Silencing of Traditional Bishops by Pope Francis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Pope definitively ordered that the Catechism of the Catholic Church be modified to declare the death penalty “inadmissible” in the modern world.
 
twf said:
The Pope definitively ordered that the Catechism of the Catholic Church be modified to declare the death penalty “inadmissible” in the modern world.
Click to expand...
So it would be a mortal sin for a Roman Catholic to be in favor of the death penalty in certain circumstances?
 
commenter said:
I was hoping someone would illustrate the current politically correct thinking in Rome now.
Click to expand...
I find the idea of politics in my Church to be extremely distasteful. Maybe I am so out of touch, people will tell me it’s always been full of politics. I bristle when I see “the left,” “the right.” Is not the garment meant to be seamlessly covering the Body?
 
You perhaps might want to read some of the history of Argentina since WW2, including the activities of free roaming death squads. Life was a bit “interesting” there, and there have been stories of Pope Francis, as a priest and/or bishop driving people personally in his own car to escape the squads.

Looking at Argentina as “just another country of South America” fails to account for how someone in his then position might deal with far right wing assassins. It just might have a tendency to skew one’s viewpoint a tad bit.

Note: I don’t comment as a supporter of the Pope or a defender of his actions. But facts, if not known, may be the source of some of the reactions a person might have to Left/Right politicking elsewhere.

100 years ago the public would have no clue there was a debate going on among the hierarchy. Public use of the internet didn’t really begin until 1989, and took time to become as ubiquitous as it is today. Facebook was not launched until 2004. We take these for granted, but matters of the papacy were for the great part kept private, and Cardinals did not go to public media with their disputes. Some of it would get into the media, but that agains was not as widely spread as electronic communication has become.

In other words, there was a protocol, and matters were not hashed out “in front of God and everybody”. Undoubtedly it was in front of God; but we all didn’t have an oar in the water - we weren’t even in the boat.

For everyone who wants to read Vigano’s letters, I would suggest that reading Cardinal Marc Ouellet’s public response.

Asfar as I know, Mccarrick has not publicly admitted tot he allegations which have been made. Which is not to say I doubt them, but we all have a tendency a) to judge as if we were a jury hearing a case, and b) tend to not even give lip service to those who actually dealt with Mccarrick over the years.

Accusations often have a degree of accuracy. It is easy to presume that matters stated by one individual or another were all factually correct. However, the degree of accuracy is often times between somewhat accurate and very accurate. When we judge the whole incident from the prospective of one or more players who may have ideological positions (and just about everyone has those) and fail to take into account that the person reporting may “have a dog in the fight” then we do neither truth nor justice any favor.
 
Last edited:
It is; however, we are all human; we all have our prejudices, foibles and failures. We need to keep in mind that Christ promised the Holy Spirit would protect the Church. Judas betrayed Christ (right after receiving his First Communion) and Peter denied even knowing Christ, not once but three times. And later, Paul had to keelhaul Peter.

Not a propitious start, one might say. and it has been going on ever since. And the Holy Spirit is still with us; but is not going to bring these clay vessels to perfection here on earth.

We all might be better off if we spent more time in prayer, and less time paying attention to what who said to someone else.
 
CilladeRoma said:
the agenda of most pro-life group’s I know of who are only concerned with stopping abortion.
Click to expand...
Considering that what happens in abortion is that innocent children are killed, including being ripped apart limb from limb and having their skulls crushed. What is wrong with wanting to stop this? What is wrong with focussing on this evil?

And what of the organisations that campaign on specific social justice issues, do you have a similar problem with them when they don’t also campaign against abortion?
 
I have no problem being anti-abortion, it is a heinous practice.

My problem is equating the pro-life movement to mean ONLY anti-abortion.
I know many people in my diocese who will do and say much to fight abortion who see nothing wrong with the death penalty or euthanasia.
Life is life and one cannot claim that one life is more important than the other and still claim to be “pro-life”.
 
Last edited:
I have never met a pro-life person who was not opposed to euthanasia. Pro-life groups also campaign against euthanasia.

As for the death penalty, that is a different issue. I personally am opposed to the death penalty, but this is not the same as the killing of a completely innocent and vulnerable child. It is also my understanding is that Church teaching permits the death penalty in extreme circumstances where no other reasonable option exists in order to protect the public (although given the reality in Western society, I think those circumstances are practically non-existent).
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
I know many people in my diocese who will do and say much to fight abortion who see nothing wrong with the death penalty or euthanasia.
Click to expand...
Would you have similar issues with thise opposed to the death penalty not being opposed to abortion or euthanasia? Or what about anti-war protesters, how vocal are they in terms of opposing abortion?
 
Last edited:
godisgood77 said:
HOORAY!!
Click to expand...
That’s your reaction? Even though Francis himself said
“Resistance is now evident,” And that is a good sign for me, getting the resistance out into the open, no stealthy mumbling when there is disagreement. It’s healthy to get things out into the open, it’s very healthy."

“Resistance means different points of view, not something dirty, It is connected to some decisions I may occasionally take, I will concede that. … I am not worried. It all seems normal to me. If there were no difference of opinions, that wouldn’t be normal.”
~Pope Francis Dec. 2014~
 
The spread of liberation theology (marxist based) in South America may have something to do with this. JP II spoke out forcefully against communism in all its forms. Having said this, his views on capitalism were more nuanced. Francis, on the other hand comes from Argentine which has been ruled by right wing dictatorships. Some churchmen there promoted liberation theology which JPII opposed as a way to combat economic oppression.
Some of the statements made by pope Francis sound as if he was drifting away from traditional catholic doctrine and some people may view this as a move toward Marxism.
 
The just use of the death penalty is pro-life, as the Roman Catechism sums up:
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...
 
I do believe that the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is what is teaching now has been changed.
 
semper_catholicus said:
No, they can.
Click to expand...
Not if they live in America they can’t.

CCC 2267

"Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. 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.

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”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."

If you’re a Catholic in the developed world today and you aren’t opposed to the death penalty, then you’re in opposition to the Church and not truly pro-life.

Isn’t there some word used to describe Christians who protest against various Catholic teachings??

Pro-life is bigger than anti-abortion.
 
Last edited:
If you really want to enter into a debate about the death penalty, here is not the place to do it.
 
Genesis315 said:
the Roman Catechism sums up:
Click to expand...
The current Catechism has precedence over the Roman Catechism on any points where they differ.

In the 16th century the death penalty was necessary.

In the 2nd decade of the 3rd millenium it is no longer acceptable in the developed world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top