What Catechism should we be using?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zundrah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it isn’t. It was not taught under the Extraordinary Magisterium (a solemn declaration by the pope or a council) or the Universal Magisterium (all bishops in union with the pope). You can’t make that paragraph into something it isn’t.

I’m not in the US and not governed by the USCCB.

I suppose some more quotes elucidating the traditional teaching are in order:
Pope Pius XII:
Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.
Click to expand...
Pope Innocent I:
It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.
Click to expand...
Pope Innocent III:
The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude.
Click to expand...
 
mattkubes said:
No, it isn’t. It was not taught under the Extraordinary Magisterium (a solemn declaration by the pope or a council) or the Universal Magisterium (all bishops in union with the pope). You can’t make that paragraph into something it isn’t.

I’m not in the US and not governed by the USCCB.

I suppose some more quotes elucidating the traditional teaching are in order:
Click to expand...
OK so I challenge you to check your own diocese wherever you are and I will not ask as that would be a violation of forum rules but I can almost guarantee you they have taken a stance which means that you are bound to follow that teaching under obedience. Check those Canons again.
 
joanofarc2008 said:
OK so I challenge you to check your own diocese wherever you are and I will not ask as that would be a violation of forum rules but I can almost guarantee you they have taken a stance which means that you are bound to follow that teaching under obedience. Check those Canons again.
Click to expand...
Did you read those quotes? Several popes have taught authoritatively on this matter and Pope Innocent I stated that this has been settled by Divine Law.

“Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.”

God’s Law, the Supreme Law, is the one that requires our allegiance here. You are attempting to create a dogma out of an opinion. But this matter has already received the highest approval it could ever get or need. You’re certainly free to be uncomfortable with capital punishment and even to wish that it never be exercised, but you are not free to condemn it as something that secular authorities are not justified in doing.

Hence my vote for The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism).
 
joanofarc2008 said:
OK so I challenge you to check your own diocese wherever you are and I will not ask as that would be a violation of forum rules but I can almost guarantee you they have taken a stance which means that you are bound to follow that teaching under obedience. Check those Canons again.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but this is not true.

In Light of the World, Pope Benedict’s interview with Peter Seewald, the Holy Father specifically stated that while he personally agrees with it, a faithful Catholic can disagree with the teaching on the death penalty espoused by Blessed JP2 and remain in communion with the Church. Make no mistake, Pope Benedict is very much against the death penalty and yes, local bishops have repeatedly spoken out against it. However, that position is not, from the Holy Father’s own words, binding on the faithful.

My personal opinion is that one is either for life, or he/she is not. I think Catholics should be working for humane ways to deal with prisoners as long as it does not threaten the safety and prosperity of innocents. However, that is only an opinion and not based on dogmatic teaching.
 
jwinch2 said:
I am sorry, but this is not true.

In Light of the World, Pope Benedict’s interview with Peter Seewald, the Holy Father specifically stated that while he personally agrees with it, a faithful Catholic can disagree with the teaching on the death penalty espoused by Blessed JP2 and remain in communion with the Church. Make no mistake, Pope Benedict is very much against the death penalty and yes, local bishops have repeatedly spoken out against it. However, that position is not, from the Holy Father’s own words, binding on the faithful.
Click to expand...
I would have expected better from a Dominican - next time you hyperlink you should hyperlink to a reference not a sale of a book. I happen to own the book already and have read it several times. It is one of the least academic sources I own. While he may he state that the Holy Father’s decisions are not binding as the Holy Father in this case would be speaking only as the Bishop of Rome due to the reasons above - most of the Bishops in each diocese have put out their own teachings on faith and morals and I do propose to you that in those instances where your Episcopate has placed a valid teaching on faith and morals that Canon 753 would apply.
 
joanofarc2008 said:
I would have expected better from a Dominican - next time you hyperlink you should hyperlink to a reference not a sale of a book. I happen to own the book already and have read it several times. It is one of the least academic sources I own. While he may he state that the Holy Father’s decisions are not binding as the Holy Father in this case would be speaking only as the Bishop of Rome due to the reasons above - most of the Bishops in each diocese have put out their own teachings on faith and morals and I do propose to you that in those instances where your Episcopate has placed a valid teaching on faith and morals that Canon 753 would apply.
Click to expand...
So basically…reject God’s Law as unacceptable, accept USCCB document or else? Pope Pius XII, Pope Innocent I, Pope Innocent III, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc., etc., were all wrong? Aren’t we lucky that those of us alive in the 21st century found all those old mistakes!

I’m not buying it.
 
mattkubes said:
So basically…reject God’s Law as unacceptable, accept USCCB document or else? Pope Pius XII, Pope Innocent I, Pope Innocent III, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc., etc., were all wrong?

I’m not buying it.
Click to expand...
How am I rejecting God’s law as unacceptable - I think it is just the opposite. You have failed to make your case there. I never meant to say specifically the USCCB I meant to say that for me because that is what my Bishop belongs to - for you it would be whatever document your Bishop would write - still haven’t looked have you?

On the same token St Thomas Aquinas was wrong at least once - there was a little argument with a Franciscan about a little thing called the Immaculate Conception. So no they aren’t infallible teachings either.
 
joanofarc2008 said:
How am I rejecting God’s law as unacceptable - I think it is just the opposite. You have failed to make your case there. I never meant to say specifically the USCCB I meant to say that for me because that is what my Bishop belongs to - for you it would be whatever document your Bishop would write - still haven’t looked have you?

On the same token St Thomas Aquinas was wrong at least once - there was a little argument with a Franciscan about a little thing called the Immaculate Conception. So no they aren’t infallible teachings either.
Click to expand...
You can’t just assert that someone hasn’t made a case for something. I have. I quoted authoritative documents to which Catholics still owe assent. We ought to listen to popes, even if they had the misfortune of reigning before Vatican II. And it was Pope Innocent I who said this was a matter allowed by God Himself.

You have a distorted sense of obedience to local entities. If it has been settled in Rome for centuries, it has been settled. By your argument, I should have assented to the CCCB’s Winnipeg Statement when it came out making an allowance for artificial contraception. 🤷
 
joanofarc2008 said:
I would have expected better from a Dominican - next time you hyperlink you should hyperlink to a reference not a sale of a book. I happen to own the book already and have read it several times. It is one of the least academic sources I own. While he may he state that the Holy Father’s decisions are not binding as the Holy Father in this case would be speaking only as the Bishop of Rome due to the reasons above - most of the Bishops in each diocese have put out their own teachings on faith and morals and I do propose to you that in those instances where your Episcopate has placed a valid teaching on faith and morals that Canon 753 would apply.
Click to expand...
If you are suggesting that the Holy Father was misquoted then please provide evidence. If you are suggesting that he was only speaking to the faithful of his diocese, there is absolutely no evidence of that, particularly since Italy has not had the death penalty as an option since 1889. As such, the faithful his diocese do not have make that decision. Therefore, the idea that he was speaking in that statement as only the bishop of Rome is entirely illogical.

As for why I did not cite it directly, I have the audio book. Show me an online full text of that book and I will cite it. Either way, as has already been pointed out to you, the question has been settled previously by multiple popes. As for Canon 753, I am sorry but a local Bishop does not have the authority to go beyond Magesterial teaching and hold the faithful bound to it. .

Here is a decent article on the topic. catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html

As I have stated, I am personally opposed to the death penalty in all but the most extreme cases. There have been far too many people exonerated later in life by improved technology who were wrongly convicted for me to be comfortable with the idea. However, to state that we are required to hold that as part of the deposit of faith is wrong. Every local bishop in the world could recommend against it, and most have, but that is not infallible. As the article I linked above points out, even the USCCB’s statement on the subject acknowledges the right of the state to use capital punishment even though they recommend against it.
 
Ohana said:
Wish I could get my hands on an old Baltimore I or II, or both! Really not a lot has changed, just restated.
Click to expand...
The one I like is “Baltimore Catechism, No. 4” by Thomas L. Kinkead. You can read it online or download it in several formats at: gutenberg.org/ebooks/14554

Or you can buy it on Amazon at: amazon.com/Explanation-Baltimore-Catechism-Christian-Doctrine/dp/0895553406/ref=pd_sim_b_4

They also have No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3. You’ll see them lower down in the linked page.
 
joanofarc2008 said:
One of the things that Bl John Paul II said was that in today’s world technology had gotten to the point that the death penalty was no longer protecting the innocent as we had safeguards in place to protect innocents from those that would do harm.
Click to expand...
What are these “safeguards?” It sure seems like a lot of innocents are still being harmed. Often by the State.
 
I have both the 2nd edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I enjoy both of them.
 
WFS5801 said:
What are these “safeguards?” It sure seems like a lot of innocents are still being harmed. Often by the State.
Click to expand...
I believe what is meant is that people who are already in prison are less capable of doing harm to others than they used to be. That is one of the reasons that Blessed JP2 still approves of the death penalty, in cases where leaving the criminal alive would lead to the chance that they could hurt others. Now, we have supermax jails, etc. which minimize contact between the criminal and the staff, or the rest of the prison population who might have been there for lesser crimes. Before, that was not the case.

I could be wrong, but I have certainly seen that interpretation before.

Peace,
 
I don’t believe capital punishment was ever integral to a discussion on the Catechism. 😃
 
Filii_Dei said:
I don’t believe capital punishment was ever integral to a discussion on the Catechism. 😃
Click to expand...
Well yes and no. It’s obvious that some people interpret that section as the official Chuch teaching when it isn’t. And that’s one of the reasons why I prefer other catechisms.
 
jwinch2 said:
I believe what is meant is that people who are already in prison are less capable of doing harm to others than they used to be. That is one of the reasons that Blessed JP2 still approves of the death penalty, in cases where leaving the criminal alive would lead to the chance that they could hurt others. Now, we have supermax jails, etc. which minimize contact between the criminal and the staff, or the rest of the prison population who might have been there for lesser crimes. Before, that was not the case.
I could be wrong, but I have certainly seen that interpretation before.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
mattkubes said:
Well yes and no. It’s obvious that some people interpret that section as the official Chuch teaching when it isn’t. And that’s one of the reasons why I prefer other catechisms.
Click to expand...
I think we can agree to disagree on how binding this decision is. My point was more there is a major difference between the two versions of the Catechisms in the area of faith and morals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top