Struggling Catholic here concerned about the catechism change by Pope Francis

[KMG]

Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil.

And the Church never sanctioned slavery.

 

[Neithan]

The death penalty is also a worse punishment than slavery.

This “update” seems like a logical and consistent development of doctrine to me, not a contradiction at all. Pope Francis is not perfect (no one is) and a subsequent pope may likely have to clarify some things that he can’t (he’s admitted he’s forgotten some things already!) but this particular teaching makes sense.

 

[thistle]

How many heresies in the catechism can we have?

Tell us ALL the heresies you are concerned about. So far you have only opined on one (in your opinion) and that is capital punishment and that is not a heresy. Please tell us the others as you have stated there are more than one?

 

[angel12]

And the Church never sanctioned slavery.

But it did tolerate orders owning slaves.

 

[TNCatholic]

I don’t believe there are a ton of heresies. I was quoting what someone else said.

 

[Beryllos]

Mercy is not just pardon and forgiveness. More fully it means helping the sinner, giving him what he needs to repent and be saved. In the case of a hard-hearted criminal, this may include time.

Do you not grieve that the execution of that criminal may forever close the way to his salvation? Jesus does. He would rather suffer and die all over again than spend eternity without that one sinner.

 

[Beryllos]

Mercy … means helping the sinner, giving him what he needs to repent and be saved.

This is not a new (or exclusively New Testament) idea:

Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? (Ezekiel 18:23)

As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezekiel 33:11).

 

[Ender]

No. That has never been her position which is that it is always wrong to intentionally take an innocent life.

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being…

Pope Francis, for as much as I am not fond of him, is guarding revelation. He (nor any other pope) was meant to guard erroneous understanding.

I think this is the mindset that caused the OP to air his concern: the idea that the church defended serious error for two millennia. We should all be concerned if your understanding was correct as it would pretty much declare that the church’s doctrines cannot really be trusted to be true. If a doctrine defended by virtually every Father and Doctor and reinforced by popes for 2000 years is wrong then what reason is there to believe anything she says is true?

The more reasonable alternative to believing that everyone in the church was wrong is to believe that you are.

 

[Ender]

That citation was from Cardinal Newman, arguably the greatest Catholic theologian of the 19th century. You are very quick to reject authoritative sources. The other (identical) citation was from Cardinal Dulles, certainly one of the greatest American Catholic theologians of the 20th century. I’m sure I could provide other expert testimony but you clearly prefer your own theories.

 

[Ender]

the death penalty is supposed to be based on the means society has to protect its people, not on retribution or vengeance.

Can you provide any citation prior to the 1990s to support this claim? I’m willing to bet you cannot find a single document that suggests this is true.

No, actually it wasn’t. This is what the church taught and still teaches today:

2266 …Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

“Commensurate” does not mean a literal eye for an eye, but it does mean the severity of the punishment must correspond with the severity of the crime. You misunderstand the nature of punishment.

…when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. (St Bellarmine)

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 have no problem with the claim that the newest change to 2267 is not new doctrine, but simply a prudential judgment about the application of doctrines unchanged since the apostles.

Tell us ALL the heresies you are concerned about. So far you have only opined on one (in your opinion) and that is capital punishment and that is not a heresy. Please tell us the others as you have stated there are more than one?

The belief that the death penalty is immoral was held to be a heresy.

One of the chief heretical tenets of the Anabaptists and of the Trinitarians of the present day is, that it is not lawful for Christians to exercise magisterial power, nor should body-guards, tribunals, judgments, the right of capital punishment, etc., be maintained among Christians. (St Bellarmine)

 

[fide]

I guess by “the Church” here you include “the teachings of the Church”. I am very troubled by this understanding, as it is painfully close to the political progressive’s understanding of the US Constitution. They see the Constitution as a “living document”, and they seem to understand the Constitution as merely a written approximation of political correctness - i.e. of their progressive ideology at the moment.

When “the Church” has come to mean “the personal opinion of the pope” - when the Holy Spirit and continuity with His guidance over the past 2000 years - are irrelevant, we will have surely reached the close of the age. Then look up! His coming in glory is very, very near.

“Lo, I am with you until the close of the age.”

 

[angel12]

When “the Church” has come to mean “the personal opinion of the pope” - when the Holy Spirit and continuity with His guidance over the past 2000 years - are irrelevant, we will have surely reached the close of the age.

Then it’s a good thing there’s no sign of that happening.

 

[Dovekin]

This recent Catechism change seemed to be specifically targeting the United States.

I do not know anything about why this happened now, but I doubt that the US was “targeted.”

Argentina’s Dirty War lasted from 1976 to 1983. In 1977, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo began weekly marches in the Plaza de Mayo to bring justice for the children they lost. The marches continued until 2006, after the government began prosecuting the military for their crimes in the Dirty War.

In 1993, Jorge Bergoglio was appointed auxiliary bishop or Argentina, and 5 years later Archbishop. His Cathedral and offices sit on the Plaza de Mayo. He did not work much with the Mothers afaik, but I suspect the events in Buenos Aires are behind the changes. He is giving a voice to the women who lost their children to a rogue government. It is a mother’s voice that says my child is precious beyond any crime he has done. Now it is the Church’s voice that says that about every child.

 

[prayerrider]

My perspective is that even if a pope came along and did something crazy like same sex couples are welcome to marry in the church,

That would result in a major schism.

 

[twf]

Why are you trying to draw parallels with the US’ secular government structure? There really is no comparison. The US Constitution is a man made document with no special divine mandate… it’s the brainchild of a bunch of enlightenment gentlemen sitting in a room 250 years ago. Whether it’s a great document and how it should be interpreted is strictly a matter of personal opinion. From a Catholic perspective there is no right or wrong answer on this ultimately immaterial question. The Sacred Tradition of the Church, on the other hand, is both of divine origin and living…so yes, while truth does not change, our understanding of truth develops more fully over time.

 

[fide]

Exactly my point.

 

[KMG]

It’s all a test balloon anyway for when they change the current text re: homosexuality.