tuopaolo:
By saying that there is a legitimate diversity of opinion he already does not act in unison with what John Paul did before him since John Paul didn’t say the same thing and certainly did not stress it the way Cardinal Ratzinger did.
Admittedly, the stress was not the same. However, neither was the question to which Cardinal Ratzinger was responding. I don’t know that we could say John Paul II would not have responded similarly to a similar question. Indeed, it is quite possible that Ratzinger’s reply was first run by (and possibly even partially written by) the past pope. Certainly, the catechism approved and published under John Paul was in no way in disunion with Ratzinger’s statement. I, therefore, do not believe that we can conclude that the man who is now pope was not acting in unison with what John Paul proferred.
I don’t know if it’s “most” but I agree that some will suggest refraining from its use and that their number will be more than those who suggest not refraining (this doesn’t mean that it is most because there will be some who just remain silent)
It would seem that the longstanding consensus of the USCCB is in opposition. If it were not so, we’d hear more about it.
Cardinal Dulles described it as a “prudential judgement” in his little piece in the National Catholic Register (which I’ll quote below)
I seem to recall Cardinal Ratzinger making a statement as to whether it was doctrinal development or not, but unfortunately I don’t remember with clarity which way he opined. In any case a number of people said it was not and that doctrinal development cannot happen overnight, etc.
Thank you for your citation. I have previously read (numerous times) Cardinal Dulles’s arguement. It is one position which is commonly taken up by death penalty proponents (admittedly Dulles is not one of them) to argue that they have legitimate standing in holding to their position. However, the argument that the pope’s position was merely debateable “prudential judgement” and not a genuine theological development or pastoral exhortation about Christian living is but one perspective and certainly not an infallible interpretation of the late pope’s argument.
I would not that I have not necessarily suggested (nor do I know of anyone who does) that John Paul’s articulation is (or necessarily ever will be) what might come to eventually be considered a “doctrinal development”. I argue, rather, that it is potentially a theological and philosophical development as well as an insightful exhortation to more serious Christian living. My only suggestion is that it ought to be examined from that perspective, in addition to the “prudential judgement” route that many choose to end the discussion upon. For from this angle, it may shed important new light and concern that is otherwise being ignored. In failing to recognize and take seriously this position, then, we may be missing out upon the greater call of John Paul.
“It is with great reluctance that I take issue with Justice Scalia, who is rightly regarded as one of the outstanding legal experts of the nation and an exemplary Catholic. I agree with what he says about the constant Catholic tradition in favor of the death penalty and the harmony of that tradition with the system of criminal justice that undergirds the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But I differ with Justice Scalia in his interpretation of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae.”
Just as a note of clarification, I believe that you ought to remark as to whose emphasis this is, Cardinal Dulles or yours.
And apparently Cardinal Dulles not only disagrees with Scalia but also with you as regards interpreting what John Paul II said in EV. Dulles continues:
I’m fortunate to be included included in acknowledgement during this signifigant debate with such great company as these two men. Thank you!
Cardinal Dulles’ point is made even more explicit as he continues:
So in Cardinal Dulles’ view John Paul did not deny that the death penalty could be rightly exercised as a matter of “retributive justice.”
Neither do I argue such. The good Jesuit theologian and I are in agreement on this point.
Rather, my argument is that the pope is merely deepending our reflection on the matter in the light of a more phenomenological/personalistic view which is unique.
