Scholars raise concerns over Pope Francis remarks on how doctrine develops

[Robert_Sock]

Is all human life sacred before God???

 

[HarryStotle]

Why can’t the same additional sub defining of “killing” be done by speaking of “modern CP”.

The words “why can’t” do not magically turn into an irrefutable argument.

You can’t just ask the question and assume the argument has been made. What you need to do prove irrefutably that “the same additional sub defining of “killing” [can] be done [or proven, simply] by speaking of ‘modern CP’.”

Appealing to the opinion of an authority, even Pope Francis’ opinion, is not an argument.

Pope Francis is not free to simply redefine the issue and make “modern CP” inherently evil as a matter of fiat. That act undermines completely his authority to do so by overstepping the very authority he has by doing so.

 

[HarryStotle]

Is all human life sacred before God???

All human life as created and sanctified by God is, indeed, sacred.

Corrupted human life is not sacred, which is why sin separates us from God, who is the definition of “Sacred.”

All sinners have the potential to be saved – are salvageable – and thus can be made sacred, but corruption is not sacred.

That, by the way, is the whole point of Jesus coming to save us. If we were sacred, unconditionally, there would be no need for God to save us, no need to be reborn.

 

[HarryStotle]

Popes cannot discern or define universal secondary precepts applicable for modern situations?

Please don’t tell me contraception is a purely divine utterance.
Even fornication is borderline.

Anything defined authoritatively and infallibly by the Church has the force of “divine utterance” because it amounts to “divine utterance.”

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)

 

[Robert_Sock]

Where do you come up with corrupt human life is not sacred? Are we not all corrupt in God’s eyes? Why do you draw the line with inmates destained to be put to death? Does not God dwell in them the same way he dwells in us? Please provide some grounding for your beliefs.

 

[HarryStotle]

This is not a matter of apriori logic much as you wish it to be.

If inherency isn’t a matter of a priori logic then we aren’t talking about things which have inherent (i.e., by definition) qualities.

You may as well say a square is a triangle provided we don’t count one of the corners and one of the sides.

Capital punishment is “inherently” evil provided we ignore all the conditions which would make it permissible.

 

[BlackFriar]

I am not really interesting in debating anything other than the small point I originally made. Namely some types of CP may be IE. You have denied this:

Your logic is seriously flawed.

You completely misunderstood my murder example.

 

[BlackFriar]

That would be an assumption…

Yes, its a prudential judgement, I agree with one sheep.
Its an expression of solidarity not an argument to be debated .

Even if that is the case, it does nothing to answer the question of whether murderers ought to be executed.

That’s because its not a debate I am interested in pursuing and not one I was pretending to answer.

We weren’t talking about the priestly class doing the executing

Lets leave it here. For some reason you think I am talking to you and your concerns.
In fact I am just conversing with onesheep and making further observations he may be interested in.
It isn’t all about you.

 

[BlackFriar]

See post #167…

 

[HarryStotle]

First let’s address the question of whether any human being is capable of judging with justice the fate of other human beings.

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels—to say nothing of ordinary matters? (1 Cor 6:2-3)

So those who have been justified and sanctified – the saints – will, in fact, judge the world.

Where do you come up with corrupt human life is not sacred? Are we not all corrupt in God’s eyes? Why do you draw the line with inmates destained to be put to death? Does not God dwell in them the same way he dwells in us? Please provide some grounding for your beliefs.

Paul again:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 16:9-11)

So what is the difference between those who are “washed,…sanctified,…justified…” and the “wrongdoers” who will “not inherit the kingdom of God?”

Must be some difference, no? Or is God merely being capricious by electing some of the “wrongdoers” and not others? So we cannot all be corrupt in God’s eyes, apparently, because how would he then separate those who will inherit the kingdom and those who won’t? Isn’t it precisely by their corruption or their sanctity?

If none of the wrongdoers will inherit the kingdom of God, and if we all continue to be “corrupt” and irredeemably so, that would mean none of us human beings will be among those who inherit the kingdom.

But Paul was speaking to an audience that he presumed were no longer “wrongdoers,” and no longer subject to disinheritance, which would mean he was speaking to those who were being “washed,…sanctified,…justified…,” i.e., saints, then not every human is to remain corrupt. The saints, according to Paul himself were not corrupt – ”this is what some of you used to be” – because they had been sanctified and would, in fact, judge the world and the angels.

So those individuals who were and are being sanctified in this world would be the sacred (or sanctified) ones, the saints. If wrongdoers (the corrupt) will not inherit the kingdom, it must be because they are still corrupt and they have not been “washed, sanctified and justified.”

 

[HarryStotle]

To answer your question, "Are we not all corrupt in God’s eyes?" the answer would be "Apparently not, because some have been and are being sanctified and justified. Now, even though “murderers” do not appear on Paul’s list of those NOT inheriting the kingdom, they surely should be there because murder is a more serious sin than many of the others in Paul’s list.

I think the answer to your question is that there are various levels of corruption. All corruption separates us from God, but with his mercy and grace we can be forgiven, washed, justified and sanctified. We do, however, need to be sanctified because if we are not we won’t be part of the kingdom.

We need to treat justification and sanctification seriously because simply presenting the “we are all corrupt” card doesn’t get us anywhere in terms of out of our corruption. It may appear to present a facade of humility in the claim that “we are corrupt,” but wearing that moniker as a badge of honour won’t get us anywhere except the approval and respect of others in the “Corrupt Club” wearing the same badge. Time to move past that towards what is required to be sanctified and holy because remaining corrupt, even though it appears to show humility, won’t get us into the kingdom.

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

This is not a matter of apriori logic much as you wish it to be.

Capital punishment is “inherently” evil provided we ignore all the conditions which would make it permissible.

Now you’ve got it, just apply a double negative to your sentence.
That new condition from the Popes making it impermissible seems to be the reasonable possibility of life imprisonment.

The same seems to holds for many IE definitions - eg abortion.
Its universalised by giving permissables (“exceptions”) another name - eg ectopic procedure - and asserting an indirect intention.

Its interesting how we can make universalised moral assertions with these sorts of naming conventions.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Capital punishment is “inherently” evil provided we ignore all the conditions which would make it permissible.

Now you’ve got it, just apply a double negative to your sentence.

That was not a serious statement on my part, I was pointing out that to propose it as a serious argument is nonsensical.

Yet, you think I am agreeing with you?

Clearly, the distance is not to be bridged.

I am prepared to take your advice from post 168

Lets leave it here.

 

[BlackFriar]

I am well aware you regarded it as a nonsense statement my friend.

 

[Rau]

The same seems to holds for many IE definitions - eg abortion.

Its universalised by giving permissables (“exceptions”) another name - eg ectopic procedure - and asserting an indirect intention.

That sounds almost cynical! There are moral and immoral treatments of ectopic pregnancy; the baby dies in every case. One act(s) is intrinsically evil and one not. And the difference does not lie in circumstances, but in the act.

“Modern cp” may very well be unwise and personally I believe it is very rarely a good idea. Instances of it may well be immoral. But to conclude the moral object of the act is evil whenever good prisons are available is not a case anybody has made.

 

[BlackFriar]

That sounds almost cynical!

It is a possible and logical resolution of the contraries involved. It doesn’t have to be “cynical”.
Why should seekers of truth refuse to consider something simply because it suggests religious authorities are all too human. Humans have a tendency to construct elaborate unifying theories to allegedly explain “inconsistent” practice that may really only be fully unified on the basis of following the Holy Spirit on a case by case basis. The fact that the PODE does not consistently work across all difficult cases (and indeed there is not yet a strong consensus of what exact criteria define the PODE) seems to witness to that.

But to conclude the moral object of the act is evil whenever good prisons are available is not a case anybody has made.

Some have sought on grounds of logic to say that CP cannot be IE because it has been allowed in the past.
I see no such flaw of logic.

Nor did I really further seek to debate whether “modern CP” actually is IE.
But it could be if murder can be while it’s genus, killing, remains neutral.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Paul himself was a murderer of Christians but repented… something he could never have done if he died of capital punishment. This is why it’s up to God when a person dies! Surely Saint Paul was sacred in God’s sight even after he killed innocent Christians.

 

[HarryStotle]

Paul himself was a murderer of Christians but repented… something he could never have done if he died of capital punishment.

You cannot possibly know that or claim it to be true. Asserting it does not make it so.

This is why it’s up to God when a person dies! Surely Saint Paul was sacred in God’s sight even after he killed innocent Christians.

He became “sacred” after his conversion and sanctification, not before. Let’s say he was potentially sacred in God’s eyes. God does not give up on anybody, not even the worst sinners, but he doesn’t view those dead to sin as sacred. That does not, by the way, mean that God does not love sinners. He does, but not because of what they are. It is because of what they could be after conversion.

A fixed date for execution would provide ample time for repentance. Languishing away in prison for tens of years may, in fact, cause a person to become more corrupt and less willing to repent owing to embitterment. It isn’t exactly a community of saints that surround a convicted murderer. You even said yourself that most would prefer to be executed to a life in prison. Perhaps they should be your advisers on the question?

Your reply is not very convincing…

 

[OneSheep]

If execution is just and proper, the motives or state of the executioner are irrelevant and have nothing to do with whether the one being executed SHOULD BE executed. Red herring.

The question still remains whether God is just when he wills the execution of murderers, either “in charity” or otherwise.

It is certainly charitable to protect people, and if killing a murderer is the only means to control him, then CCC2267 covers that. The same paragraph says that we are limited to means that do not involve execution if those other means are available, which is the case for modern world nations.

“SHOULD” a subdued murder ever be executed? The answer given is “Yes, for the sake of justice”. However, this again begs the question as to the purpose of justice.

What is the purpose of justice?

 

[OneSheep]

As a side note, I think I read somewhere that a priest cannot be an executioner or a judge who orders one.

Is that true? Can’t find it on the web.