Pope Francis tells Congress ‘every life is sacred,’ says the death penalty should be abolished

[LongingSoul]

Why would anyone consider the commands of the Creator to be mindless.

Are you claiming that Trent did so? That it is possible for an Ecumenical Council to act without God.

If so, how can we trust any Council?

It’s hard to understand what your stumbling block is. Do you not believe in ‘development’ as a natural phenomenon? How did you process the transition from believing in Santa to knowing he was only a representation of a Higher Authority, to perpetrating the story for your own children all over again?

I can speak for myself and my children and those around me in saying that, I believed fully in Santa and the need for my obedience to please him. But then by the time I found out that Santa wasn’t exactly a fat man with a white beard with a naughty/nice list, but a representation of a higher authority… I was kind of like I figured that already and I’m ready to accept the place of the myth in my life experience without being spiritually injured by my new knowledge.

I still trusted my parents and in fact went on to give the gift of ‘santa’ to my own kids without feeling like a fraud. It’s one of those things that you can impute to the phenomenon of natural development without being scared by it.

Without understanding ‘development’, I guess it is only natural to cast judgement on our parents and the older generation as either being stupid or deceitful. But that isn’t how it is in most cases when ‘development’ is an accepted phenomenon.

 

[Thomas_White]

So when Ephesus stated that Christ was both God and Man, you are saying that the understand could ‘evolve’ in such a way that Christ would be known as just being God, just being Man, just being partialy man, or partially God or being neither?

And such lack of understanding of the Absolute Truth would be function of our temporal world.

So if we have no doctrine that can supply an answer, at that the matter should, it seems, rest with personal moral choice, what grounds would you have to make a criticism of a judge who sentences someone to death, or one who commits the execution.

It would be a matter of their personal conscience.

As far as doctrines from 100 years ago not being a valid guide for a moral decision, why then should a Gospel from 2000 years ago be any more of a guide?

I don’t recall saying that about Ephesus, actually. I have only tried to explain Dei Verbum, and I realize it is not readily grasped by one and all.

The Gospels and Apostolic teaching are not what would advance (change) during the course of time. They would not. It is man’s understanding that would become more fully informed as revelation continued until the end of time. With all due respect, I have explained this several times. This does not invalidate doctrine nor does it invalidate the declaration of Trent concerning capital punishment.

I don’t think the teaching of Dei Verbum could be understood by thinking of it as a true/false concept rather than as a continuous process.

 

[graciew]

But that statement about the use of capital punishment needs to be reconciled with everything taught before. This is Ender’s point. And unlike what it seems Thomas White is saying, I do not think advancements in understanding invalidate previous teachings. The issue is how to reconcile the entirety of Church teaching. And rejecting capital punishment out of hand as immoral is, in my opinion, a rejection of previous teaching.

.

Hope this helps you,Suudy. It did help me understand a lot more about the process.
This is 2008,yet it deals with basically what DP threads have been dealing about. And it is the Church.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8506
The Church 's evolving view on the Death Penalty.

 

[sallybutler]

I have just read an old interview to an leading executioner in Saudi.Arabia . In fact ,I read it right after reading lethal injection.
I d say a.simple man.

He understands ,and so do the people that he carries out God’s will when certain crimes demand capital punishment.
Skipping details we may all know.about , he sounded a devout man in his religion and worried to carry it out without inflicting pain .
But listen to this which called.my attention in a different light: he said that before execution, he visits the victim s family and prays for this last chance the person has. If the family of the victim forgives the one who will be executed ,then the execution is not carried out. He says he always keeps this hope alive.

Once the state is involved, is not matter what the individual thinks. Execution, according to the Church, belongs to the state. However, the Church says that execution should only be used when there is no other way to prevent the person from committing the same crime again.

As a a US citizen, I have faith in the prison system.

 

[LongingSoul]

Once the state is involved, is not matter what the individual thinks. Execution, according to the Church, belongs to the state. However, the Church says that execution should only be used when there is no other way to prevent the person from committing the same crime again.

As a a US citizen, I have faith in the prison system.

The death penalty has been sliding away from use around the world for a long time without the Church making any statements or recommendations. I believe that the only reason that the Church is speaking up in the last 40 years against capital punishment, is specifically because of an ideology mainly in the US that it can never be abolished because God mandated it in Genesis. That’s a mistaken interpretation of Genesis. It served the good of the community in the past, but todays society is having trouble reconciling it with justice considering the system discrimination we battle and quality of the prisons system.

 

[graciew]

Once the state is involved, is not matter what the individual thinks. Execution, according to the Church, belongs to the state. However, the Church says that execution should only be used when there is no other way to prevent the person from committing the same crime again.

As a a US citizen, I have faith in the prison system.

I did not know an executioner could be sort of a mediator and still carry out God s will in mercy and forgiveness in such a context. I really had no idea. The contrast between something so savage in our eyes as Sharia law may be and this prayer of this man keeping his hope alive did call my attention. That was what I was sharing,my amazement.

 

[pnewton]

Such as when Trent says “The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder”. It would seem that it either is, or is not an act of paramount obedience to the 5th Commandment.

Do you know this is 500 years old? There was not even a whiff of a possibility of a prison system such as we have today. If you look at this sentence, all it says is capital punishment is not murder but an obedient response (in the Sixteenth Century) to the Fifth Commandment. What it does not say is that it is the only obedient response. Of course, I am sure that St. John Paul, Pope Emeritus Benedict and Pope Francis are all aware of the Council of Trent.

 

[Thomas_White]

In there no difference between the Old Testament justice of ‘an eye for an eye’ and the message of the historical Jesus Christ to the world? What does it mean to be Christian?

For the past 1500 years, the Church has remained aside in the issue of capital punishment, and clergy have not been permitted to have any part in an execution. Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have advanced an ever clearer understanding of the question of the DP, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops has opposed the practice, viewing it as part of a culture of death. Does this mean nothing but the 500-year old declaration of the Council of Trent means everything because it is doctrine? I only ask the question.

Is it forgotten that Jesus Christ was executed while nailed to a cross set in the earth between two prisoners? Is state ordered execution what Catholics would defend? Or is there a question of what is necessary and just in particular circumstances in an evolving temporal world?

 

[Brendan]

In there no difference between the Old Testament justice of ‘an eye for an eye’ and theFor the past 1500 years, the Church has remained aside in the issue of capital punishment, and clergy have not been permitted to have any part in an execution. Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have advanced an ever clearer understanding of the question of the DP, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops has opposed the practice, viewing it as part of a culture of death. Does this mean nothing but the 500-year old declaration of the Council of Trent means everything because it is doctrine? I only ask the question.

And the answer is that, at this time, it is prudent to ask States to refrain from the right of Capital Punishment. I concur with that. But nothing that the Popes have said ( nor can say) is contrary to Trent. It is the same Spirt that guides both Councils and Popes in matters of Faith and Morals.

FYI, note that St. Dismus noted that his sentence was a just one.

Justice ( like morality) is not dependent on a temporal world. Justice is a WHO, not a what. God Himself is Justice. Likewise with morality. It is determined by what is offensive to God and what is pleasing to God. God does not ( nor cannot ) change. What is offensive to Him will always be offensive to Him. What is not offensive to Him will always not be offensive to Him.

All the recent Popes have decried the concept of moral relativism, the idea morals are not certitudes. Pope Benedict even called such a concept a 'dictatorship, a false idea that “creates the illusion that it has reached greater heights than the loftiest philosophical achievements of the past”

How do you distinguish your position from what Pope Benedict decried. Do you feel that your position on CP is at a greater height than what Trent offered, or Aquinas, or Augstine?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas White;13324304:

In there no difference between the Old Testament justice of ‘an eye for an eye’ and theFor the past 1500 years, the Church has remained aside in the issue of capital punishment, and clergy have not been permitted to have any part in an execution. Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have advanced an ever clearer understanding of the question of the DP, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops has opposed the practice, viewing it as part of a culture of death. Does this mean nothing but the 500-year old declaration of the Council of Trent means everything because it is doctrine

? I only ask the question.

And the answer is that, at this time, it is prudent to ask States to refrain from the right of Capital Punishment. I concur with that. But nothing that the Popes have said ( nor can say) is contrary to Trent. It is the same Spirt that guides both Councils and Popes in matters of Faith and Morals.

St. Paul was well familiar with the message of Christ, more so than any of us, yet he also noted that the governing authority has the right to wield the sword against those that do evil, and when the State does so, it acts as God’s agent ( Romans 13)

That is New Testament moral doctrine, and one that is inspired teaching that is part of the Deposit of Faith that Dei Verbum refers to.

FYI, note that St. Dismus noted that his sentence was a just one.

Justice ( like morality) is not dependent on a temporal world. Justice is a WHO, not a what. God Himself is Justice. Likewise with morality. It is determined by what is offensive to God and what is pleasing to God. God does not ( nor cannot ) change. What is offensive to Him will always be offensive to Him. What is not offensive to Him will always not be offensive to Him.

All the recent Popes have decried the concept of moral relativism, the idea morals are not certitudes. Pope Benedict even called such a concept a 'dictatorship, a false idea that “creates the illusion that it has reached greater heights than the loftiest philosophical achievements of the past”

How do you distinguish your position from what Pope Benedict decried. Do you feel that your position on CP is at a greater height than what Trent offered, or Aquinas, or Augstine?

Let’s first understand that you are arguing not with me but against Catholic dogma. As earlier provided in a quote, the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum proclaims the following:

“This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down.”

Is it that you reject Catholic dogma promulgated by the Holy Father Pope Paul VI? Yes or no?

 

[Brendan]

Let’s first understand that you are arguing not with me but against Catholic dogma. As earlier provided in a quote, the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum proclaims the following:

“This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down.”

Is it that you reject Catholic dogma promulgated by the Holy Father Pope Paul VI? Yes or no?

I agree that we more understand new truths, but such understanding does not invalided what is already known to be true.

Any new understandings of Capital Punishment, for example, cannot invalidate what Trent has already shown to be true.

Dei Verbum certainly does not state that such a growth in understanding reverses what has previously been known.

For example in Dei Verbum 9

Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully,

Note that what was handed to the Church exists in its full purity. It lacks nothing, and Trent is an example of this full, pure teaching that was handed by the Apostles to their successors, the bishops.

Unless, of course, you wish to deny Dei Verbum, and claim that Trent was somewhat less that full and pure. Or that it failed to proclaim the word of God faithfully?

And we see that again in Lumen Gentium

Since the Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race, it desires now to unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner nature and universal mission. This it intends to do by following faithfully the teaching of previous councils.

And

Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,and also the councils assembled together, in which more profound issues were settled in common, the opinion of the many having been prudently considered, both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character.

So what do you think that Lumen Gentium means when it states that 'issues were settled"

Do you think that the Church contradicts itself, having issues that are settled, but having growth in understanding?

 

[Thomas_White]

Thomas White;13324304:

In there no difference between the Old Testament justice of ‘an eye for an eye’ and theFor the past 1500 years, the Church has remained aside in the issue of capital punishment, and clergy have not been permitted to have any part in an execution. Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have advanced an ever clearer understanding of the question of the DP, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops has opposed the practice, viewing it as part of a culture of death. Does this mean nothing but the 500-year old declaration of the Council of Trent means everything because it is doctrine

? I only ask the question.

And the answer is that, at this time, it is prudent to ask States to refrain from the right of Capital Punishment. I concur with that. But nothing that the Popes have said ( nor can say) is contrary to Trent. It is the same Spirt that guides both Councils and Popes in matters of Faith and Morals.

St. Paul was well familiar with the message of Christ, more so than any of us, yet he also noted that the governing authority has the right to wield the sword against those that do evil, and when the State does so, it acts as God’s agent ( Romans 13)

That is New Testament moral doctrine, and one that is inspired teaching that is part of the Deposit of Faith that Dei Verbum refers to.

And what does Dei Verbum say with respect to Apostolic teaching? Why is it that a person would believe nothing further could be said following Trent, when what was declared at Trent was not Apostolic preaching in the first place? Trent should be understood as what had been revealed and understood by that time, some five-hundred years ago, and not as the Absolute Truth. This is perhaps a stumbling block. It presumes that what was known at that time was the full revelation, and this is to presume to know what is only known by Christ. That presumption has a huge downside. It is the sin of pride, said to be the greatest sin of all.

FYI, note that St. Dismus noted that his sentence was a just one.

Justice ( like morality) is not dependent on a temporal world. Justice is a WHO, not a what. God Himself is Justice. Likewise with morality. It is determined by what is offensive to God and what is pleasing to God. God does not ( nor cannot ) change. What is offensive to Him will always be offensive to Him. What is not offensive to Him will always not be offensive to Him.

That is well and good. The point is that the Fifth Commandant provides that the taking of human life must be justified. If St. Dismus’s punishment was just, then que sera, sera. Morality as Absolute Truth is not relative, but the administration of capital punishment to a prisoner is relative in that it cannot be understood as a universal justified in every single instance. Other moral laws are also relative to a given situation. It is when they are applicable to a particular situation that moral relativism is wrong, such as is the case in marital relations.

All the recent Popes have decried the concept of moral relativism, the idea morals are not certitudes. Pope Benedict even called such a concept a 'dictatorship, a false idea that “creates the illusion that it has reached greater heights than the loftiest philosophical achievements of the past”

With every due respect, there is confusion. The prohibition against the unjust taking of a human life is not relative. It is absolute. But whether a particular execution is just is not always so clear. We cannot always escape these sorts of judgments, and I believe this is God’s plan. Man must discern, and I do not believe this moral responsibility is properly avoided. It is always present, and one is confronted with choices. Whether to execute a particular prisoner is one of them. Was the very recent execution in the U.S. absolutely necessary and thus justified? No, not even close is what my conscience tells me. And, quite frankly, whatever Trent might have had to say about it could not possibly have proven persuasive that it would not be immoral for me to push that button. Do we see? This is the primacy of conscience.

Brendan:

How do you distinguish your position from what Pope Benedict decried. Do you feel that your position on CP is at a greater height than what Trent offered, or Aquinas, or Augstine?

It must be understood that what I have defended is what I believe is the teaching of the Catholic Church. What was it Pope Benedict decried about capital punishment? In his November 30, 2011 audience, he urged countries around the world to end the death penalty is what. Addressing those attending an international conference in Rome, he said he hoped “their deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty.” Was this promoting moral relativism?

It is understandable that a person would seek a solid ground, if that is the case here, but this is ever elusive in a temporal world of Becoming. It ends up with a static position that becomes confusing relative to real events and is in time essentially ignored. It is Dei Verbum that provides an understanding of this problem, I believe, and with it perhaps the realization that man cannot escape God’s plan, one of free choice in a temporal world of continuous change.

 

[LongingSoul]

I agree that we more understand new truths, but such understanding does not invalided what is already known to be true.

Any new understandings of Capital Punishment, for example, cannot invalidate what Trent has already shown to be true.

Dei Verbum certainly does not state that such a growth in understanding reverses what has previously been known.

For example in Dei Verbum 9

Note that what was handed to the Church exists in its full purity. It lacks nothing, and Trent is an example of this full, pure teaching that was handed by the Apostles to their successors, the bishops.

Unless, of course, you wish to deny Dei Verbum, and claim that Trent was somewhat less that full and pure. Or that it failed to proclaim the word of God faithfully?

And we see that again in Lumen Gentium

And

So what do you think that Lumen Gentium means when it states that 'issues were settled"

Do you think that the Church contradicts itself, having issues that are settled, but having growth in understanding?

The nature of all Church teaching is that it is written for and by men of a certain era in the context of that era and with the available knowledge of men and the world. That has to be a given because it is just a universal fact of human life. The writings aren’t of the same nature of the bible which stands for all time because it is the inspired word of God. If what was written as a result of the Council of Trent for that era was indeed the final universal word, there wouldn’t even need to be a living Magisterium, writing anything new on any subject since then. That’s really the point of the living Church. We listen to what the Magisterium is saying to us today in the light of our times, to fully understand the scope of whole of Church teaching to our current capacity. Of course in another 500 years there will be new conditions and understandings and new Popes expressing Church teaching in the light of those time, with new encyclicals and letters etc.

When the death penalty was being rolled back in Australia there was an interesting reassurance printed in the Catholic newspaper at the times. (1924)

"Is the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment?

This question, thus generally put, must be answered by a decided no. Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6). In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law. Capital punishment was practised by all Catholic Governments, including the temporal Government of the Popes., when they still had the Papal States. On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers. If in times past the death penalty was resorted to far more frequently than now, we think this was greatly caused by the inefficiency of the police system.

Because the type of punishment used in civil law is to be decided by the state according to Catholic teaching… the Church doesn’t interfere with the law. When she does speak out is when there are false claims made about Church teaching within the community. The Church councils are a reaction to the questions and issues of the times in which they are held and you can easily imagine that during the time of Trent, there was need to correct an idea that the death penalty was intrinsically evil.

Today there is a need to correct the view that the death penalty is intrinsically *good * or a divine right of man outside of the states mandate to address the common good.

In fact, I’ve never really heard anyone here on these boards claim that the death penalty is intrinsically evil and I think that is a myth perpetrated by those who claim the opposite, to discredit the natural movement in society, away from the death penalty. We are so much more educated in the scope of Church teaching on this issue today… far more so than in the middle ages. There is no real reason for anyone to have a false conception of the Church’s position.

 

[Brendan]

When the death penalty was being rolled back in Australia there was an interesting reassurance printed in the Catholic newspaper at the times. (1924)

"Is the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment?

This question, thus generally put, must be answered by a decided no. Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6). In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law. Capital punishment was practised by all Catholic Governments, including the temporal Government of the Popes., when they still had the Papal States. On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers. If in times past the death penalty was resorted to far more frequently than now, we think this was greatly caused by the inefficiency of the police system.

To be honest, I agree with every word that was written there.

I’m in Michigan, the first English speaking jurisdiction in the world that chose to forgo capital punishment ( almost a century before you Aussies actually)

It is a fact that I am quite proud about. A secular government can most certainly choose to forgo capital punish,ent

The Church councils are a reaction to the questions and issues of the times in which they are held and you can easily imagine that during the time of Trent, there was need to correct an idea that the death penalty was intrinsically evil.

 

[LongingSoul]

In fact, I’ve never really heard anyone here on these boards claim that the death penalty is intrinsically evil and I think that is a myth perpetrated by those who claim the opposite, to discredit the natural movement in society, away from the death penalty.

Abortion is intrinsically evil but the use of the death penalty can be evil as in unjust according to moral tenets. ‘Intrinsic’ doesn’t mean of greater severity, it means under every circumstance. When capital punishment is used for reasons not strictly related to the common good, it is a gravely evil thing. It is an allowance for legitimate authorities. Hence, the Church considering the dp a prolife issue and calling for us to be unconditionally prolife.

Violations of the 5th commandment can be through the deliberate choice to murder (intrisically evil acts) or as an overreach of the right to defense as per Aquinas…

And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. **Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, **because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.

So self defense is not intrinsically evil but to use more than necessary violence to that end is.

 

[LongingSoul]

These were the bishops of the Church, and the Pope. it is a stretch to claim that we are more educated than they. And certainly we are all far less educated on Church teaching that Aquinas.

I’m saying ‘we’ as in this generation. We are more advanced in understanding of human nature and the world in so many ways, than they were. For example we were recently noting in another topic that Aquinas advised in his treatise Summa Theologica, that people refrain from conjugal relations during the menstral cycle because of the danger to any conceived child arising from that act. The sections were dropped from the Summa in the Leonine editions because they were found of course to be scientifically unsound ideas.

And, conversely, we need to address a common misconception that capital punishment is intrinsically wrong or immoral.

We already know that. The catechism is clear. That doesn’t mean that it can never be abolished.

One additional point. Who does the Church give the right to determine if the conditions provided for in the Catechism have been met?

Would that not fall under the very passage that you underlined

When it is understood that the Church comments on public policy in relation to the morality of acts that is universally applicable… it can be more easily understood that what might be supported in one era could be condemned in another. In this age, there is an intense force to abolish the death penalty as not in keeping with justice today. You have to ask yourself why has the Church only started weighing in when it has been progessively abolished across the globe for a century? The reason that I observe is to counter the force that is preventing this natural movement, coming out of the US, which claims that it could never be abolished for the reason that it is morally wrong. That defies the Catholic understanding of death penalty as a legitimate defense measure subject to a moral judgement.

 

[Thomas_White]

I agree that we more understand new truths, but such understanding does not invalided what is already known to be true.

Absolute Truth is absolute. There is no ‘new truth’ but only a growth in understanding of the absolute truth. What is absolute is universal. The Fifth Commandment is ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’. How is this commandment to be understood, in relation to what is just and necessary, in 50 A.D., in 500 A.D., in 1500 A.D. and in today’s modern society in the U.S.? How should the execution of Christians be understood in Syria today? These are vastly varying circumstances.

Any new understandings of Capital Punishment, for example, cannot invalidate what Trent has already shown to be true.

What Trent declared was not the Absolute Truth. This was not possible. I think this is key and must first be understood: The fullness of divine revelation has not yet been revealed.

Dei Verbum certainly does not state that such a growth in understanding reverses what has previously been known.

For example in Dei Verbum 9

Dei Verbum 9 directly follows 8. It does not contradict 8. We seem to be searching for straws where there are none.

Note that what was handed to the Church exists in its full purity. It lacks nothing, and Trent is an example of this full, pure teaching that was handed by the Apostles to their successors, the bishops.

Yes, what was handed down to the Apostle’s was so, but Trent cannot be the full understanding of what was handed down to the Apostles. That full understanding will only occur when the fullness of divine revelation is revealed at the end of time. What is the stumbling block? We do not yet know everything and certainly Trent didn’t either.

Unless, of course, you wish to deny Dei Verbum, and claim that Trent was somewhat less that full and pure. Or that it failed to proclaim the word of God faithfully?

And we see that again in Lumen Gentium

So what do you think that Lumen Gentium means when it states that 'issues were settled"

Do you think that the Church contradicts itself, having issues that are settled, but having growth in understanding?

I definitely don’t think the phase ‘issues were settled’ means all issues were forever settled or that in its context it had anything to do with capital punishment. The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum was promulgated by Pope Paul VI a year after he promulgated Lumen Gentium. Do you think Pope Paul contradicted himself?

 

[Thomas_White]

I agree that we more understand new truths, but such understanding does not invalided what is already known to be true.

Any new understandings of Capital Punishment, for example, cannot invalidate what Trent has already shown to be true.

What did Trent show to be true relative to an absolute understanding of Apostolic teaching?

“You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment.” --Matthew 5:21-22

“Whoever hateth his brother, is a murderer. And you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself.” --1John 3:15

Committing murder is not just killing someone, it means more than just killing someone, it means having an unforgiving attitude toward someone.

 

[Suudy]

What Trent declared was not the Absolute Truth. This was not possible. I think this is key and must first be understood: The fullness of divine revelation has not yet been revealed.

This is dressing up subjectivism in new clothes. Now instead of denying there is no absolute truth, there is the denial that we can know or even understand absolute truth. And since we don’t (or can’t) know the absolute truth, one must rely upon their own conscience.

 

[Thomas_White]

This is dressing up subjectivism in new clothes. Now instead of denying there is no absolute truth, there is the denial that we can know or even understand absolute truth. And since we don’t (or can’t) know the absolute truth, one must rely upon their own conscience.

"And so the Apostolic teaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time.

“This tradition, which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contributions and studies made by believers…”

–Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965, (8)

It seems for some this is either not acceptable or difficult to grasp. When that is the case, it would perhaps be better to ignore the teaching if it becomes a challenge to faith. Nevertheless, it is there as Catholic dogma and to simply reject it cannot be a good thing either.

My view is that what the Council of Trent had to say about capital punishment concerned the realities of the world 500 years ago and not possibly with an understanding of the realities of U.S. society in the year 2015. In this respect, when it comes to the execution of a prisoner strapped to a gurney in the death chamber of a U.S. prison, who presents no immediate danger whatsoever, I would not participate in the execution regardless of what Trent might say. I do not see this as moral relativism at all with respect to the Fifth Commandment. It concerns rather an unforgiving attitude as referenced in the verses quoted in my comment that are Apostolic preaching, and I believe there is a growth in the understanding of those words as the temporal world changes. For an individual this perhaps involves the primacy of conscience but one informed by the preaching of recent popes.