How can it be logically possible that the issue of the death penalty in America is outside the scope of faith and morals?!
Since this is the third or fourth time in a row that you’ve suggested I’ve said something I didn’t, your habit of doing so is taking on every appearance of being a deliberate effort, especially since if you’d read the thread you’d have seen my prior clarifications where others had already tried those same approaches. I said the status of " technological capabilities of prisons in the modern age" was outside the scope of faith and morals. That, what I actually stated, is the criticism that has been repeatedly directed at those attempting to insist JP II’s comments are a binding teaching of “the Church”. Your only answer to the premise appears to be pointing to the conclusion again, which is a hallmark of a circular argument on your part.
Actually, can you point to a spot in a teaching type of document where JP II or a teaching council has actually comments on this to the application of the DP in America (presuming you mean just the USA here) in particular? I’ve never seen that at all, but you keep saying things that indicate you believe that there has been that kind of top-down targeting of someplace in North America.
This is a totally illogical response to a request that you reconcile your interpretation of the recent statements of JP II and other bishops with existing and documented Church teaching regarding the authority of the State and the limits of the Church’s authority to declare points of science.
If you are interested in what the Church teaches then it should interest you to know that the Church has not ruled against the death penalty in America or anywhere else. The point I’ve been making pretty much since this thread started is that the teaching in the catechism on the death penalty does not constitute a doctrinal statement but is a prudential judgment of JPII’s. It therefore is not a “Church teaching” and agreement with it is not required.
Dear Ender,
No one is arguing for unnecessary executions. The catechism is saying that executions are virtually never warranted, especially in modern societies. It is presented as a statement of morality but in fact it is prudential - it is the personal opinion of JPII.
This is clearly prudential. The other part, while much less clear on that point, is no less prudential.
If something is presented as a statement of morality, then that is what it is.
According to our current pope, the USCCB, and Cardinal Avery Dulles among others, this section of the catechism is the prudential opinion of JPII. I am not presenting my interpretation, I am simply repeating theirs. There is a lot of discussion that, because this is prudential and not doctrinal, it should not have been included in the catechism to begin with.
Yes, the Pope does have the authority - as Pope - to validly speak out against embryonic stem cell research because of the moral issues in how the embryonic cell lines are collected. What he cannot in his capacity as Pope is declare what the the current capabilities of various other (adult, umbilical, placental) stem cell technologies are, and is especially unqualified to declare that experimental, theoretical, or even simply imagined approaches must be placed into practical treatment use to accomplish a certain goal. Likewise, the pope can speak out agaisnt use of the death penalty when it is not necessary, but he cannot declare what the current what the current capabilities of various incarceration technologies are, and is especially unqualified to suggest that experiment, theoretical, or even imagined incarceration technologies must be immediately be placed into practical use to accomplish the goal previously only attainable through use of capital punishment. Being the final arbiter of matters of faith and morals does not translate into an ability to accomplish technological advancement by fiat.
The capabilities of prison technology in implementation is not a morally “right or wrong” issue. Their applications may be judged as morally right or wrong (in a binding way), but an analysis of what their capabilities are morally neutral, though that analysis could be either correct or incorrect - and is subject to change.
Yes, but neither JP II or B16 are as trained as I am or many other criminal justice experts in the technological capabilities of prison technology, whether in theory or implementation. The theological position (that use of capital punishment should be reserved for cases of necessity) is not one I dispute their right to declare or even disagree with the analysis of in terms of moral rightness or wrongness…
Given your belief that whatever the pope says about morals is true then you must be willing to accept our current pope’s statement implying that the teaching on the use of the death penalty is prudential and therefore not doctrine. Would you agree?
Considering the steady silence from any such potential experts to questions asking for supporting details (outside of the assurances that JP II’s statements were prudential), this is unlikely. The fact that such an analysis would require the (name removed by moderator)ut of non-theological experts emphasizes that the analysis is prudential in nature.
How, exactly, is saying that I neither dispute nor disagree (alternately: that I accept and agree) with a theological position that that capital punishment be reserved for cases of necessity different from what you have states as the desired norm (which I also [neither dispute nor disagree || accept and agree] with)? You are once again making me suspect your too-frequent “misunderstandings” are intentionally made as excuses to launch personal smears.
I am sorry.
Apology accepted, a younger brother of mine struggles with that as well, and that is bound to be a hindrance when parsing fine points such as we have been.
You are free to ignore the teachings of the pope, the USCCB, et al. I was addressing freesoulhope who has a different perspective on how the holy father’s statements should be treated.
BXVI did not say the teaching was wrong; he said it was prudential and I imagine he is being prudent in how he deals with it, but I am amazed that you have more confidence in your assumption based on what he hasn’t done than you do in comments that he has actually made.