Pope Francis Ex Cathedra Death Penalty?

[therese1998]

[

The certainty of impending, inescapable death works miraculous spiritual and ethical recoveries in many (not all) cases

Yes, it is true that impending death has, at times, provided the impetus for turning toward God. The problem with threatening death in order to force compliance toward God is that, if you threaten it, you have to follow through with it and, should that person NOT repent and turn to God within the timeframe proposed, he is facing almost certain damnation when it is yet uncertain if he would have turned toward God, given X amount more time. We only have this time on Earth to make our conversion…when you force death you are necessarily cutting short that “decision making time”. I am not against the death penalty per se, but I recognize it’s dangers as well.

 

[Diaconia]

Because ex cathedra teachings are so rare, the only two in modern history (possibly the only two ever) had to do with the Mother of God.

Those two declarations were the belief and teaching of all the hierarchy, and all the faithful. No one doubted these issues.

Cardinal Ratzinger knew that the same sort of complete agreement did not exist then (nor does it today), regarding priestly presbyteral orders.

Of course, my view, and that of many in the Church, is simpler and without recourse: Jesus did not choose women as Apostles, he could have if he had wanted to (particularly his Mother, or Mary of Magdala, for example), but he did not.

As such, it is not possible for ANY Pope to change this teaching, because it was chosen by our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, case closed.

The reason some scholars argue about the possibility of women being ordained deacons has two different points of contention:

It was the Apostles, not Jesus, who ordained the first deacons, and the successors of the Apostles (bishops) ever since then

• Some think that a choice by the Apostles doesn’t carry the same weight as a choice by Christ – one response is that Jesus gave full authority to them while on earth, so by transitive property it is of one and the same principle.
  A second response is a Thomistic one – the sacrament of Holy Orders is ONE sacrament, given in three grades (diaconal, presbyteral and episcopal). The sacrament is of ONE essence, and to receive it you must be a baptized male, regardless of the grade you are receiving

The second point of women receiving diaconal orders is that there is historical evidence of deaconesses (particularly in the East).

• The response here is that those referred to as deaconesses were not the counterparts of deacons. They assisted the priest in baptizing adult women (who were baptized naked) for purposes of modesty. But they were not deacons - they did not concelebrate the Divine Liturgy (yes, deacons are concelebrants in Eastern worship), they did not perform any diaconal liturgical actions. They served functions that were similar to a nun today.
• They may have received a blessing by the bishop for their service, which may have included laying his hand upon them. This is also true of other functions in the Church that were not part of major orders (readers, cantors, etc.). Unfortunately there are people that say it doesn’t matter - a women had a bishop’s hand upon her head, called her a deaconess and so, ipso facto, women were ordained. Since none of those bishops are alive any longer they don’t believe the intent can be dispproved (or proved, we might add).
• If things weren’t confusing enough, the wife of a deacon can also be referred to as a deaconess. Even today, the wife of a priest or deacon is a very honored and revered person in the East, and many of them do serve the Church in lots of ways. Some of the historic deaconesses who assisted with baptism, were the wives of actual deacons.

A sinner I remain (and a long-winded one in this response),
Deacon Christopher

 

[camoderator]

As noted before, we offer these essays for CAF members’ fruitful reflection on this doctrinal issue:

Understanding the Catechism Revision on the Death Penalty | Catholic Answers Magazine

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/08/16/the-death-penalty-debate-and-the-churchs-magisterium/

Development, not deviation: Evaluating Francis’ modification on the death penalty – Catholic World Report

 

[phil19034]

Because ex cathedra teachings are so rare, the only two in modern history (possibly the only two ever) had to do with the Mother of God.

Those two declarations were the belief and teaching of all the hierarchy, and all the faithful. No one doubted these issues.

Cardinal Ratzinger knew that the same sort of complete agreement did not exist then (nor does it today), regarding priestly presbyteral orders.

Of course, my view, and that of many in the Church, is simpler and without recourse: Jesus did not choose women as Apostles, he could have if he had wanted to (particularly his Mother, or Mary of Magdala, for example), but he did not.

As such, it is not possible for ANY Pope to change this teaching, because it was chosen by our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, case closed.

The reason some scholars argue about the possibility of women being ordained deacons has two different points of contention:

It was the Apostles, not Jesus, who ordained the first deacons, and the successors of the Apostles (bishops) ever since then

• Some think that a choice by the Apostles doesn’t carry the same weight as a choice by Christ – one response is that Jesus gave full authority to them while on earth, so by transitive property it is of one and the same principle.
  A second response is a Thomistic one – the sacrament of Holy Orders is ONE sacrament, given in three grades (diaconal, presbyteral and episcopal). The sacrament is of ONE essence, and to receive it you must be a baptized male, regardless of the grade you are receiving

The second point of women receiving diaconal orders is that there is historical evidence of deaconesses (particularly in the East).

• The response here is that those referred to as deaconesses were not the counterparts of deacons. They assisted the priest in baptizing adult women (who were baptized naked) for purposes of modesty. But they were not deacons - they did not concelebrate the Divine Liturgy (yes, deacons are concelebrants in Eastern worship), they did not perform any diaconal liturgical actions. They served functions that were similar to a nun today.

…

Thank you Deacon,

However, I simply meant why did Cardinal Ratzinger talk him out of it and did you have a source for that claim about the future Pope?

God Bless

 

[Genesis315]

Those two declarations were the belief and teaching of all the hierarchy, and all the faithful. No one doubted these issues.

I think this may be why people nowadays think these are the only two–they were very unique. In addition to the extraordinary fanfare surrounding them, rather than to settle a controversy–which is usual reason for a definitive (and therefore infallible) judgment of the Pope–these two were more like capstones to give additional honor to the Blessed Virgin (as I mentioned in my prior post, the Commissio de Fide for the First Vatican Council said there were “thousands and thousands” of instances–while I’m sure that was not meant to be an exact number, the point was there were many!).

The real value of papal infallibility is when there is doubt and confusion, not when all is peaceful. This makes sense when we understand the purpose of the papacy is to serve unity. If there is already unity in faith, then papal infallibility is superfluous. Rather, it is needed so all member of the Church of good will can be brought to the unity of faith when there is disagreement.

As a good example (which also shows how a Pope is not always infallible), when Pope John XXII caused a lot of confusion in the Church with regard to certain doctrines he proposed concerning the beatific vision, his successor, in order to draw all back to unity and certitude, had to settle the matter to remove all doubt with his definitive dogmatic judgments in the constitution Benedictus Deus.

 

[bquinnan]

First, as others have said, the change to the catechism certainly does not qualify as an ex cathedra statement. I still find the new wording highly problematic, and it seems to me that the Holy Father could have expressed the teaching that the death penalty is no longer admissible without some of the problems present in the edit.

While the Church has taught that the death penalty is permissible under certain circumstances, it seems to me that it has also taught it is good and desirable when we are able to spare someone from the death penalty. I think of Jesus saving the woman from being stoned to death for the crime of adultery. Therefore, it seems perfectly consistent to me for the Church to say that, now that we have ways of protecting society from the guilty without executing them, now that we are aware of some of the social biases that impact death-penalty verdicts and now that we see more clearly the impact that executing people can have on society, we should abolish the death penalty altogether. Of course, assessing such matters goes beyond faith and morals and involves some level of prudential judgment, but the Church can incorporate prudential judgments into its non-infallible teachings.

However, I strongly dislike the statement that “there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.” I don’t believe any of the popes who have expressed that the death penalty is admissible under certain circumstances ever taught that the dignity of the people being executed was lost. To imply that they did or that they weren’t aware of said dignity is completely unfair. Moreover, it opens the door wide for speculation about where else the Church might have failed to recognize the dignity of the person, and what other teachings we might see changed as our awareness increases.

 

[WileyC1949]

I’m probably going above my pay grade here, but it’s my understanding that a formal statement that’s ex cathedra has only been done twice since it was defined at the first Vatican Council:

* Pope Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception on December 8, 1854, and
* Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary on November 1, 1950.

Actually then only once. The First Vatican Council was not convened until 1868.

 

[11101]

Thank you. I find that myth so annoying

 

[Roguish]

and, should that person NOT repent and turn to God within the timeframe proposed, he is facing almost certain damnation when it is yet uncertain if he would have turned toward God, given X amount more time.

I believe that someone who refuses to repent in the face of certain death, will surely not repent when given decades of prison time. It is a matter of stubbornness: if the knowledge that you are living your last days cannot move you, then nothing can.

 

[Roguish]

he has changed teaching and that the church now thinks it wrong to utilize the death penalty.

Yeah, this is bothering me more and more as well. In general, when firm, clear teaching that has been handed down to us for centuries is changed, I don’t see how one can avoid the implication that then the old teaching must have been a mistake all along, and those who taught and believed those teachings for all those years were all a little silly. No nicely worded defense can fix this problem. In this specific case, there is no avoiding the implication that our Catholic forefathers who believed that the death penalty was justifiable, did not quite comprehend the “dignity of man”. But me personally, I think they did understand it, and that rather it’s us moderns who have more and more trouble understanding dignity, including (and I regret to say this) those who amend and evolve the teaching of the RCC.

 

[therese1998]

I believe that someone who refuses to repent in the face of certain death, will surely not repent when given decades of prison time. It is a matter of stubbornness: if the knowledge that you are living your last days cannot move you, then nothing can.

Perhaps…I think it’s arguable

 

[Ender]

It makes the CCC just kind of a guide, not something to be fully trusted wouldn’t you think?

The validity of a teaching does not come from the fact that it is in the catechism. Anything in the catechism gets its legitimacy from the document which it cites. Ratzinger made a comment on this (which I can’t locate at the moment), so I’m not sure what this means for the new version of 2267 which is not based on any previous document at all.

 

[Weserthy]

I can’t remember if it was Pope Benedict, but there was a quote that said something like “Statements are not true because they are in the Catechism, they are in the Catechism because they are true.” Which is why these kinds of prudential judgments are not a good idea to have in the Catechism, because they are not necessarily true or cannot be proven to be true very easily.

 

[Ender]

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.

What troubles me about this pronouncement is its ambiguity. It is clear what is implied, but that’s no way to specify doctrine. Like his comments on communion for the remarried, his words lend themselves to contradictory interpretations…and that’s a real problem.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I agree to an extent. I don’t really know how else to interpret inadmissible.

 

[pnewton]

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

The operative word here is “now”. While history is informative and it offers data into what doctrine is, we do not life in history, but in the present. Having seen here myself how many people used the opening allowed in the Catechism for the theoretical possibility of the death penalty in society today, I can understand why the Pope chose to clarify this particular matter.

 

[pnewton]

That is not how the Catholic Church works. This is two threads in a row where this topic has turned to attacks on the Holy Father. I do not know if the moderators will close it again because of this sort of misbehavior, but it is time to start reporting it.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

That’s moral relativism or modernist thinking at its core, and is in direct conflict with prior church teachings.

 

[pnewton]

No, it is not. That is not neither moral relativism or modernism. I do not think you know what either of those are. It does not mean that what is acceptable at one time is not acceptable at another. Otherwise, we would still have animal sacrifices. Otherwise, we would not need just war doctrine because war would either be always good or always bad.

How can Church teaching contradict Church teaching/

 

[pnewton]

From the looks of the release of the 300 page dossier, Francis’ election may get overturned.

I have looked and not found this. Someone posted one article that alleged this was going to be released. Since you have read it, can you tell use where to find it?