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.
BlackFriar said:
If at any time it was acceptable to Him, and the above were, then by definition they are not inherent evils.
Click to expand...
I suppose what is acceptable must be judged against a benchmark. The question on my mind is the extent to which the benchmark was established in OT Times.
 
Yes its a question of acceptability within various different contexts.
Pulling the inherently evil card simply seems to short circuit that useful discernment process.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I do also believe that many who endorse capital punishment are satisfying an underlying urge, either consciously unconsciously, for vengeance and that all other explanations are based on rationalization, which is simply a defense mechanism from a psychological viewpoint.
Click to expand...
And perhaps YOU are just projecting YOUR “psychological viewpoint” and the limited way in which you understand morality onto the “many who endorse capital punishment.” The fact that you include the terms “either consciously or unconsciously” provides you a universal rebuttal because whatever justification anyone offers, no matter how good and well-reasoned, you are simply going to dismiss it as an unconscious desire for vengeance. Saves you the great labour and intellectual effort of having to offer a rebuttal against the ideas of others, doesn’t it?

Let’s play the game your way, then.

Perhaps your defense of criminals is ITSELF, either consciously or unconsciously, a desire to promote evil and give it a helping hand by making sure nothing very serious ever happens to those who commit capital offenses. Or perhaps you are the one "satisfying an underlying urge, either “consciously or unconsciously,” for vengeance – vengeance against innocent people who have suffered great wrongs so that they will never in this life see justice done on their own behalf. Why would you want to hurt innocent people like that? Well, I don’t know and neither do you. That is the nature of “unconscious urges,” but clearly you do have no sympathy for victims of crime and are obviously trying to prevent evil-doers from suffering due punishment. Yeah I know you will claim some other reason for your point of view, but that would just be rationalizing away your real motives to protect your self-image and moral posturing.

See how that works?

It is very easy to Impute bad motives onto others and then lock those imputed motives behind a wall of incontestable “unconscious urges” and dismiss every possible reply as nothing but a “rationalization.” Clearly you know everyone who disagrees with your point of view better than they know themselves and are quite willing to nullify everything they have to say as indefensible because they couldn’t possibly know their own urges and motives, at least not as well as you know their unconscious motives with such certainty

In case you are missing the implications, your analysis is simply a carry-forward of the progressivist post-modernist strategy of identifying a moral position that is in current disfavor, blaming it on some unconscious motive or fear and then dismissing every possible argument as a “rationalization.” To wit: homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, etc., Yours just takes the next step, upping the ante from “unconscious fear” to “unconscious blood lust.”

Congratulations on your innovative post-modernist strategy. 😦
 
Again, I contend that LOVE has to be the dominant value which our society is based. This is the basic teaching of the Bible. God is LOVE! What value is being promoted through capital punishment? Justice? Again, I do believe that LOVE is the dominant value in the NT and that we need to promote it at all costs. We are all sinners and in need of salvation, and only through our promoting LOVE can we be justified to God.

Do you agree that all unnecessary killing is evil? You cannot say that unnecessary in one situation is evil and in the next situation, it’s good. Why would someone want to commit evil over choosing forgiveness and LOVE if not for vengeance?

Let us use the Bible as our guide and show me where in the NT capital punishment would be justifiable?
 
Last edited:
Robert_Sock said:
Again, I contend that LOVE has to be the dominant value which our society is based. This is the basic teaching of the Bible. God is LOVE!
Click to expand...
That depends upon what you mean by “LOVE.” If you mean sunshine and lollipops and getting everything your little heart desires, then it might be true that such is the “dominant value” upon which our current society is based (I.e., entitlement,) but that doesn’t define God.

Love means willing what is “the good” (I.e., the Summum Bonum) for the other. That doesn’t mean all other goods are not willed for the other, but it does mean a defined sense of proportionality exists such that when goods conflict we are capable of prioritizing them and weighing someone’s lesser good against another’s higher good to arbitrate between them. If you simply collapse all goods into a heap of goods and let everyone “have at 'em” it is, I suppose, possible to stand back and repeat “God is LOVE,” but that doesn’t do much to resolve real world issues.

Would you accept that killing, if necessary, is permissible in cases of self-defense or to protect the innocent? Killing one person (a perpetrator) is therefore compatible with loving another person (potential victim.) LOVE for the innocent in those cases demands that we might even have to kill to abide by our LOVE for them.

If not, then how is merely standing by or acting ineffectually while an innocent person, or yourself, are killed in front of your eyes, also NOT being loving with respect to those who are about to be killed by a murderer? Doesn’t permitting the murder of an innocent person to occur in front of you without making a sufficient attempt to stop it, when you can, amount to being an accessory by showing partiality for love of the murderer over love of the victim?

It seems to me that “Life” choices are a bit messy and aren’t amenable to simple answers that cover all situations, and exceptions to universal rules can always arise. Being ideologically “pure” isn’t always possible. Sometimes how far we are willing to go to love another is more morally telling than how unwilling we are to be involved justified by defending our own ideological purity or moral virtue-signaling.

Are you certain that your apparent “LOVE” isn’t merely a front for apathy or cowardice? That is a serious question by the way. I am not merely trying to make a polemical point. From my experience, it is far easier to be cowardly, apathetic and rationalize inaction – by developing and rationally justifying simple rules to cover all instances – than it is to show real love and courage in dangerous situations.
 
Last edited:
Robert_Sock said:
Do you agree that all unnecessary killing is evil? You cannot say that unnecessary in one situation is evil and in the next situation, it’s good. Why would someone want to commit evil over choosing forgiveness and LOVE if not for vengeance?
Click to expand...
Sure all unnecessary killing is evil, now you need to demonstrate that every instance of capital punishment is unecessary.

I thought we already dealt with vengeance. No, sometimes LOVE requires lethal action and, no, vengeance isn’t always the motive.
Robert_Sock said:
Let us use the Bible as our guide and show me where in the NT capital punishment would be justifiable?
Click to expand...
I am not Sola Scriptura. In any case, the OT is full of references to justice requiring capital punishment. The NT doesn’t necessarily rule it out. Church teaching for the past 2000 years hasn’t ruled it out either, and can’t in fact without undermining its own claims to infallibility with respect to faith and morals.
 
Last edited:
Many things depend on the situation. For example, is it immoral to have sex with a person of the opposite sex? Is it immoral to kill another human being?

Both can only be answered with: “it depends on the situation”.
 
If it’s your choice to put the situation above God’s absolute truth then so be it. Sin is sin regardless of the situation. What is true, catholics believe, is that God determines culpability but God does not, I believe, tell us that whether or not a sin is committed depends on the situation.
 
Every Christian knows that the dominant values which Christ promoted are love and forgiveness. What values are being promoted in capital punishment and please explain why these values are above love and forgiveness.

When a criminal is disarmed and in a high-security prison capital punishment is unnecessary.
 
I will answer this way - let’s not bring morality into fogging the issue. I am talking about sin. The taking of innocent life is a grave matter and the taking of a life when a person has been proved guilty of serious sin is justice. Also, everyone has the right to defend their life.

Does our justice system allow a convicted murder to walk free because of the circumstances? No they don’t. What is true is the justice system must judge culpability in determining appropriate punishment.
 
In other words, “it depends on the situation”.

How can you talk of sin and not talk about immorality? A sin by definition is an immoral act.
 
the death penalty is not sin, it is justice. defending your life is not sin. but the taking of innocent life is sin - the situation under which it occurs does not determine it being or not being a sin - it is always a sin regardless of the circumstances.
 
You are changing my question. I asked if killing a man is immoral. By including the word “innocent” into the question you are agreeing that there are situations where killing a man is immoral (i.e. murder) and others where it is moral (i.e. proportionate self defense).

The death penalty can be a sin. I think most would agree that stealing a pack of gum shouldn’t result in the death penalty. I’d go so far as to call that situation sinful.

The Church’s current teaching on the death penalty takes the situation in to account. You could even call it relativistic. If society can be protected without killing the criminal than the death penalty shouldn’t be used (i.e. it would be immoral). The teaching is that the morality of it is relative to the culture that it takes place in.
 
self defense is not murder, is not a sin, and is not immoral. the death penalty is not immoral if applied properly (and if it isn’t then it would be murder), is justice, and is not a sin. All sin is immoral. The fact that the death penalty is carried out differently in different countries is not relevant - we are talking about church doctrine which is based on scripture and not how the penalty is applied in the world.
 
To allow capital punishment based on the value of justice allows the sinful value of vengeance to rage like a wildfire throughout our society!
 
I’m not sure you’re reading my posts. I didn’t say self defense is murder. I also said that the death penalty is not immoral if applied properly. But the current teaching takes the situation that the death penalty is applied into account when determining if it is moral or not. I’m also talking Church doctrine which certainly does take into account how it is applied in the world.
 
I was just stating what I believe. I have no more energy for this conversation and really don’t want to discuss this further - there are many considerations that touch on this topic. I am not a scholar. I believe what our church has determined to be correct before our pope made his statement. If you want to say something else I will read it but I will not respond.
 
It is always sinful, just as the CCC regularly translates the 5th:
“Thou shall not kill.”

Is it sometimes necessary, yes it is.
Much like divorce it was not made so at the beginning.
 
No it isnt.
All immoral acts are sins.
Not all sins are immoral acts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top