Pope Francis Ex Cathedra Death Penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JeremyLewis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/MODERSM.TXT

Here is an article by Jimmy Akin explaining modernism. Look at number 5 of the errors of modernism.

He is literally instructing people to change, cut out and replace, old catechism paragraphs with this new teaching, that is contradictory to all historical teachings on the matter.
 
Something went from admissible in certain circumstances to inadmissible… … i just checked two prior catechisms CCC and the Council of Trent. They are far from inadmissible about the topic, in fact they support the use of it in certain situations. How is that not a contradiction?
 
A contradiction is when “A” becomes “not A” in which the term “A” does not change.

Take the last part of how the Catechism will read.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
Click to expand...
The very first word “Consequently” means, to use one definition, “as a result, effect, or outcome.” It’s use means this paragraph cannot stand alone, but comes as a result or effect of something else. In this case, the preceding paragraph reads:
Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Click to expand...
This is a different formulation, but not all that different than the previous that read:
the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Click to expand...
It is not a contradiction, but a different one of saying the same thing. St. John Paul II whose Catechism is being changed said:
The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
Click to expand...
So we have St. John Paul saying the death penalty could not be justified if there was any other way around it. Then coming out later and saying it was unnecessary, therefore it should be ended. What Pope Francis has proposed is the same thing taught by St. John Paul.
 
Last edited:
Then why reword it? If his teachings on the matter were the same he would leave well enough alone.
He closes the door to the use of the death penalty by civil authorities, something that the church has left open, and for good reason up until this point.
 
pnewton said:
more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens
Click to expand...
The trouble is that our Pope, and many others with him, assumes that the purpose of the death penalty has been to protect other citizens. In other words: we couldn’t do without it up until now because our “systems of detention” were too escape-prone. This isn’t so. “Effective systems of detention” have been around for a very long time: dungeons, ball and chain, shackles, etc. The purpose of the death penalty was never the protection of other citizens.
pnewton said:
do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Click to expand...
This is the worse mistake: it is deemed “obvious” that to end a criminal’s life is to deprive him of the possibility of redemption. As I argued in an earlier post, the death penalty is in fact the ultimate tool to invite a man to his redemption, and it may well be that you deprive him of the possibility of redemption if you refuse to give him the death penalty even though his crimes are horrendous and there is no sign of repentance.
pnewton said:
St. John Paul II […] said: The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Much though Pope JP2 deserves our veneration, I cannot in honesty avoid the assessment that this passage is weak and misguided. The invocation of the phrases “pro-life” and “Gospel of life” is deceiving. They suggest here that these terms are about protecting life in general. But insofar as the Gospel is a gospel of life, it is a gospel of eternal, perfect life. To apply the term to being lenient on severe criminals, suddenly makes it into a “gospel of let’s-all-get-along-in-this-life”, which is something totally different. Same for the phrase “pro-life”, which obviously connotes that one objects to the horrendous practice of abortion. To simply carry this term over to the death-penalty discussion is unfair, the two practices having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Also, whether the death penalty is cruel or not depends on the method used. Unless of course one considers death itself cruel (regardless of how it comes about), but that would flagrantly contradict the entire spirit of Christianity, and indeed the entire spirit of all religion. (Whoever considers death intrinsically cruel, evidently has little confidence in what comes after death, i.e. he/she lacks faith in his/her own immortality.)

Anyway, I still appreciate you posting this, because it shows very clearly that the seeds for the current mistake (i.e. of altering RCC teaching to unequivocally condemn the death penalty) were indeed shown by Pope JP2.
 
Last edited:
Roguish said:
The trouble is that our Pope, and many others with him, assumes that the purpose of the death penalty has been to protect other citizens.
Click to expand...
He does not assume this. He teaches that the purpose is to defend human lives. That is his job. Teaching Catholic doctrine.
Roguish said:
Much though Pope JP2 deserves our veneration, I cannot in honesty avoid the assessment that this passage is weak and misguided.
40.png
Roguish:
Anyway, I still appreciate you posting this, because it shows very clearly that the seeds for the current mistake (i.e. of altering RCC teaching to unequivocally condemn the death penalty) were indeed shown by Pope JP2.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You are entitled to your opinion, but I will have to always point out when I see this that it is not the Catholic opinion, that is, the Catholic Church teaches otherwise. This is not a dogma, so a little more leeway exists for dissent, but it remains dissent.
 
Last edited:
For Catholic’s in the United States, I will also link the USCCB on the subject.

The Church’s Anti-Death Penalty Position

The Church is not teaching error. Rather, Catholics are called to rise above their own desire to set their own private doctrines and listen to what the Church teaches. If this is not part of one’s faith, then one is only a Catholic by coincidence.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
Roguish:
The trouble is that our Pope, and many others with him, assumes that the purpose of the death penalty has been to protect other citizens.
Click to expand...
He does not assume this.
Click to expand...
The new wording literally and explicitly gives as one of the reasons for the change the fact that “more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens.”
pnewton said:
You are entitled to your opinion, but I will have to always point out when I see this that it is not the Catholic opinion, that is, the Catholic Church teaches otherwise. This is not a dogma, so a little more leeway exists for dissent, but it remains dissent.
Click to expand...
That’s true, my view is a dissenting view w.r.t. the teaching as it stands now. But this thread is hardly about what Catholic teaching on this topic is. What it is now is clear to anybody who reads the text, and what it was in the past can be retrieved through a minute of searching the web. But the OP opened the thread indicating that he is concerned that teachings can apparently be changed.
pnewton said:
The Church is not teaching error. Rather, Catholics are called to rise above their own desire to set their own private doctrines and listen to what the Church teaches. If this is not part of one’s faith, then one is only a Catholic by coincidence.
Click to expand...
A harsh assessment, for various reasons. You label as “private doctrines” those views that correspond to doctrines and practices the Church herself upheld in the past. As if I and others who are unhappy with the development under discussion, are stubborn rogues who whimsically concoct alternative views with no grounding in history, and do so out of a “desire” (your term). This isn’t so, and you know that.

Moreover, while doctrinal obedience is certainly a legitimate requirement, a man mustn’t go against his conscience. (I trust that you are familiar with what JP2 had to say about that.) The Church is right to demand obedience insofar as (and as long as) the Church is obedient to Christ. In the matter of making this change, is She? That is the real question, but you are dismissing the very question as invalid, claiming that it is uncatholic to raise it in the first place.

P.S. I just noticed this:
While history is informative and it offers data into what doctrine is, we do not life in history, but in the present.
Click to expand...
This is neo-conservatism in a nutshell. You are reducing tradition to “interesting data” that may be dismissed “when modern times require it”, while being “strict” about whatever is stipulated now. This is not only glib but potentially tyrannical, for it opens the door to any and all change, and removes from man one of his most fundamental cognitive bearings, i.e. temporal continuity. This disinterest in continuity is symptomatic of the modern mind, which is chaotic and has no qualms about bulldozing over the past.
 
Last edited:
Changing something that was once a truth to no longer being a truth bothers me of course as it should anybody. The Holy Spirit doesn’t reveal something as truth and then later on reveal it no longer as a truth.
 
That is exactly how I feel and what worries me so much about it!
 
pnewton said:
This is a different formulation, but not all that different than the previous that read:…

It is not a contradiction, but a different one of saying the same thing. St. John Paul II whose Catechism is being changed said:
Click to expand...
So if Francis is saying the same thing JPII said, what makes capital punishment “inadmissible” now when it was clearly admissible before? And what exactly does inadmissible mean: that it is immoral or merely that it is inadvisable?
 
pnewton said:
He does not assume this. He teaches that the purpose is to defend human lives. That is his job. Teaching Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
But defending human lives has never been and is not now the primary purpose of punishment, and to teach that it is is not to teach Catholic doctrine but to distort it. Nor do I think this is what he is teaching. This may be what is implied, but as I’ve said before the passage is ambiguous and invites contrary interpretations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top