T
TMC
Guest
You know what the Church teaches and you know you are in dissent, but I can see that I have failed, once again, to convince you to stop twisting the words of the bishops and to stop misrepresenting the Church’s teaching. I’ll simply leave it at that.No, he was talking about the teaching on capital punishment.
*The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. *(Dulles, 2001)
He said the teaching was prudential. He said prudential opinions are not binding. It isn’t difficult to understand how to apply these simple observations.
You’re trying to win the argument by definition. We know that the teachings of the Church do not include prudential opinions because of this comment from Dulles: *“Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. *To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.” Therefore, since 2267 is prudential, my disagreement with it is not a disagreement with the teaching of the Church.
You are contending that Cardinal Dulles didn’t understand this point? I’m merely repeating what he said. I also pointed out that Cardinal Ratzinger implied as much as did the USCCB.
Section 2267 of the Catechism contains opinion, that point doesn’t seem debatable. You may hold that not all of 2267 is opinion but the fact that some of it is rebuts your argument above.
Ender