What makes something dogma?

[TheOpenTheist]

I appreciate your frankness and effort to clarify Icalise. You’re the real deal

There is one more thing that you should consider in all of this, and that is the public response and perception to the catholic church’s stance on issues.

I say this because the decision to so greatly oppose the death penalty clearly has the response/perception of those who are not catholic in mind. Basicly, the catholic church does not want to come across as “judgmental” or as “unmerciful”. In short, public relations comes into play here.

What makes this so obvious are the reasons given for supporting an extremely limited use of the death penalty:

1. 
   *]**When possible the government should use jails/prisons to protect the public instead of the death penalty.
   ]The death penalty is applied in an unjust manner in our system and, therefore, should not be implemented.
   ]Jesus taught that the death penalty was no longer necessary. Now we should forgive, not execute.
   
   That these are fallacious arguments is evidenced by the following facts:
   
   1. 
      *]Prisons are unjust, inhumane, ineffective and in the Bible are ONLY practiced by pagan nations. God did not give imprisonment as a just punishment or as an “option”. And yes, Israel was very wealthy from the spoils of war and could have built big prisons, so Israel would have been able to use prisons had it been an option. Also, far fewer people would be murdered and fewer would also be executed if the death penalty were practiced the exact way God commanded it to be practiced. Throwing murderers and rapists and the like into prison does nothing to deter those crimes.
      *]Just because the USA implements the death penalty contrary (in almost every way) to how God commanded it be done, does not mean that the correctly applied death penalty that God gave should not be used to deter crime and protect society. God’s death penalty is sure, swift, public and painful. The USA’s death penalty is unsure, greatly delayed, extremely unpainful and not public at all.
      *]There is much New Testament support for the death penalty. Jesus upheld the command that He gave in Ex 21 that required children who curse father and mother to be executed (Mark 7; Matt 15). Paul taught that the government was doing a good thing when it exercised the sword (Rom 13:1-4) and even offered himself for the death penalty if he had committed anything worthy of death (Acts 25:11). Paul also tells us that the law is good if one uses it lawfully and then lists among them some laws that when broken require execution (1 Tim 1:8-10). And one of the most important passages promoting the death penalty as good, just and right in the New Testament is Heb 10:28 which shows the connection between the death penalty in the Law and the death penalty that is the second death. The law is our tutor that leads us to Christ (Gal 3:24). When we enforce bad law, it makes evangelism much harder.
      
      So, that is why I cannot follow the teaching of the bishop in my area or even take him seriously on this topic. The reasoning is horrible, and what’s almost as bad, is the fact that many claim that our goal in sending these people to prison is to rehabilitate and reform them. HA! Sticking a rapist in a prison with other rapists is not an effective way to rehabilitate that person.
      
      For more New Testament support for the death penalty check out this article
      
      enyart.com/features/writings/death.shtml

 

[itsjustdave1988]

lcalise:

What is binding? You say every opinion.

The manifest will of your superior is binding according to Heb 13:17 and Titus 3:1. What he binds upon you may even be unreasonable, and disagreeable, but so long as it is not contary to the authority given to him by his superiors, then it is lawful and binding.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there are three kinds of obedience:

1. Sufficient obedience - obedience which is necessary for salvation, which is, obedience to one’s superior within the scope of the superiors authority, in all things lawful.
2. Perfect obedience - obedience to one’s superior no matter his scope of authority, in all things lawful
3. Indiscreet obedience - obedience to one’s superior in things unlawful.

Sufficient obedience is necessary for salvation. Perfect obedience is above and beyond what is necessary, and is laudable. However, indiscreet obedience is a sin.

St. Thomas states,

"***there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power… Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. … a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority ***(Summa Theologica, IIb, 104, 5)

I’m emphasizing the importance of Sufficient obedience in accord with St. Thomas Aquinas. I’m sorry if you believe such teaching is Muslim, but I believe I’ve given adequate sources to show that such teaching is Catholic.

If your superior says its merely his opinion, than you can certainly differ with it. If he gives you freedom of prudential judgement, then you can exercise it. If instead your superior presents it as Catholic doctrine, and it is in accord with the doctrine of the Roman Pontiff, then Catholic canon law states, “… a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.” (canon 752)

What is spoken ex cathedra? Everything uttered from any pope’s mouth, by your statments.

I’ve not even discussed ex cathedra pronoucements, because by canon law, “even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act” means that it does not need to be ex cathedra to be binding.

And regarding the death penalty, I know that I am not required to think it needs to be abolished like JPII. If you think otherwise, then PLEASE show me why…

Catholic doctrine states that the death penalty is valid if the circumstances are such that:

1. the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, and
2. this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

Catholic doctrine leaves the prudential judgement to you. If you conscientiously think the death penalty is the only effective way to deter unjust aggression, than the death penalty is just. God Himself used the death penalty with the Amalekites. If conscientiously think there are other ways to effectively deter unjust aggression, then to use excessive means by the death penalty is unjust. The Catholic Church is not telling you what your prudential judgement should be on this matter. Thus, you are not disobedient to your superiors if you conscientously think the death penalty is the only effective way to deter unjust aggression.

You have a serious problem if you find you cannot slay your own will to obey the will of your superior, as this kind of obdedience, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is necessary for salvation. That’s not blind obedience, but reasoned obedience by virtue of your superior’s God given authority over you (cf. Heb 13:17; Titus 1:3). Catholic teaching requires, at a minimun, sufficient obedience as St. Thomas Aquinas calls it.

If you are really having a crisis of faith, then I suggest you consult a priest.

 

[lcalise]

Well, Catholic Answers and some other Catholic sights appear to disagree with you, though I’m not 100% sure of what your saying because you seem to be relying on the nuanced language that the religious and political use. (The kind that makes a technical writer like myself want to scream. )

Did you read that article I linked to? I’m just interested to hear your response to the idea that the Catechism (not infalliable) does not take into account the traditional understanding of punishment. I’m rushing off to a test otherwise I’d try and be more specific.

Crisis over, btw

 

[Catholic2003]

lcalise:

Well, Catholic Answers and some other Catholic sights appear to disagree with you,

If that is your only criteria for dissent, then you are in luck!

Check out the book Why You Can Disagree & Remain a Faithful Catholic by Catholic priest Philip Kaufman, OSB. It explains how you can dissent from the Church’s teaching on birth control, abortion, divorce and remariage, and so on, as long as your “conscience” tells you that you are right and the Church is wrong.

Father Kaufman is a member of Call To Action; I’m sure you will find many like-minded Catholics there.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

lcalise:

… you seem to be relying on the nuanced language that the religious and political use.

I’m relying upon the language the magisterium uses. Catholics are funny that way.

 

[Neithan]

Icalise:

I am totally, totally frustrated with liberalism in the church …] (hence why am a proponent of limited government and free markets).

Aren’t limited government and free markets the hallmarks of classic liberalism??

*Are the “social teachings” that broaden the term social justice to health care, housing, etc. dogma? *

I am very confused, so could someone shed light on this?

The short answer would be no, they aren’t *dogma, *but it’s impossible for us to go through the entire list of Church doctrine here and point out what is dogma and what is not. What makes it even more complicated are the levels within dogma itself. A good rule of thumb, as the above posters have pointed out, is simply to obey what the popes have taught us, otherwise you are going to wade into a mess of theological confusion.

If you’re determined to set your mind against certain doctrines, and only obey exactly what you *absolutely have to *believe, then try reading this article and this book or this one plus the documents of Vatican II.

That should give you a good head start! Good luck!

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Catholic2003:

If that is your only criteria for dissent, then you are in luck!

Check out the book Why You Can Disagree & Remain a Faithful Catholic by Catholic priest Philip Kaufman, OSB. It explains how you can dissent from the Church’s teaching on birth control, abortion, divorce and remariage, and so on, as long as your “conscience” tells you that you are right and the Church is wrong.

Father Kaufman is a member of Call To Action; I’m sure you will find many like-minded Catholics there.

In three words, DON’T GO THERE!

There is heavy reliance on the part of the “conscience above all” school on one sentence from the Catechism:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

But that article continues:

Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

And prior to that, the Catechism states:

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

So it is simply not true that one can dissent with impunity from the teaching of the Church based on what one’s conscience says, because the conscience must be formed properly in the first place. And to disregard the teaching of the Church, when it is known, is not an act of conscience, but of disobedience.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I am unsure what things are said ex cathedra (what I thought was what ‘dogma’ implied, correct me if I’m wrong) and what are just the opinions of church leaders who, being human, have their own opinions that can be flawed.

The mistake you still make is that you think that only infallible dogma is binding upon Catholics.

Instead of two categories (infallible and binding vs opinion), it is more like:

1. infallible teaching (binding)
2. morally certain teaching (binding)
3. approved disciplinary norms and judicial decisions (binding)
4. personal devotions (not binding)
5. free opinions (not binding)

The Catholic Church insists upon obedience to the lawful pastors of the Church in all things lawful when they teach in accord with the authentic magisterium. It doesn’t matter if it is infallbile or not.

I understand from other posts that you don’t like to read long encyclicals. I do. And if you bothered to read these encyclicals you would be more informed about what the Catholic Church herself says is binding upon the faithful.

Nonetheless, the Church has placed this in its Catechism:

**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

I don’t know how the Church could be more clear.

According to Catholic Answers:

In addition to infallible teaching by the magisterium, there’s also what is often called “authentic teaching,” teaching which hasn’t been presented infallibly by the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, but which is still authoritative and to be accepted by Catholics.

In speaking of “authentic teaching,” Vatican II declared:

"Bishops teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. When their bishop speaks in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals, the faithful are to accept his teaching with a religious assent of soul.

“This religious submission of will and of mind MUST be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence and the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will” (Lumen Gentium, no. 25).

(catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9007qq.asp, emphasis added)

 

[Catholic2003]

Gerry Hunter:

In three words, DON’T GO THERE!

You mean just because there are groups that dissent from Church teaching doesn’t mean that it’s okay to dissent?

Hmm.

I wonder what that does to lcalise’s argument that the existence of groups that dissent from Pope John Paul II’s teaching on the death penalty means that such dissent is okay?

 

[lcalise]

itsjustdave1988:

I’m relying upon the language the magisterium uses. Catholics are funny that way.

Just because the magisterium uses it doesn’t mean it is the most concise and clear usage in English… are you saying that because I think the magisterium uses bad English I’m not as ‘catholic’? I know I’m usually overly sensitive to people’s writings, but that seems like it would not be a conclusion that is totally out there. And, yes, I do not have time to read encyclicals. Most people do not have that luxury of time, and I am no exception. The exception might be… I don’t know… maybe someone studying for a theology masters

Now, referencing your other posts, you’ve just kept reciting the same things without answering, though you’re getting better with the binding and not binding breakdown. I am NOT questioning the validity of the Magesterium which you seem to keep insisting.

I want to know specifically where I can find out what is binding and not. I know that the stuff from ecumenical councils are binding, disciplines are binding unless the magesterium changes, theological opinions that the Church settles (ex. ordination of women) are binding, and what the Pope says infallibly is binding. Now… where do I find out what falls under all those categories, and what is merely the theological opinions of church leaders. (Like are all encyclicals doctrinal or ‘authoritative’ or does the pope sometimes add his own opinions in?)

And I do not agree with the idea that you can disagree about birth control and the like because I have read too many places that those are settled questions. (See itsjustdave1988: This is why I do not want to rely on a pastor, bishop, etc. because they are opinionated people with their own goals, motivations and flaws… and just because you’re ordained does not mean you know/believe anything correctly.)

Also, itsjustdave1988, I do not know what your goal is in seeking a theology masters. (I’m assuming serving God in some fashion.) Please learn to put these things in your own words. If you cannot explain things to people, how can you accomplish anything?

 

[lcalise]

Neithan:

Aren’t limited government and free markets the hallmarks of classic liberalism??

True, true. But I’m using it in the modern context of the ideology of ‘liberals’.

If you’re determined to set your mind against certain doctrines, and only obey exactly what you *absolutely have to *believe,

I am not against the doctrine of social justice, per se, as I think I am free to understand it. I just think that wording, such as in the Catechism, seems too narrow. I mean, yes, everyone needs healthcare and we should feel responsible for our fellow man. Great, that has a lot of Biblical support. But to say that it is something necessary for society or imply that it is a right? I feel like that kind of wording does not allow for the full breath of debate regarding civic things that are not spiritual in nature, such as the role of government versus individual responsibility in social systems.

And I believe that this latitude belongs in the Church and many times, through the actions of churches and church leaders, they seek to enforce their opinion on things that are outside their realm of authority and expertise. Also, focusing on these kinds of opinions takes away from the more important spiritual teachings of the Church.

 

[Catholic2003]

lcalise:

Just because the magisterium uses it doesn’t mean it is the most concise and clear usage in English…

Here is a concrete example that itsjustdave1988 quoted in post #8 to answer your question:

His [the Roman Pontiff’s] mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Perhaps you could illustrate how a technical writer would state this more clearly and concisely, because it reads just fine to me. When the Church publishes a book called the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” and states that it a “sure norm for teaching the faith”, then it seems pretty clear to me that the doctrines that it contains are binding on the faithful. If the Church were to publish a book, “Random Musings of Pope Benedict XVI”, then its contents would clearly be non-binding.

lcalise:

And, yes, I do not have time to read encyclicals. Most people do not have that luxury of time, and I am no exception.

I don’t have time to read the state’s traffic code in any detail. This is why, when a cop pulls me over, I say, “Sorry, officer,” and not, “You don’t have the right to pull me over.” Being wrong in this case could end me up in jail.

If you simply accept what your Pope and your Bishop teach, then you don’t have to read tons of Church encyclicals. But if you want to dissent from some aspect of Church teaching, then you had better be prepared to put in the time to find out just how binding those teachings are. Being wrong in this case could end you up in Hell.

lcalise:

I want to know specifically where I can find out what is binding and not.

The social teachings that you want to dissent from are binding. The teaching on the death penalty is binding.

(Like are all encyclicals doctrinal or ‘authoritative’ or does the pope sometimes add his own opinions in?)

All encyclicals are binding.

For example, Pope John Paul II’s opinion on the Iraqi war was not binding. They way that you can tell it was just an opinion is by the fact that he did not include it in any of his encyclicals or other Church documents.

lcalise:

And I do not agree with the idea that you can disagree about birth control and the like because I have read too many places that those are settled questions.

If it were a popularity contest, there are more people who dissent from the teaching on birth control than who dissent from the teaching on the death penalty.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Catholic2003:

You mean just because there are groups that dissent from Church teaching doesn’t mean that it’s okay to dissent?

Hmm.

I wonder what that does to lcalise’s argument that the existence of groups that dissent from Pope John Paul II’s teaching on the death penalty means that such dissent is okay?

Every Catholic knows that there is teaching that is meant to guide the faithful, and there is teaching that is always binding on all members of the Church. (If they don’t there’s plenty of material produced by the CDF to set them straight.) JPII’s teaching on the death penalty must be considered by every Catholic when he considers the question of the death penalty, which penalty is not explicitly condemned under all circumstances. By comparison, JPII’s teaching that the Church has no power confer the Sacrament of Holy Orders on women must be accepted and obeyed by every Catholic - no ifs, ands, or buts.

Do not be deceived. We live in days when “dissent” is used as a euphemism for “heresy”. Blurring everything by behaving as if a teaching is a teaching is a teaching, without discrimination, aids the heresies.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Catholic2003]

Gerry Hunter:

JPII’s teaching on the death penalty must be considered by every Catholic when he considers the question of the death penalty, which penalty is not explicitly condemned under all circumstances.

I think the word “considered” here is too weak to accurately describe the binding nature of this teaching. Catholics must give Pope John Paul II’s teaching on the death penalty their religious submission of will and of mind. So maybe “considered and followed” might work.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Catholic2003:

I think the word “considered” here is too weak to accurately describe the binding nature of this teaching. Catholics must give Pope John Paul II’s teaching on the death penalty their religious submission of will and of mind. So maybe “considered and followed” might work.

I’d agree. If it applies, it must be followed, as it serves to form a Catholic’s conscience. Still, the teaching itself is not an “always and everywhere” condemnation of the death penalty, so consideration - honest consideration, not a search for loopholes - is called for prior to following.

I’ve personally always had a pragmatic objection to the death penalty: If a mistake is made, how does one go about fixing it?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Catholic2003]

Gerry Hunter:

Still, the teaching itself is not an “always and everywhere” condemnation of the death penalty, so consideration - honest consideration, not a search for loopholes - is called for prior to following.

This is a good point. The death penalty teaching does require a careful evaluation in order to be able to apply it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholic2003:

Perhaps you could illustrate how a technical writer would state this more clearly and concisely, because it reads just fine to me.

It was pretty clear to me too.