E
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Struggling Catholic here concerned about the catechism change by Pope Francis
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
Ender
Guest
I find this a really troubling concept. If we get to the point where morality is nothing more than what some old man in Southern Italy believes it to be the church will have lost all meaning. A pope’s responsibility is to preserve, not to innovate.The next pope can do as he wills to the catechism as can the one after that.
The Pope cannot impose commandments on faithful Catholics because he wants to or finds it expedient. Such a modern, voluntaristic concept of authority can only distort the true theological meaning of the papacy. (Ratzinger)
E
Ender
Guest
I thought MikeInVa countered it quite adequately. The church has never held an absolute position on the sanctity of life to the point that one was never justified in taking it. Your claim is not consistent with doctrine.
As for this being a development of doctrine (rather than a reversal) it doesn’t seem to meet the criteria:
“A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started” (Cardinal Newman)
“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” (Cardinal Dulles)
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” (First Vatican Council)
My motivations are irrelevant. My arguments are either correct or incorrect. If you think I misapplied Ratzinger’s statement, show us how.Why are you against this development, and why are you so swift to dismiss it as invalid?
As for this being a development of doctrine (rather than a reversal) it doesn’t seem to meet the criteria:
“A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started” (Cardinal Newman)
“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” (Cardinal Dulles)
I find injustice immoral, and justice demands that the severity of a punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime. If you truly believe life is the greatest good then what would constitute a comparable punishment for unjustly taking life?You find not killing people to be immoral?
Let’s start with the understanding that this is not “my” description of a pope’s responsibility. It is how the church describes it, flawed though that may be.Your description of a pope as being intended to be a “preserver” sounds eerily similar to the original concept of the “conservative”, which is an equally flawed concept.
“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” (First Vatican Council)
E
Esodo
Guest
I asked a similar question so feel free to check out the answers on there. To everyone commenting and quickly getting into debates about semantics be careful. OP seems to be asking if the Church is proven false by this and is probably scrupulous. Be sure to reassure them the Church hasn’t been disproven. My thread got derailed by endless debate as well but I did get some great answers.
K
KMG
Guest
Capital punishment is not intrinsically inadmissible. It may be deemed unnecessary because of this or that societal reality, but intrinsically it is not inadmissible.
E
Esodo
Guest
Someone actually posted a great informative comment on slavery when I made a thread concerning this. Here it is if you or anyone else is interested. I found it interesting.
“As for slavery, the form that is an intrinsic evil is defined in the CCC as when people are “being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit.”
While the word “slavery” has come to exclusively carry that narrow meaning, in the past it had broader connotations that included just and reasonable titles to services.
One can acquire title to reasonable services justly (for example, through a voluntary exchange) and buy, sell, and exchange title to services. None of that violates the natural law. However, experience came to show that when such title was life long and the scope of service expansive, title was often not acquired justly and people were treated as merchandise/chattel (rather than their services) and in general not treated as human beings (see e.g. American slavery). It was also often accompanied by other evils. As the article below explains, the “just” slavery was almost exclusively theoretical and so you see general prohibitions on it from the Church after a certain period.
Even after this consensus, it was also sometimes considered a tolerable evil that would result in greater evils and disorder in society if quickly abolished. The wisdom or lack thereof in that position is a question of fact, not revealed truth. In the US, I think we can all agree abolition was well-worth its immediate and consequent high cost to the country (ie the Civil War and its aftermath).
More here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm
The Church still does not condemn the ownership of title to someone’s reasonable services while treating them with human dignity. In fact, it happens everyday just in a more limited scope.“
“As for slavery, the form that is an intrinsic evil is defined in the CCC as when people are “being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit.”
While the word “slavery” has come to exclusively carry that narrow meaning, in the past it had broader connotations that included just and reasonable titles to services.
One can acquire title to reasonable services justly (for example, through a voluntary exchange) and buy, sell, and exchange title to services. None of that violates the natural law. However, experience came to show that when such title was life long and the scope of service expansive, title was often not acquired justly and people were treated as merchandise/chattel (rather than their services) and in general not treated as human beings (see e.g. American slavery). It was also often accompanied by other evils. As the article below explains, the “just” slavery was almost exclusively theoretical and so you see general prohibitions on it from the Church after a certain period.
Even after this consensus, it was also sometimes considered a tolerable evil that would result in greater evils and disorder in society if quickly abolished. The wisdom or lack thereof in that position is a question of fact, not revealed truth. In the US, I think we can all agree abolition was well-worth its immediate and consequent high cost to the country (ie the Civil War and its aftermath).
More here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm
The Church still does not condemn the ownership of title to someone’s reasonable services while treating them with human dignity. In fact, it happens everyday just in a more limited scope.“
K
KMG
Guest
The slavery issue is a red herring. The Church never officially sanctioned slavery. Quite the contrary.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
There were bishops and priests who owned slaves.
I agree, however, that the slavery issue is a red herring as far as the CCC #2267 is concerned. It’s a false analogy.
I agree, however, that the slavery issue is a red herring as far as the CCC #2267 is concerned. It’s a false analogy.
Last edited:
W
Weserthy
Guest
The main problem with the change to the Catechism on the death penalty is that it introduces a prudential judgment into a collection that is supposed to reflect the truth of Catholic teaching. Putting something into the CCC doesn’t make it true - something is supposed to be put into the CCC because it is true.
I think if in the new text, if they really wanted to say that the Church should oppose the death penalty, they should have stuck to a practical reason such as innocent people potentially being executed as a reason to do away with it. While this could still be argued with, at least it wouldn’t have brought the theological orthodoxy of the change into question. Instead they went with the whole “increasing awareness of the dignity of a person” as a reason for the change. What does that mean? What sudden, new understanding has come to light in the last five years that allowed us to all go, “oh wait, the death penalty is wrong!” No one has been able to answer that question. Furthermore, there are no citations in the new text of the CCC of prior Church documents, just a reference to a previous speech by Pope Francis. If this was a true development of doctrine as claimed, it would hopefully be able to at least cite some prior document or theological source to back up its assertions. Previous Popes have spoken out against the death penalty, but not for the reasons that this new text claims it is “inadmissable”. Not exactly a strong basis for arguments in favor of the change.
Pope Francis I am sure did not write the new text himself, he probably directed the CDF to do it. I think that what happened was that they knew that it wasn’t possible to outright say that the death penalty is intrinsically evil (although I believe Pope Francis may truly think that it is), so they used the word “inadmissable” which has no theological meaning, therefore leaving the new text vague and up for interpretation.
In short OP, I would not trouble yourself with this change, as it is essentially a prudential judgment. It is not wrong to oppose the death penalty and to seek to abolish it, but it would not be wrong to support its retention either.
I think if in the new text, if they really wanted to say that the Church should oppose the death penalty, they should have stuck to a practical reason such as innocent people potentially being executed as a reason to do away with it. While this could still be argued with, at least it wouldn’t have brought the theological orthodoxy of the change into question. Instead they went with the whole “increasing awareness of the dignity of a person” as a reason for the change. What does that mean? What sudden, new understanding has come to light in the last five years that allowed us to all go, “oh wait, the death penalty is wrong!” No one has been able to answer that question. Furthermore, there are no citations in the new text of the CCC of prior Church documents, just a reference to a previous speech by Pope Francis. If this was a true development of doctrine as claimed, it would hopefully be able to at least cite some prior document or theological source to back up its assertions. Previous Popes have spoken out against the death penalty, but not for the reasons that this new text claims it is “inadmissable”. Not exactly a strong basis for arguments in favor of the change.
Pope Francis I am sure did not write the new text himself, he probably directed the CDF to do it. I think that what happened was that they knew that it wasn’t possible to outright say that the death penalty is intrinsically evil (although I believe Pope Francis may truly think that it is), so they used the word “inadmissable” which has no theological meaning, therefore leaving the new text vague and up for interpretation.
In short OP, I would not trouble yourself with this change, as it is essentially a prudential judgment. It is not wrong to oppose the death penalty and to seek to abolish it, but it would not be wrong to support its retention either.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Yes, even among the Ancient Hebrews, the death penalty was meant to be used sparingly. One had to have two reliable eyewitnesses to a crime such as murder or adultery for the death penalty to be imposed. It therefore stands to reason that in modern society, where there are numerous means of retention and rehabilitation of criminals, the death penalty should be the last resort only in exceptional cases.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I don’t believe that is correct. Rather, the change is in keeping with the rules contained in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. In fact, it is not really even a change, because the imposition of the death penalty is supposed to be based on the means society has to protect its people, not on retribution or vengeance.
S
smith500
Guest
The “natural death” line is putting nature above God in order to contravene God’s law regarding the death penalty for murderers. We don’t speak to “nature taking its course” regarding humans, only animals God uses nature to give us the death penalty, and God commanded the death penalty for murderers not only to protect people but because man is made in God’s image.
You can argue that due to modern technology and resources we shouldn’t use the death penalty now, but Francis is claiming the Bible is wrong and all the councils and popes before him were wrong.
Saying “well, the Bible permitted slavery” doesn’t wash. God establish his authority to give the Ten Commandments by saying “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery”. Mosaic law worked toward the process of removing ubiquitous slavery by putting severe limitations on it. In contrast, all five books of the Torah prescribe the death penalty for murder and Jesus told Pilate that his Father gave him authority regarding capital punishment.
You can argue that due to modern technology and resources we shouldn’t use the death penalty now, but Francis is claiming the Bible is wrong and all the councils and popes before him were wrong.
Saying “well, the Bible permitted slavery” doesn’t wash. God establish his authority to give the Ten Commandments by saying “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery”. Mosaic law worked toward the process of removing ubiquitous slavery by putting severe limitations on it. In contrast, all five books of the Torah prescribe the death penalty for murder and Jesus told Pilate that his Father gave him authority regarding capital punishment.
S
smith500
Guest
“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”
The reason God gives for the death penalty is for the expiation of the sin of murder. God gives every one of us the death penalty which we should expect for the expiation of sins. If we murder someone, it is such an affront to God that God wants the process of expiation sped up. A convicted condemned murderer who accepts the expiation will be welcomed into God’s arms. I’m not so sure a seething convicted murderer who claims his facing capital punishment is an affront to God will be welcomed into God’s arms.
The reason God gives for the death penalty is for the expiation of the sin of murder. God gives every one of us the death penalty which we should expect for the expiation of sins. If we murder someone, it is such an affront to God that God wants the process of expiation sped up. A convicted condemned murderer who accepts the expiation will be welcomed into God’s arms. I’m not so sure a seething convicted murderer who claims his facing capital punishment is an affront to God will be welcomed into God’s arms.
S
smith500
Guest
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man”
It is an affront to God to claim God never authorized the death penalty and it should never be used. God ordered the death penalty because MURDER is an affront to God. Or am I reading Genesis wrong?
It is an affront to God to claim God never authorized the death penalty and it should never be used. God ordered the death penalty because MURDER is an affront to God. Or am I reading Genesis wrong?
Last edited:
B
Beryllos
Guest
Jesus said different.
E
EXdrinker
Guest
Practically non-existent does is not “essentially the same as” inadmissible. St. Pope John Paul II had his theological opinion in the Catechism that still plainly allowed room for catholics to come to a different conclusion. Inadmissible and fight to abolish everywhere, which even means places without the means to preserve life in other ways, highlights the differences of those two men. One, a saintly leader and clear thinker realizing that good catholics can come to different conclussuons, and the other, a not so clear thinker who favors ambiguity on clear moral issues and simply forcing his own opinion on another.
They are not essentially the same teachings.
They are not essentially the same teachings.
D
dochawk
Guest
I’d phrase that as, “So, on which particular issue do you know better than the Bishop of Rome?”Which changes specifically are you referring to?
hawk
K
KMG
Guest
The Catholic Church never sanctioned slavery.
E
Esodo
Guest
I don’t believe any Church teaching is to be dismissed, but I think he is right when he says Catechisms are not infallible. I submit to the teaching of the Church whether the teaching is infallible or not however.
V
Vico
Guest
No new dogma is present. Rather, the circumstances of the current times require a different practice in applying the same truth. The Pope does exercise teaching authority through the Ordinary Magisterium in documents, letters, papal encyclicals, decrees, etc.…
I want to be very careful here since we are discussing our pope, but it is not immediately clear that there is any authority (in the sense that Ratzinger used it) that supports this new change.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.