D
diggerdomer
Guest
The Catechism is not the personal opinion of one Pope.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
The Catechism does not contradict Trent, properly understood. To claim otherwise suggests that the Church (and Magisterium) contradicts Herself.Yes, I read them. They contradict the Catechism of Trent, which is also Church teaching, and I find that disturbing.
I question that in light of the 1960+ years that came before.
All of a sudden, the death penalty is “rarely justifiable”, after over nineteen centuries of teaching that it does have a place? Right.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Ummm…like slavery perhaps?All of a sudden, the death penalty is “rarely justifiable”, after over nineteen centuries of teaching that it does have a place? Right.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Just because a teaching is not taught infallibly does not mean it’s not binding on Catholics. Just because you see a contradiction does not make it so.If a teaching is not infallibly proclaimed, and if it contradicts past teachings (which were issued infallibly), then I question whether or not we have to obey it at all.
The vast majority of Church teaching has not been taught infallibly. That does not mean Catholics are free to pick and choose what to accept in Church teaching based on their own preferences.
E
Ender
Guest
Sure; I have never argued that only infallible teachings need to be followed.Yo do have the obligation to give your assent to the teachings by the Church, even if those teachings are not part of the infallible magesterium.
You constantly misrepresent my position. Do I need to use smaller words? I am justified in rejecting 2267 because it is neither an infallible teaching nor an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium - either of which would require my assent. Since it is a prudential opinion, however, there is no obligation to assent to it.In other words, you cannot simply choose to ignore the statement that the death penalty is to be discouraged, because such statement does not fit your warped sense of justice.
If the death penalty was a just punishment before it is a just punishment now; the justness of a punishment is not something that is affected by technology. If the death penalty is unjust now then it has always been unjust and the Church has been in error for 2000 years. If the Church was not in error before then the death penalty is a just punishment today.The reason that the Church waited to discourage the death penalty was because technology had not sufficiently progressed to protect the society.
Ender
D
diggerdomer
Guest
How is the Catechism NOT a teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium? Are there any Bishops who reject it? Is it not uniformly taught and upheld by all Bishops in communion with the Pope? Where do you get the idea that Catholics are not bound by its teaching?Sure; I have never argued that only infallible teachings need to be followed.
You constantly misrepresent my position. Do I need to use smaller words? I am justified in rejecting 2267 because it is neither an infallible teaching nor an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium - either of which would require my assent. Since it is a prudential opinion, however, there is no obligation to assent to it.
If the death penalty was a just punishment before it is a just punishment now; the justness of a punishment is not something that is affected by technology. If the death penalty is unjust now then it has always been unjust and the Church has been in error for 2000 years. If the Church was not in error before then the death penalty is a just punishment today.
Ender
You are only justified in rejecting the Catechism because you prefer your own thoughts and opinions. Not to be harsh…but is there another valid reason for Catholics to reject teachings in the Catechism?
E
Ender
Guest
You know this is not my position yet you continue to repeat it. This is a bit annoying; why do you say something you know is untrue? Let me repeat: the Catechism is not the personal opinion of one pope - however section 2267, and section 2267 alone, is the personal opinion of a single pope (JPII).The Catechism is not the personal opinion of one Pope.
Sections 2260 and 2266 are in accord with Trent but 2267 is not. The Church does not contradict herself because 2267, being a prudential opinion, is not Church doctrine.The Catechism does not contradict Trent, properly understood. To claim otherwise suggests that the Church (and Magisterium) contradicts Herself.
Ender
C
CWBetts
Guest
WRONG WRONG WRONG. 2267 is taken from an Encyclical, to which we MUST give assent of the will, infallible or not.You know this is not my position yet you continue to repeat it. This is a bit annoying; why do you say something you know is untrue? Let me repeat: the Catechism is not the personal opinion of one pope - however section 2267, and section 2267 alone, is the personal opinion of a single pope (JPII).
Sections 2260 and 2266 are in accord with Trent but 2267 is not. The Church does not contradict herself because 2267, being a prudential opinion, is not Church doctrine.
Ender
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Here’s the concern I have.You know this is not my position yet you continue to repeat it. This is a bit annoying; why do you say something you know is untrue? Let me repeat: the Catechism is not the personal opinion of one pope - however section 2267, and section 2267 alone, is the personal opinion of a single pope (JPII).
Sections 2260 and 2266 are in accord with Trent but 2267 is not. The Church does not contradict herself because 2267, being a prudential opinion, is not Church doctrine.
Ender
You say that one part of the Catechism is the personal opinion of one person.
If we accept that, then where does it stop? Are each of us free to interpret/dismiss any passage from the Catechism on the basis of our assumption that it’s just the opinion of one person?
I did not intend to misinterpret you, sorry if I did, but I don’t know how else to read what you claim.
D
d97c
Guest
Pope Benedict, the current Pope, in a letter written in 2004, said the following:
- Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
E
Ender
Guest
It is true that 2267 is based on the encyclical Evangelium Vitae (#56) but an opinion is still an opinion no matter where it is expressed. Interestingly, EV56 has an endnote referencing 2267 and 2267 has an endnote referencing EV56. So, which came first: the chicken or the egg?WRONG WRONG WRONG. 2267 is taken from an Encyclical, to which we MUST give assent of the will, infallible or not.
Ender
C
CWBetts
Guest
Quit dodging. Just admit that you think you know more that the greatest pope of the 20th century.It is true that 2267 is based on the encyclical Evangelium Vitae (#56) but an opinion is still an opinion no matter where it is expressed. Interestingly, EV56 has an endnote referencing 2267 and 2267 has an endnote referencing EV56. So, which came first: the chicken or the egg?
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
It’s not just me saying this; I’m not that arrogant. That claim was explicitly made by Cardinal Dulles and implicitly made by the USCCB and Cardinal Ratzinger (in the statement d97c just cited). It is also made by a number of serious people not within the Church hierarchy.You say that one part of the Catechism is the personal opinion of one person.
A valid question, but I think it stops with 2267 alone and this really is more than simply an opinion. If you dig into Church teaching - not just this catechism but everything you can find from the past as well - you will not find anything at all from which you could say that 2267 developed. As I pointed out to CWBetts, neither EV56 nor 2267 references anything at all to support their position. We also know that as a matter of fact the first paragraph of 2267 is simply wrong; the traditional teaching of the Church did not contain the restriction it claims. Beyond that, the third paragraph is undeniably an opinion about the state of modern penal systems; the effectiveness of prisons is clearly is not a moral question.If we accept that, then where does it stop? Are each of us free to interpret/dismiss any passage from the Catechism on the basis of our assumption that it’s just the opinion of one person?
I do not deny that most of the clergy oppose the death penalty. What I claim is that (incredible as this seems) their opposition is not supported by what the Church actually teaches. What I believe JPII was saying was that, in today’s climate, executions do more harm than good. His opinion may be correct but it is one I don’t share.
Ender
C
CWBetts
Guest
This is a far cry from executing people as a matter of course. Execution should be reserved as a last resort. Even in the case of self defense, if you have the option of disabling, rather than killing, disabling is the preferred option. Likewise, in the case of capital punishment, if the option exists to preserve the life of the criminal, while still protecting society and preventing further loss of life, then the life must be spared. Even in the cases of war, the vast majority of wars fought are not just. Likewise the vast number of executions are not just. The culture of life has no hope as long as people continue to endorse frequent use of the death penalty.Pope Benedict, the current Pope, in a letter written in 2004, said the following:
He, the current Pope, is saying, quite clearly, that while “the Church” wants us to “exercise discretion and mercy” in imposing punishment, that same Pope says–>“it may still be permissible to…have recourse to capital punishment.” Since (as he says) "there may be a ligitimate diversity of opinion " regarding “applying the death penalty,” we can adopt the “permissible” and “discretion” prongs and state that applying prudential judgment and using discretion, it is permissible for us to advocate the death penalty, vote for people who advocate the death penalty, and hope that if Osama bin Ladin is caught he gets the death penalty…swiftly !
- Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
L
Lycorth
Guest
If there isn’t a contradiction, I would like to see how. Honestly; I do not ask rhetorically nor out of impatience. I simply do not see how the claim that the death penalty is “rarely justifiable” in a world where supposedly “rehabilitated” criminals are freed from prison only to re-offend and cause more harm again does not starkly contradict the passage I cited from the Catechism of Trent.The Catechism does not contradict Trent, properly understood. To claim otherwise suggests that the Church (and Magisterium) contradicts Herself.
The same holds true for the anti-death penalty crowd, then.Just because a teaching is not taught infallibly does not mean it’s not binding on Catholics. Just because you see a contradiction does not make it so.
The vast majority of Church teaching has not been taught infallibly. That does not mean Catholics are free to pick and choose what to accept in Church teaching based on their own preferences.
So, a different explanation must be in order.
Slavery in Christian Europe did not exist during the Medieval era. It existed in other places, but was pretty much done away with as an institution by then, only to resurface with the coming of the so-called “Reniassance” and its infatuation with Greco-Roman pagan practices, slavery amongst them.Ummm…like slavery perhaps?
Besides, slavery has nothing to do with protecting society from dangerous individuals. That herring couldn’t be any more red.
The first rational explanation I’ve heard about this.You know this is not my position yet you continue to repeat it. This is a bit annoying; why do you say something you know is untrue? Let me repeat: the Catechism is not the personal opinion of one pope - however section 2267, and section 2267 alone, is the personal opinion of a single pope (JPII).
Sections 2260 and 2266 are in accord with Trent but 2267 is not. The Church does not contradict herself because 2267, being a prudential opinion, is not Church doctrine.
Thank you.Pope Benedict, the current Pope, in a letter written in 2004, said the following:
He, the current Pope, is saying, quite clearly, that while “the Church” wants us to “exercise discretion and mercy” in imposing punishment, that same Pope says–>“it may still be permissible to…have recourse to capital punishment.” Since (as he says) "there may be a ligitimate diversity of opinion " regarding “applying the death penalty,” we can adopt the “permissible” and “discretion” prongs and state that applying prudential judgment and using discretion, it is permissible for us to advocate the death penalty, vote for people who advocate the death penalty, and hope that if Osama bin Ladin is caught he gets the death penalty…swiftly !
- Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Why should he, when it seems that you are claiming you know more than all the popes who have come before and have taught what is outlined in the Catechism of Trent.Quit dodging. Just admit that you think you know more that the greatest pope of the 20th century.
Which is it?
P
portarica
Guest
When Dulles enumerated his five or so reasons why capital punishment should be allowed, one of them was that there was scant biblical evidence to the contrary.
As catholics I always thought that the teachings of Jesus should be our primary focus in leading our lives. I realize that is just an opinion and may be contrary to church teachings.
Back to Dulles, in his treatise he ignored the one time Jesus spoke directly to capital punishment, the let he who is without sin cast the first stone instance with the woman.
Many church teachings have been arrived at with interpretations that come from verses that may or not even be talking about the subject of the teachings involved. ( for instance , was Jesus saving the oil to a.)anoint the sick or b.) to tell the apostles that it was OK to accumulate great wealth in the form of gold and the trappings of temporal kingdoms?)
It seems OK to tell the congregation they should not pick and choose among what Jesus taught, so doesn’t the church have the same responsibility?
How can any church holding on the death penalty not be considered in the light of being able to cast a sinless stone?
Peace
As catholics I always thought that the teachings of Jesus should be our primary focus in leading our lives. I realize that is just an opinion and may be contrary to church teachings.
Back to Dulles, in his treatise he ignored the one time Jesus spoke directly to capital punishment, the let he who is without sin cast the first stone instance with the woman.
Many church teachings have been arrived at with interpretations that come from verses that may or not even be talking about the subject of the teachings involved. ( for instance , was Jesus saving the oil to a.)anoint the sick or b.) to tell the apostles that it was OK to accumulate great wealth in the form of gold and the trappings of temporal kingdoms?)
It seems OK to tell the congregation they should not pick and choose among what Jesus taught, so doesn’t the church have the same responsibility?
How can any church holding on the death penalty not be considered in the light of being able to cast a sinless stone?
Peace
E
Ender
Guest
In order to accept your interpretation of that passage we would also have to accept that neither Augustine nor Aquinas understood it properly and that neither theologian nor pope understood it properly for nearly 2000 years. Even then there is no explanation for why JPII didn’t reference that passage as the basis for the position outlined in Evangelium Vitae - especially given that he didn’t provide any reference at all.How can any church holding on the death penalty not be considered in the light of being able to cast a sinless stone?
Finally, if that passage applied to the death penalty then there would be no rationale for not applying it to all punishment. After all, not only did the woman avoid the death penalty but she suffered no punishment whatever. I have never seen that verse interpreted the way you suggest in any Church document. You would need to show that the Church interprets that passage the same way you do before I would accept it as correct.
Ender
C
CWBetts
Guest
I have not. I have quoted the Catechism and JPII. Is it my fault that you don’t know how to to a proper exegesis? You need to look at the passage from multiple angles, and not just from the single perspective that allows you to contort the meaning of the scriptures to fit your retributive mindset.If there isn’t a contradiction, I would like to see how. Honestly; I do not ask rhetorically nor out of impatience. I simply do not see how the claim that the death penalty is “rarely justifiable” in a world where supposedly “rehabilitated” criminals are freed from prison only to re-offend and cause more harm again does not starkly contradict the passage I cited from the Catechism of Trent.
The same holds true for the anti-death penalty crowd, then.
So, a different explanation must be in order.
Slavery in Christian Europe did not exist during the Medieval era. It existed in other places, but was pretty much done away with as an institution by then, only to resurface with the coming of the so-called “Reniassance” and its infatuation with Greco-Roman pagan practices, slavery amongst them.
Besides, slavery has nothing to do with protecting society from dangerous individuals. That herring couldn’t be any more red.
The first rational explanation I’ve heard about this.
Thank you.
Why should he, when it seems that you are claiming you know more than all the popes who have come before and have taught what is outlined in the Catechism of Trent.
Which is it?
L
Lycorth
Guest
But that was not about capital punishment; were it so, Christ would have turned to His apostles and said so, either plainly or in metaphorical language. Furthermore, Christ did not address any other act of capital punishment, whether it was being practiced by Jews or the Romans, and He could have easily gone out and found some party looking to execute someone and made an example out of that.Back to Dulles, in his treatise he ignored the one time Jesus spoke directly to capital punishment, the let he who is without sin cast the first stone instance with the woman.
Also, adultery is not a capital offense, and cannot be, since it is not dangerous to the lives and safety of anyone in the community. The only danger present is to one’s soul. It is not anything like rape or murder, the perpetrators of which prove by their actions that they endanger the rest of the community.
I’m not twisting a thing, merely sticking with Church teaching and tradition. That you cannot even show basic respect for me by daring to assert that I am twisting the Scriptures or Church teaching is not my problem.I have not. I have quoted the Catechism and JPII. Is it my fault that you don’t know how to to a proper exegesis? You need to look at the passage from multiple angles, and not just from the single perspective that allows you to contort the meaning of the scriptures to fit your retributive mindset.
C
CWBetts
Guest
If Evangelium Vitae and the CCC are in error (both promulgated by the Venerable John Paul II) then you would be saying that His Holiness taught something in direct contradiction to traditional teaching of the Church. No legitimate pope can teach heresy. Please tell me you are not suggesting what I think you are.But that was not about capital punishment; were it so, Christ would have turned to His apostles and said so, either plainly or in metaphorical language. Furthermore, Christ did not address any other act of capital punishment, whether it was being practiced by Jews or the Romans, and He could have easily gone out and found some party looking to execute someone and made an example out of that.
Also, adultery is not a capital offense, and cannot be, since it is not dangerous to the lives and safety of anyone in the community. The only danger present is to one’s soul. It is not anything like rape or murder, the perpetrators of which prove by their actions that they endanger the rest of the community.
I’m not twisting a thing, merely sticking with Church teaching and tradition. That you cannot even show basic respect for me by daring to assert that I am twisting the Scriptures or Church teaching is not my problem.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.