I do not. I have found that a Council’s teaching on faith and morals to be infallible, while disciplines of the Church could be changed. Councils are called in order to affirm the Church’s constant teaching. That is all that I have. I am no great apologist.
Thanks. The criteria for what is taught infallibly is pretty narrow, and there are only a very few teachings that there is unanimous agreement upon as having been taught infallibly. Councils are called for many reasons, and while they have the capacity to teach infallibly we can’t assume that everything taught was done so invoking infallibility.I do not. I have found that a Council’s teaching on faith and morals to be infallible, while disciplines of the Church could be changed. Councils are called in order to affirm the Church’s constant teaching. That is all that I have. I am no great apologist.
Regarding ecumenical councils: this is from Lumen Gentium (#25).
Punishment is first and foremost about justice, not protection. The death penalty - like every other punishment - must meet that obligation. Protection is an added bonus … but it is not required in order for the punishment to be just.
We know that man is made in the image of God: it’s explained in Genesis 9:6 that that is the reason the penalty for murder is death.
It is anything but fully explained in the Catechism; in fact the Catechism is an absolute muddle on a topic about which the Church had been quite clear for nearly 2000 years. As for going beyond 2260, I can cite comments from a dozen popes, catechisms, bishops, and Doctors of the Church supporting capital punishment. Since there is nothing at all behind 2267 supporting that position, if there is any need to go beyond a single paragraph you will find yourself without resources.It is fully explained in the Catechism, but this would require you to read beyond 2260.
Read Evangelium Vitae. You have yet to provide a single source showing the death penalty is preferred ,2260 included. If you read the commentary around the Scripture, which you obviously have not, you will see that 2260 is not about the death penalty, but the value of human life. In fact 2267 is the only place in the Catechism the death penalty is addressed directly. You have provided no arguments defending why your interpretation is correct. You just repeat the same thing over and over, and hypocritically deny me the same freedom you claim for yourself: that faithful Catholics can have differences of opinion. You insinuate that I am in error for no other reason than I disagree with you. I have never once insinuated that one cannot be a faithful Catholic and support I perceive as a barbarous practice. I, on the other hand, have no respect for Tradition, in your view. I still stand on the calls for mercy and loving your neighbor, which incidentally, would include not killing them. I guess forgiveness, mercy, and love do not apply to those you deem unworthy of life. Which, by the way, is nor our decision to make.
Can you give us a Catechism or other Magisterial teaching reference for that? Thanks.
From the Catechism (2266):* “the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”*
I think it’s important to distinguish the justice that is most related to the death penalty, which is distributive justice, what the state owes to the individual(s). Based on the principles of distributive justice, the state has the duty to protect the citizens from harm. When a man murders another, he has made himself a danger to the society. Therefore, the state has the moral obligation of dealing with the criminal. What should they do? They must use the most effective means. And what is the most effective means? It is arguably the proper use of the death penalty.
I have. It is section 56 that forms the basis for CCC 2267; in fact each has an endnote that points to the other as the source of the stated position. As Alice would say: curiouser and curiouser.
Between 2260 and the Catechism of Trent it seems evident to me that there is an obligation to impose the death penalty, at least in some cases, and I haven’t seen any explanation as to why Gen 9:6 means anything other than the obligation it clearly states.
You have it backwards. It is because of the value of human life that the penalty for murder is death. The passage basically says: the penalty for murder is death, because man is made in God’s image.
It is true that 2267 is the only section that specifically mentions capital punishment but it is not the only section that is relevant to the question. I think I have mentioned that there are quite a number of issues involved in gaining a full understanding of the topic, things like: the rights and duties of the State, mercy, justice, punishment, reparation, and expiation.
You misunderstand my position. I recognize that I am in the minority, especially among Catholics, and as the pope and many bishops support 2267 I certainly recognize that this is a legitimate position to take. My problem is that I have not seen any argument at all that justifies what 2267 says and in fact quite literally everything I have found on the subject indicates that the position is not supportable.
This is what I mean about unconvincing arguments. I don’t judge a person’s worthiness; I judge his actions and support the imposition of appropriate punishment. If you want to argue how forgiveness, mercy, and love apply to that process, do so, but please cite a Church document to support your claims.
It only seems that way to you because you are either completely ignorant of the fact that the Church has always recognized the right of the state to impose capital punishment, or you know it and yet reject it.
Excuse me, but did you say murder? I find it quite disturbing that you consider the death penalty to be murder, since God and His Church teach otherwise.
I’m not sure if I know exactly what you mean by this, because if it is what I think, it’s quite disgusting. You appear to be slamming the traditional teachings of the Church; am I correct? If so, then it’s pretty much useless to try to argue rationally with you. If you consider the Church’s teaching on the death penalty over a period of almost 2000 years to be merely “writings from the church hundreds of years ago,” then I suggest you review the infallible dogmatic teaching of the First Vatican Council on how we are bound to observe Tradition.
Perhaps you should refrain from bashing those who disagree with you…
I am not bashing him, just pointing out his errors.
Actually, you were insulting him, but considering you are SSPX, I am not at all surprised.
Considering the hatred shown towards the SSPX for their opposition to Liberalism, I am likewise not surprised with your comment.
It isn’t like the SSPX is actually fully in the Church or anything. Opposition to the SSPX comes from their attitude towards the Holy See. By directly disobeying the Holy Father, LeFebvre committed the sin of Korah. I will have more respect for the SSPX when they stop making demands that they have no right to make.
Please answer:
YES. To do what the Holy Father has forbidden you is to fail to show deference to legitimate authority, and as such, is a violation of the 4th commandment. If you disagree the Holy Father, you discuss, and if he still decides against you, you obey. To be disobedient to the Holy Father puts you in the same class as Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli