Scholars raise concerns over Pope Francis remarks on how doctrine develops

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wandile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unreasonable economic hardship or compromised security.

These have been the traditional assumed reasons when:
(a) life imprisonment in times past was not economically feasible or practically secure. This is still the case in Third World countries.
(b) POWs at the front may be killed if it is impossible to contain them by any other means (eg a rapidly advancing just army would lose ground by trying to take them alive).
 
As Pope Francis says all human life has an intrinsic dignity, and even the most heinous of criminals do not forfeit the basics of that dignity.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
God is the Giver and Governor of Life - physical life on Earth is a blessing and a loan from God. As such, he reserves the right to revoke life at any time he deems fit.
Click to expand...
I see. So if God sets things up in nature such that some living things can kill and eat other living things you have no problem with that because God has the right through one creature to take the life of another, yes? Happens in nature all the time, so apparently God who has the right to revoke life at any time can do so when he puts into the instincts and appetites of some animals the capacity and impetus to kill and eat other animals.

So when you say “Life in any and all forms must be protected at all costs,” what you mean is not irrespective of God’s will, you mean in accordance with the balance of nature, natural moral law and whenever God “deems fit.” Animals and humans can hunt and eat other animals if that is the way God made them, and humans can justifiably kill other humans provided that God gives his permission, for example through God ordained just laws and for self-defense, in a just war, etc. So not really at all costs, that was hyperbole, correct?
 
The word Penitentiary comes from Latin paenitentia and has Monastic connotations behind it - the original idea was to give a secure place that led convicts to repent of their criminal lives and come out as law abiding citizens - penitents.

I can’t imagine how places like San Quentin fit into that model.

If anything, horrible places like San Quentin have the opposite effect. Throw somebody in there for robbery and instead of repenting they harden their hearts even more just to survive, are released and end up committing murder. No good.
 
Last edited:
It was hyperbole.

But remember that God is not the author of death - death came into the world through the envy of the devil.

When the Universe and Earth are renewed, I take it literally that children will play with cobras and lions will cuddle with lambs. Death and violence will be no more.
 
Hello, follow the post. I was responding to Wandile’s post of this Catechism;
The Roman Catechism also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent which preceded the Current Catechism of the Catholic Church taught :

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. 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. The end of the Commandment- is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
Click to expand...
Your false interjection makes “absolutely no sense” to the communication of posters who have posted.

Please post your CCC as Wandile did, and maybe we can have a Civil conservation, no pun intended.
 
So what do you suppose will happen to someone who is morally responsible but who insists upon doing evil, for example, killing others without remorse?

Do you think God could sanction their death if it came to that, if it were the only remaining option to stop them from seriously harming or killing others?

I don’t see, then, that the death penalty could be inherently wrong.

Being pro-life (as you admit God is) does not mean that applying the death penalty is always or absolutely wrong. If God being perfectly pro-life could apply the death penalty, then it cannot be inherently wrong or wrong in principle. There might be instances where it is permissible.
 
BlackFriar said:
As Pope Francis says all human life has an intrinsic dignity, and even the most heinous of criminals do not forfeit the basics of that dignity.
Click to expand...
This would assume that forfeiture of life necessarily means forfeiture of dignity. I don’t see that that necessarily follows. Martyrs for the faith and heroic soldiers in wars were killed. Does that mean they forfeited their dignity?

Perhaps the application of capital punishment might be an opportunity to demonstrate dignity – that is, by taking responsibility for the crime committed and facing up to what justice requires for that crime.
 
I never said the death penalty is intrinsically evil - that would be contrary to Infallible Church Teaching - God forbid!

What I meant was that capital punishment in the modern developed world is more obsolete than wrong - and because it’s no longer useful or necessary in the modern developed world it has no place in American society and should be opposed. I think that is the point the Holy Father was getting at.

In poor African nations that lack the means to securely house and care for inmates convicted of capital crimes, it may still be necessary so long as the person convicted is certainly guilty and liable to loss of life by the State.

America can take peoples lives away without killing them, safely and efficiently, thereby eliminating the need to execute them. Somalia, for example, may not be able to securely house serious convicts -
either due to a lack of secure prison facilities or resources - and thereby may necessitate usage of capital punishment in certain instances.
 
Last edited:
CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

That is the Churches current infallible teaching, and what I believe. That was written over 20 years ago however - advances in technology and security have made it so that, IMO and also in the Popes it seems, the CCC should be updated with a clause saying something like “capital punishment is no longer justified in developed nations due to having other ways of taking life securely and efficiently without executing the condemned, but developing nations may still legitimately use the death penalty on a case by case basis if circumstances call for it.”
 
I don’t really understand your point.
Pope Francis simply appears to assert that no crime, by that fact alone, deprives a person of their normal right to life.
 
Not quite what you said in the post I addressed unless right to life is equivalent to human dignity. It is not clear that they are the same thing. Someone could be deprived of their life without forfeiting their dignity. Happens frequently.
 
But wouldn’t that be saying that God is not pro-life since he sanctioned the use of the death penalty?
 
Yes, all human life has an intrinsic dignity. In fact, this is precisely the reason used by sacred scripture FOR the imposition of the death penalty.
 
No.

Saying God is not pro life is the same as saying “Life is not pro life” - it’s nonsensical.

Since God is the Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all life, he reserves the right to give or take life as he sees fit without prejudice.
 
HarryStotle said:
Not quite what you said in the post I addressed unless right to life is equivalent to human dignity
Click to expand...
Yes that’s what I took Pope Francis to mean when he said,
"No man, “not even a murderer, loses his personal dignity” ".
 
Last edited:
It all comes down to the hierarchy of values. “Love your enemies” trumps all! LOVE has to become the highest value that characterizes our society! To have a humane society we must act humanely and value it at all costs!
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Not quite what you said in the post I addressed unless right to life is equivalent to human dignity
Click to expand...
Yes that’s what I took Pope Francis to mean when he said,
"No man, “not even a murderer, loses his personal dignity” ".
Click to expand...
Except I don’t think he meant that right to life and personal dignity are the SAME thing.

So if not even a murderer loses his “personal dignity” then I wouldn’t suppose someone who dies at the hands of a murderer loses his. Ergo, to be killed, whether as a victim of crime or as one condemned to capital punishment, does not remove one’s “personal dignity.” Therefore, capital punishment may take away one’s right to life, but that does not imply capital punishment removes anyone’s personal dignity.

So you can’t argue that capital punishment is wrong BECAUSE it takes away a person’s dignity. The act of dying or being killed doesn’t do that, although one’s life and “right” to it is taken away.
 
I don’t remember Jesus claiming that love our enemies “trumps all.” Definitely, I don’t think he meant “loving them” to mean give to your enemies all the material and moral support they need to destroy you or your friends. Nor did he mean it to imply that love your enemies trumps loving your friends when their interests conflict.

Your “trumps all” ends up sounding like we ought to aid and abet even criminal behaviour if that is what our enemies choose to do.

Do you suppose Jesus meant by “love your enemies,” that you aid and abet evil acts when those are carried out by your enemies, rather than by, say, your friends?

I think you need to rethink your bumper sticker level of analysis.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top