Federal Executions Pit The Trump Administration Against The Catholic Church

Status
Not open for further replies.
Suudy said:
I don’t think that’s the point. I think the point is that this revision has the appearance of contradicting Church history with respect to DP.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but that has happened many times in Church history. I know there is a faction that likes to deny it, but its simply a historical fact that Church teaching has at times evolved in a way that many perceived as a contradiction.
Suudy said:
The arguments (circular as they seem) to be about whether this is an actual development in doctrine (which I agree with @Ender cannot be) or whether there is some nuance. The problem, then, is the clarity of the current revision.
Click to expand...
I just don’t find the teaching to be unclear. Unpopular with many? Sure. Hard for some to square with the past understandings? Yes. Unclear? I don’t think so.
Suudy said:
I guess my problem is that one side says, “The Catechism contradicts 2000 years of Church history.” And the other side says, “The Catechism explains a change in doctrine.” And never the twain shall meet.
Click to expand...
Why do the twain need to meet? The Church has consistently affirmed that the intentional killing of humans is immoral. There have historically been exceptions to that teaching under which killing may be justified. The underlying teachings remains in place; but one of the narrow exceptions has been foreclosed. That is what happened, and nothing about that doctrinal development calls the authority of the Church into question. There have been larger changes in the past and the Church is still here.
 
TMC said:
its simply a historical fact that Church teaching has at times evolved in a way that many perceived as a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Being a convert and not a trained theologian, I’m unfamiliar with these examples. Could you share some?
TMC said:
Unclear? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
I mean unclear in the sense of ambiguous or seemingly contradictory. This is why there is discussion. I don’t think because of the lack of popularity or the vehemence of argument on both sides, but that it really is not obvious how to square the current revision to the history of Church teaching.
TMC said:
Why do the twain need to meet? The Church has consistently affirmed that the intentional killing of humans is immoral.
Click to expand...
I think the key disagreement here is you are missing a word. It is the “intentional killing of [innocent] humans is immoral.” We already know it cannot be a blanket statement given the Church’s teaching on just war and self defense. You do go on to explain these exceptions. But the key word is “innocent.” Exceptions can only actually be exceptions if “innocent” is there, otherwise there would never be a legitimate case where a human being is intentionally killed.
 
Suudy said:
Being a convert and not a trained theologian, I’m unfamiliar with these examples. Could you share some?
Click to expand...
Sigh. It just starts new arguments. I will list a few, but it will only create new arguments. The classic examples are EENS and usury. Let the flaming posts begin!
Suudy said:
I think the key disagreement here is you are missing a word. It is the “intentional killing of [innocent] humans is immoral.” We already know it cannot be a blanket statement given the Church’s teaching on just war and self defense. You do go on to explain these exceptions. But the key word is “innocent.” Exceptions can only actually be exceptions if “innocent” is there, otherwise there would never be a legitimate case where a human being is intentionally killed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that is not the teaching. There is no teaching that a lack of innocence allows killing, and there never has been. If there was, it would be the Purge constantly.
 
TMC said:
Sorry, that is not the teaching. There is no teaching that a lack of innocence allows killing, and there never has been. If there was, it would be the Purge constantly.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I said. I suppose you could read it that way. But I think the USCCB and other Vatican documents make it clear that innocent human life is always to be protected. The Church seems quite silent on non-innocent life. Indeed, as in Evangelium Vitae that the only proscription is against the taking of innocent human life. There is discussion of taking into account the safety of society but there is also talk of the need for justice. And as such, it does seem that just war, self defense, and the death penalty fall out side the scope of innocent human life and thus is not really an exception at all.

However, you point is taken. Since none of us are innocent, and all deserve death, it does seem that saying non-innocent life is not protected is far too broad. But it does seem that innocent life is a separate category from non-innocent life. Thus it seems to me we are not to apply the same standard.


 
I just glanced up at the title of the thread. To clarify, it does not say that these executions pit the current administration against all Catholic, but against the Catholic Church, which it does, as the Church teaching on this from the Catechism and the Holy Father, is what defines the teaching of the Church, even if not all Catholics (including clergy) agree.
 
TMC said:
I have repeatedly encountered the argument that the teaching on the death penalty is merely Pope Francis’ opinion, or merely a suggestion.
Click to expand...
No pope’s opinion is “merely” an opinion, as if it had no more force than our own opinions. That said, it is nonetheless a judgment; that is, it is not doctrine.
It is the Church’s teaching…
Click to expand...
I don’t think so, at least not in the sense of being doctrine. No one has suggested Francis exercised his extraordinary magisterium and issued an infallible statement, so it at most could be an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, but that can’t be the case either.

If it’s not extraordinary, it’s at most ordinary, but if it’s ordinary, it requires popes and bishops around the world and over a long, long time, and not just a pope in a claim or two. (Ed Peters)
Folks are free to disagree with it.
Click to expand...
If we are free to disagree with it it can only be because it is not doctrine, with which we are assuredly not free to disagree.
But we should not pretend it is not the Church’s teaching.
Click to expand...
“Teaching” is a somewhat ambiguous term here. You would be right if teaching includes prudential judgments (opinions), but wrong if it refers solely to doctrine.
TMC said:
I just don’t find the teaching to be unclear.
Click to expand...
The US bishops did. They referred to it as “An eloquent ambiguity”.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
I just glanced up at the title of the thread. To clarify, it does not say that these executions pit the current administration against all Catholic, but against the Catholic Church, which it does, as the Church teaching on this from the Catechism and the Holy Father, is what defines the teaching of the Church, even if not all Catholics (including clergy) agree.
Click to expand...
I think there has been way too little discussion of this point. It just seems assumed that if the pope says something he speaks as “the church”, everything he says is protected from error, and that’s an end to it. But that is not at all the case, nor has the church ever taught this.

Here is a fairly complete explanation of what constitutes magisterial teaching:

The Church’s “extraordinary” magisterium, capable of binding the faithful in faith and doctrine, can proceed solely-papally or papally-episcopally ; but her “ordinary” magisterium, also capable of binding the faithful in faith and doctrine, can proceed only papally-episcopally . As Francis’ move on the Catechism hardly qualifies as papal-episcopal, and there being no such thing as an ‘purely papal, ordinary, magisterium’ (the term itself seems an oxymoron, implying that some significant points of Church teaching have been taught only by popes!), then Francis’ views on the death penalty might (I stress, might, given the infallibility concerns above) contribute to the Church’s ordinary magisterium but they do not, and cannot, control it. (Ed Peters, J.D. J.C.L.)

We should never have gotten to the point of believing in a purely papal, ordinary, magisterium, but that seems to be where we are.
 
I think Catholic Answers itself, in the person of Jimmy Akin, quite well articulate the whole matter concerning the development of doctrine that has occurred whereby the death penalty is inadmissible because employing it would be immoral. Mr. Akins writes:

According to Cardinal Ladaria:
The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine (7).
Click to expand...
Mr. Akin continues: As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching.

According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful.

/…/

Mr.Akin goes on to say: In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top