as the Apostles received it. We do understand those teachings better.
Councils have met at intervals when the Church has been confronted by different issues, and worked out how best to confront those issues, based on its understanding of what Christ taught.
E
Ender
Guest
If you took my comment to be an attack or dismissal of mercy then I did not make myself clear. I meant no more than I said: granting mercy is virtuous but it is not appropriate to every situation or every individual. If mercy was granted to all without condition how would we explain hell?
I have read it quite a number of times and can only wonder if the movie will be worth seeing.
Ender
E
epan
Guest
The Church engaged in extreme antisemitism for at least 700 years. There is a long written record of papal instructions to heads of state, advising them to put Jews in ghettos, to restrict their movement, to deny them employment, to restrict what they could purchase, to require them to wear identifying badges on their clothing, when outside the ghettos. Until I came across this bit of history, I thought that the Nazi’s invented these things. They did not. The Catholic Church at least endorsed this sort of thing, and even requested that Jews be treated in this way.It was a legitimate response to your question–you made an accusation within the question, which, if false, entirely changes your question. We (and you, if you really want a proper answer) need proof that the accusation is true before we can proceed.
I’m not trying to be disrespectful here; I believed that part of “history” too, for many years–until I read some of the actual history, rather than the “common knowledge,” twisted version of it.
Therefore, since you made the statement, please back it up with the proof requested showing that this is what the Church taught. I think you will find it very interesting when you seek the truth.
I also think perhaps you misunderstand where the Church’s doctrine comes from and what it is. What one or another *man of the church *may (or may not) do, is not necessarily Church doctrine.
If you can’t find the evidence by googling it, I can find it, I’m sure. The Society of Jesus published a long list of the papal declarations (or whatever you call them), which span 7 centuries.
This is intentionally chosen as one of the more egregious examples, but there are other less appalling ones, of Church doctrine changing to suit the times.
No pope today would ask a head of state to round up the Jews in his/her country, and persecute them. Indeed, any modern pope would be aghast at the idea. Yet, it is historic fact that many popes did do this, and for many centuries.
So, my question is… and it appears that nobody can answer this question on this site… is this not a change in moral doctrine by the Catholic Church, to no longer persecute Jews, or any of the many other things, which I perceive the Church to have changed its doctrine about?
I believe that Catholics who claim that the church does not change its moral doctrine are just accepting the current doctrine, and are not aware of the relevant history.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I don’t think this is a change in moral doctrine. It is a change in moral practice. The Church can and does get things wrong in their practices. And this was a reprehensible practice. But it was not an expression of doctrine. All who love the Church want to see the Church get it right in both practice and in doctrine, so errors in practice may eventually get corrected, as in the case you cited.
D
DebChris
Guest
The Church continues to be comprised of sinners. We are the Church. Sometimes we forget that the Church continues to live and grow, learning from its mistakes. The Acts of the Apostles describes the Council of Jerusalem meeting to resolve the question of whether or not new converts needed be circumcised. Vatican II was a pastoral council dealing with how best to bring the gospel into the modern world. It does not change make any doctoral changes. These were meetings of the magisterium.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Any abuse committed by people is the result of when they don’t follow the divine doctrines and dogmas of the holy Catholic Church.
D
dudleysharp
Guest
For 2000 years the teachings have been based upon eternal teachings based upon justice and the most recent CCC, repeats the eternal teachings of Genesis, in this context.
Now, the Church has a new teaching based upon the defense of society or an evaluation of the security of human prisons, strictly temporal and ever changing standards, finding that the shedding of blood should be avoided at all costs, just after telling us in the same section of the CCC that the shedding of blood in these circumstances remains an eternal teaching.
Now, the Church has a new teaching based upon the defense of society or an evaluation of the security of human prisons, strictly temporal and ever changing standards, finding that the shedding of blood should be avoided at all costs, just after telling us in the same section of the CCC that the shedding of blood in these circumstances remains an eternal teaching.
D
dudleysharp
Guest
The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption and Salvation
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html
D
dudleysharp
Guest
If the death penalty provides expiation, how can it not be merciful?
Is there any confusion here, between earthly and eternal mercy?
H
Holly3278
Guest
Well, I read the Catholic Answers article about whether or not the Church changed its teaching on the death penalty again. That article is here:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty
I still don’t understand it completely but from what I do understand is that both the death penalty and life imprisonment fulfills purposes of punishment as articulated in traditional Catholic teaching. And I also understood that the Church still allows for the death penalty just as it always has. The only differences between now and in the past is that the penal system has improved and therefore we should choose the less extreme punishment such as life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. Am I understanding this correctly?
catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty
I still don’t understand it completely but from what I do understand is that both the death penalty and life imprisonment fulfills purposes of punishment as articulated in traditional Catholic teaching. And I also understood that the Church still allows for the death penalty just as it always has. The only differences between now and in the past is that the penal system has improved and therefore we should choose the less extreme punishment such as life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. Am I understanding this correctly?
L
livingwordunity
Guest
The same ones who argue that capital punishment should be absolutely abolished will also be the ones arguing to set them free.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Why? That would go against the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding justice and punishment. I personally value the teachings of our Church so much, that I think with her through thick and through thin.
C
CatholicRaven
Guest
That’s basically it, yes.
C
CrossofChrist
Guest
Yep. Pretty much.
This quote seems to sum up the view of the Church today, and I doubt anyone will take St. Augustine as not representing the traditional view of the Church.
*If, then, there were no other means established to curb the malice of the wicked, extreme necessity might perhaps urge that such men be put to death, though, in our view, if no milder punishment could be imposed on them, we would prefer that they be released rather than the sufferings of our brothers be avenged by the shedding of their blood.
- St. Augustine
E
Ender
Guest
Not exactly: there is nothing in Catholic teaching that makes this point. The best that can be said is that it is implied in Evangelium Vitae and the 1997 version of the catechism, neither of which can be considered a traditional teaching.
It has been asserted that older penal systems didn’t have the capabilities of incarcerating prisoners for life but I have yet to see a document that attempts to support the claim with evidence … and the evidence I have seen argues that it isn’t true.*…but if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge. *(Fifth Lateran Council 1512-1517)
Regarding the article you cited, while I had not seen this one I have seen other articles by Christopher Kaczor and this one is a bit of a disappointment, especially this claim:
*…it is important to remember that traditional Catholic teaching never claimed that the state must impose the death penalty.
*The issue is not whether the death penalty is an obligation in every instance but whether the church considered it the appropriate penalty for (at least) murder. That is, not whether it must be imposed but whether it should be, which leaves room for circumstances to effect the sentence. In that regard Kaczor’s claim is incorrect: the church has taught that it should be imposed.*And as for “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” these words cannot be rightly understood except in this sense: Every one who commits an unjust murder **ought **in turn to be condemned to death by the magistrate. *(St. Bellarmine)
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Dudley: I wanted to address this point but was traveling and didn’t really have the time. I think there is a great deal of confusion about what mercy is and how it ought to be applied. Mercy is not something that is appropriate to all circumstances; there are cases where mercy should not be shown.There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy. (Aquinas)
I think what has been lost is the understanding that “punishment is the effect of justice” (Aquinas), that “Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium…” (Pius XII) and that “penalty and fault are action and reaction.” (Pius XII)
Crime deserves punishment. It is an obligation of justice.
Ender
M
Mount_Carmel
Guest
How do you leap to that conclusion? I for one believe there is a role for imprisonment - especially for those deemed dangerous to the community.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
This comment by Aquinas is addressing the suggestion that a Judge should be free to remit punishment as in the way of a pardon. It isn’t affirming an obligation to inflict the death penalty. No one here is arguing that it is merciful to abolish punishment from the justice system altogether.
- Status