J
JeremyLewis
Guest
For me it has nothing to do with this particular teaching but with the thought that he can change a teaching of the church for centuries and now it no longer be the case.
- Status
J
JeremyLewis
Guest
Then what are we to think of the catechism?
J
JeremyLewis
Guest
It read as though it was NEVER to be used. The changing of the teaching is what is troubling, not the teaching itself.
J
JeremyLewis
Guest
It makes the CCC just kind of a guide, not something to be fully trusted wouldn’t you think?
K
Kathleen18
Guest
I am wondering if “change” in general, bothers you?
Last edited:
K
Kathleen18
Guest
Ummm for someone who just joined 6 minutes ago…that seemed a little harsh.
K
Kathleen18
Guest
Who is “you people?”
K
Kathleen18
Guest
I don’t think that I am the one who should be worried, here. You seem very angry, very anti Catholic, or both.
Last edited:
T
Thom18
Guest
@camoderator
G
gcshapero
Guest
No, not at all — but the CCC contains different layers. This isn’t an excuse to be a cafeteria catholic and pick and choose, but some things are of less importance than others, despite the fact that the CCC May record each part.
For instance; Belief in the true presence of the Eucharist is of infinite importance and we cannot choose not to believe it, and it’s dogmatic.
Holding to the position that abortion is intrinsically wrong and we must always side with protection of the unborn in every way is absolute.
The Just war principle—this is not a dogmatic or even doctrinal. It makes sense and it proposes how we as Catholics should approach war, but it can change of and be adjusted by the Holy See depending on circumstance, and Catholics can even disagree provided it is grounded in Christian virtues (and not a false version)
This is why you’ll hear Catholic apologists break down the three D’s; Dogma, Doctrine, and Discipline. The CCC contains them all, but they explain the significance of each subject so we know where they lay.
For instance; Belief in the true presence of the Eucharist is of infinite importance and we cannot choose not to believe it, and it’s dogmatic.
Holding to the position that abortion is intrinsically wrong and we must always side with protection of the unborn in every way is absolute.
The Just war principle—this is not a dogmatic or even doctrinal. It makes sense and it proposes how we as Catholics should approach war, but it can change of and be adjusted by the Holy See depending on circumstance, and Catholics can even disagree provided it is grounded in Christian virtues (and not a false version)
This is why you’ll hear Catholic apologists break down the three D’s; Dogma, Doctrine, and Discipline. The CCC contains them all, but they explain the significance of each subject so we know where they lay.
Last edited:
L
Le_Cracquere
Guest
Not even the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, has the ability to contradict the deposit of faith as passed down. And if you look at the latter, it’s pretty unquestionable that the death penalty is at least licit in theory. (I’ll leave it to subtler minds than mine to argue when it’s advisable or not in practice.)
T
Thom18
Guest
Pope Francis has yet to speak ex Cathedra that I’m aware of, and this “new” teaching which (if I remember correctly) he accepted, not declared himself, is just the logical progression of the direction we’ve seen the catechism going towards on this topic for years.
I used to be very pro-death penalty myself- even until the day the announcement was made, but I’ve given this new instruction my assent. We can all do it.
I used to be very pro-death penalty myself- even until the day the announcement was made, but I’ve given this new instruction my assent. We can all do it.
Last edited:
G
gcshapero
Guest
I agree, I’m not questioning that, but the death penalty has never been a theological matter nor has it ever been regarded as a divine moral issue like protection of life from abortion.
I also fully understand why Catholics still side with the death penalty after what Pope Francis has said. I’m very sympathetic to Catholics who support the death penalty as this point.
Although it should also be understood this does not include self-defense which may lead to lethal action or war where killing takes places. The CCC still recognizes these as absolutely valid.
I also fully understand why Catholics still side with the death penalty after what Pope Francis has said. I’m very sympathetic to Catholics who support the death penalty as this point.
Although it should also be understood this does not include self-defense which may lead to lethal action or war where killing takes places. The CCC still recognizes these as absolutely valid.
C
ConcernedConvert
Guest
Join the club! I have heard all sorts of arguments one direction or the next trying to explain what exactly to think of this.
To me what’s troubling is his wording which makes is pretty clear, at least to me, that he has changed teaching and that the church now thinks it wrong to utilize the death penalty. Completely contradictory to historical teachings on the subject.
To me what’s troubling is his wording which makes is pretty clear, at least to me, that he has changed teaching and that the church now thinks it wrong to utilize the death penalty. Completely contradictory to historical teachings on the subject.
Q
Quis_UtDeus
Guest
Not at all. That’s like saying you can’t trust a bishop’s words on how the Eucharist is the Real Presence simply because his words were not Ex Cathedra.
I think gcshapero explains it rather well.
I think gcshapero explains it rather well.
A
Axsenex
Guest
I’m reminded by the ant’s size… Babylon 5 reference.
P
phil19034
Guest
No. It is a pastoral change in focus; not a dogmatic change.
Personally, I think the way St John Paul II had it written was perfect. I don’t really understand the Holy Father’s decision to change it.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
Why? Do you have a source for this?
A
Ardent_Fire
Guest
It’s not ex cathedra.
There isn’t any change in any statements of the morality of the death penalty in itself, just how the death penalty should be applied. The new teaching considers it inadmissable with the condition that sufficient detention is available to ensure public safety. Though honestly, I think people are still going to question whether that condition has been met everywhere throughout the world, and this condition can still change, in theory.
Given that so many people have questions, I think it still needs further revision (though I felt it was fine the way it was before.) Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI both allowed for diversity of opinion on capital punishment even though they were both opposed to it. I personally hold the same stances of our previous two popes. I do not support the death penalty for the most part, but I think this revision is legitimately subject to debate.
www.firstthings.com
www.firstthings.com
There isn’t any change in any statements of the morality of the death penalty in itself, just how the death penalty should be applied. The new teaching considers it inadmissable with the condition that sufficient detention is available to ensure public safety. Though honestly, I think people are still going to question whether that condition has been met everywhere throughout the world, and this condition can still change, in theory.
Given that so many people have questions, I think it still needs further revision (though I felt it was fine the way it was before.) Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI both allowed for diversity of opinion on capital punishment even though they were both opposed to it. I personally hold the same stances of our previous two popes. I do not support the death penalty for the most part, but I think this revision is legitimately subject to debate.
Pope Francis and Capital Punishment | Edward Feser
One does not need to support capital punishment to worry that Pope Francis may have gone too far.
www.firstthings.com
Magisterial Irresponsibility | Steven A. Long
Luis Francisco Cardinal Ladaria Ferrer of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has . . . .
www.firstthings.com
Last edited:
R
Roguish
Guest
I’m troubled too, even if it wasn’t an ex-cathedra teaching. The problem is that the Pope, much though I hate to say this, fundamentally misunderstands the true purpose of the death penalty. (Most of the rest of the world misunderstands it also, of course.)
Pope Francis’ reasoning seems to be that the death penalty always goes against the dignity of man. He has not understood that when used correctly, the death penalty is the very thing that forces a man to recover his dignity. How does this work? The certainty of impending, inescapable death works miraculous spiritual and ethical recoveries in many (not all) cases. This is well attested by prison staff working death rows. It is a mistake to rob mankind of this ultimate tool in forcing dangerous criminals to return to innocence before God.
Pope Francis’ reasoning seems to be that the death penalty always goes against the dignity of man. He has not understood that when used correctly, the death penalty is the very thing that forces a man to recover his dignity. How does this work? The certainty of impending, inescapable death works miraculous spiritual and ethical recoveries in many (not all) cases. This is well attested by prison staff working death rows. It is a mistake to rob mankind of this ultimate tool in forcing dangerous criminals to return to innocence before God.
Last edited:
- Status