S
SonOfMan
Guest
All of the examples I gave you were tied directly to faith and morals.
See post #83.
- Status
Ah, good old Ad extirpanda. As one online article said, you can tie that to your stake and smoke it.
Ad extirpanda is an inconvenience but even a reading of the document shows that it is a document of a judicial nature, limiting the extent by which heretics can be forced to repent.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a magisterial document and its section on torture and states its moral abhorrence while acknowledging the fact that civil authorities were permitted to use it.
Did the Church teach at one point torture was not immoral? No. Were its Popes and bishops wrong in allowing them? Yes, they were. Popes, bishops and prices are sinners too. And despite that, those who love to holler “Ad extirpanda!” fail to point out that it was issued to LIMIT the torture, not encourage it.
That is not the same as the Church using its magisterial authority to teach the morality of torture then reversing itself. Again, it’s just discipline (which is fallible) vs. morals.
And none of them were magisterial teachings. They were disciplinary. Big difference.
This is a magisterial teaching (fake): “If any man should say the death penalty is immoral, let him be anathema.”
This is a disciplinary pronouncement: “Those who sentence any man to death is to be excommunicated.”
Both of these touch on a matter of morals. But only one counts as a “moral teaching.”
The first is a moral teaching and is infallible.
The second is a disciplinary pronouncement and can be reversed.
There is no ex cathedra statement in post 83.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
Dum Diversas disagrees with you. Go back and read the quote I provided several posts ago.
It was specified that permission to enslave was given with full Apostolic Authority.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Has it been infallibly declared that capital punishment must be definitively accepted as part of the deposit of faith?
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I think it’s been the infallible teaching of the Church that capital punishment is allowable. The Pope hasn’t changed that. He’s only given a prudential judgment that, at this current time, he doesn’t think it is needed.
Slick. Move from torture to servitude.
Laws are passed with full apostolic authority. That does not make them equivalent to teaching. It does make them binding. Laws remain disciplinary, not magisterial.
Was Nicholas in error? Perhaps. It still does not contradict a magisterial teaching.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
That is inaccurate. Pope Francis has called for the abolishment of the death penalty and life imprisonment.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404377.htm
He also says “No matter what the crime, the death penalty is inadmissable.”
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-no-matter-what-the-crime-the-death-penalty-is-inadmissible-89127/
This isn’t merely prudential judgement for this current time.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
He said “nowadays” which limits what he said to “nowadays” as opposed to it being an absolute statement.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
I’m sorry, torture and “perpetual servitude” (the kind of enslavement that is by force, no doubt with torture and violence involved) all fall under the same category.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
He means from now on the death penalty should be totally abolished, not merely put on hold and certainly not merely limited to “nowadays”. He doesn’t say “temporarily out of service until further notice.” He further clarifies this permanency when he specifies “no matter the crime.” That means, there will never be a time again where such a crime is worthy of putting someone to death or even lifelong imprisonment.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
What is your ex cathedra infallible source for that?
According to Cardinal O’Malley and other Catholic Church leaders:
the death penalty is “an offense against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person.”
patriotledger.com/article/20150406/NEWS/150407547/12662/NEWS?rssfeed=true
“Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley and fellow Massachusetts Roman Catholic bishops say it would be against the church’s teaching to apply the death penalty to Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.”
bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/04/bishops_say_tsarnaev_should_not_receive_death_penalty
B
Brendan
Guest
The Council of Trent, that has been posted in this thread earlier
And, of course, the Catechism #2267. Which, while not an infallible document itself, it contains what the Church has already declared to be infallible
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Is the catechism ex cathedra and infallible?
B
Brendan
Guest
The doctrines contained are infallible. Some of those might be ex cathedra, like CCC 966, in which the ex cathedra doctrine of the Assumption is restated.
Others are from the Infallible Extraordinary Magisterium (Ecumenical Councils) like CCC 195, where it reiterated the Nicene Creed ( Infallible by the Council of Nicaea)
CCC 2267, which includes the reiteration of the teaching of the death penalty given by the Council of Trent via it’s Catechism, is included as an infallible teaching of the Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium
And, of course, the are many other teachings given by the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium (the normal form in the infallible teachings, that which was given to us by the Apostles)
Like CCC 1577 , the teachings on the valid recipient of Holy Orders.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
You say “from now on,” but the Pope only said “nowadays.” The Pope could have said at this juncture, and it would have meant the same thing.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
I think it’s pretty clear what the Pope is saying. Can you fathom a situation where Pope Francis would think the death penalty is ok to enact again? He clearly states “no matter what the crime, the death penalty is inadmissable.” It’s hard to get around that quote, as that also pertains to time and permanency. Words like “abolishment” also clarify what the Pope is illustrating. There will never be another moment in history where the crime is so great that sentencing to the death penalty is justifiable, according to Pope Francis. Therefore, it isn’t accurate to misrepresent the Pope’s words as if he means the death penalty should only temporarily be suspended.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
But all of what he said is within the context of his starting it with “nowadays”. So he is saying that nowadays no matter what the crime, the death penalty is in admissible and that it should be abolished nowadays.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
Meaning, he isn’t condemning the past allowance for CP by the Church, but he is saying that “from now on” (because “nowadays” we no longer need it, according to Pope Francis) the death penalty must be “abolished.”
If you cannot understand the clear words of Pope Francis at this point, we will have to agree to disagree.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
“Nowadays” doesn’t mean “from now on” no matter how much you want it to mean that.Meaning, he isn’t condemning the past allowance for CP by the Church, but he is saying that “from now on” (because “nowadays” we no longer need it, according to Pope Francis) the death penalty must be “abolished.”
If you cannot understand the clear words of Pope Francis at this point, we will have to agree to disagree.
If the Pope wanted to say “from now on” he could have said it. But he didn’t. If he would have it would contradict what the Church had taught up to now about capital punishment sometimes being necessary.
- Status