I’m certainly not suggesting sedevacantism, if that is your meaning.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.
I don’t profess to be especially smart, but are you saying that I am the first to be putting that verse in the context of capital punishment? It doesn’t seem like Jesus saying that the one putting people to death should be free from sin is any type of revelation that has been hidden.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.
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
No, I’m not saying that you are the first person to make that connection but I am saying that the Church has not put that verse in that context, which implies to me that you interpretation is not correct.I don’t profess to be especially smart, but are you saying that I am the first to be putting that verse in the context of capital punishment?
Again, this is not in accord with what the Church teaches about punishment and justice. The fact that you may be a sinner does not change the fact that the state has the positive obligation to punish criminals and that the severity of that punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. Your state of grace, or lack thereof, has nothing whatever to do with the retribution owed the individual for his transgression.The wisdom is so simple and perfected. Let the state have the right to kill people. But make its application impossible because all people sin.
Opinions are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit, even those of a pope. If, as I contend, what JPII wrote was a prudential opinion then there is no contradiction since his opinion is not doctrine.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.
Would a third possibility be, perhaps, that the Church (that teaches authoritatively through Councils like Trent and Vatican II, and through Catechisms) sees things differently than you do? I don’t think it’s necessary to claim the choice is either heresy or sedevacantism. There are other reasonable and faithful options.I’m certainly not suggesting sedevacantism, if that is your meaning.
I simply see one thing in the Catechism of Trent and another in the New Catechism. I know that the Church cannot teach heresy, so I am left to conclude that the prior tradition is correct.
It is either that or else believe that the Chair is empty, which I also cannot do.
Believe me, I hope a third option is nearer to the truth.Would a third possibility be, perhaps, that the Church (that teaches authoritatively through Councils like Trent and Vatican II, and through Catechisms) sees things differently than you do? I don’t think it’s necessary to claim the choice is either heresy or sedevacantism. There are other reasonable and faithful options.
Since I support the “opinion” answer, let me explain why. We have seen this from Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004:It has already been mentioned, for example, that the individual passages in the new catechism about the death penalty being “rarely justified” reflect the opinion of John Paul II and not dogma, leaving everyone innocent of actual heresy, per se.
I for one am sick and tired of pro-death penalty advocates invoking this document to justify their misguided sense of justice, while at the same time stopping just short of calling those who support restriction of the death penalty heretics. You cannot have it both ways. If you are entitled to your opinion, then I am entitled to mine. The main difference is that mine is actually supported by the Catechism. If you are going to invoke this document, then you mist stop claiming that you are “right” and everyone who disatgrees with you is “wrong”! Last time I checked, Jesus took a dim view of hypocrites.Since I support the “opinion” answer, let me explain why. We have seen this from Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004:
”if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment … he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.”
**
“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”
That is pretty suggestive that we may form our own opinions on this topic but there was also this from the USCCB in 2005 (A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death):
"The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. Our goal is not just to proclaim a position, but to persuade Catholics and others to join us in working to end the use of the death penalty…"
Can anyone imagine this being said about any Church doctrine: “people of goodwill disagree”? “We offer neither judgment nor condemnation”? “We hope [dialogue] will lead to conversion”? It really seems unimaginable that the bishops would talk this way about any teaching we were obligated to accept. Finally, there is this from Cardinal Dulles, which leaves no doubt about his position: (Catholicism and Capital Punishment, 2001):
"The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good."
There are a number of scholars both within and outside the Church who support this position and it is certainly the one that makes the most sense to me.
Ender
Cardinal Dulles is free to offer his opinion on Magisterial teaching, just as anyone (and any theologian) is. There’s still a different between personal opinion and Magisterial teaching. You seem to favor the former.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.
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.
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
If that crowd differs with the authoritative teaching of the Church, as for example presented in the Catechism (all of it, not just the parts we like)…then yes of course.The same holds true for the anti-death penalty crowd, then.
You misunderstand. My example was made to the suggestion that since “such and such” apparently (to some individuals) contradicts everything the Church has taught previously (in their individual opinions) then “such and such” must not be true, or must not be required for Catholic faith (despite how it’s taught authoritatively by the Magisterium, as in the Catechism for instance.).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.
Where does the Church teach that the Catechism is to be interpreted this way? i.e. that individuals are free to pick and choose what to agree with and what to dismiss as personal opinion?Believe me, I hope a third option is nearer to the truth.
It has already been mentioned, for example, that the individual passages in the new catechism about the death penalty being “rarely justified” reflect the opinion of John Paul II and not dogma, leaving everyone innocent of actual heresy, per se.
Or else that its not *morally *wrong to *opine *that the death penalty is “rarely justified” anymore that it is to accept traditional teaching that it is acceptable for the greater good of innocent society.
The Church cannot teach error, so there must be an explanation.
Some good food for thought. Certainly if the pope is saying that we are free to hold a wide array of opinions on this matter, then to be sure that to believe that the death penalty can be used by the state for the defense of civilized society (as per Trent) is no more morally wrong than it is to believe that the death penalty is “rarely justified” (as per the new Catechism).Since I support the “opinion” answer, let me explain why. We have seen this from Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004:
…
I for one am sick and tired of pro-death penalty advocates invoking this document to justify their misguided sense of justice, while at the same time stopping just short of calling those who support restriction of the death penalty heretics. You cannot have it both ways. If you are entitled to your opinion, then I am entitled to mine. The main difference is that mine is actually supported by the Catechism. If you are going to invoke this document, then you mist stop claiming that you are “right” and everyone who disatgrees with you is “wrong”! Last time I checked, Jesus took a dim view of hypocrites.
And I am so sick of having to remind the anti-death penalty people that the Catechism of Trent clearly and explicitly defends the use of the death penalty. The pro-death penalty side is also supported by Church teaching and to stamp one’s feet and claim otherwise is simply wrong.If that crowd differs with the authoritative teaching of the Church, as for example presented in the Catechism (all of it, not just the parts we like)…then yes of course.
I understood what you meant, even though I responded to the use of slavery in particular, since that was what was brought up.You misunderstand. My example was made to the suggestion that since “such and such” apparently (to some individuals) contradicts everything the Church has taught previously (in their individual opinions) then “such and such” must not be true, or must not be required for Catholic faith (despite how it’s taught authoritatively by the Magisterium, as in the Catechism for instance.).
Maybe slavery wasn’t the best example. There are so many more e.g. religious liberty, relations with the Jews, salvation outside the Church…and so on. Many see these issues as the Church being in error because (according to their interpretation and understanding) the Church now teaches something contradictory to what she taught in the past.
Hope this clarifies the relevance of the example.
One might as well claim that Vatican II began this concept, when 1960+ years of prior teachings were turned on their heads. For my part, I made no such claim like that; I am merely trying to understand the matter here. I’m sorry if that offends you.Where does the Church teach that the Catechism is to be interpreted this way? i.e. that individuals are free to pick and choose what to agree with and what to dismiss as personal opinion?
When the Catechism of Trent was promulgated, it was also done so by the head of the whole Church. Citing Church authority here makes the discussion circular and sheds no light on precisely what we are required to support, if we are indeed *required *to support the death penalty or *required *to oppose it.When Pope John Paul II promulgated it (acting as head of the whole Church, not just as an individual), did he identify the parts that were his (or others’) personal opinions, and so could be optional?
Well, I guess I am so sick of reminding people that the Church (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) did not stop teaching, believing, and praying, with the Council of Trent. Or any Council.And I am so sick of having to remind the anti-death penalty people that the Catechism of Trent clearly and explicitly defends the use of the death penalty. The pro-death penalty side is also supported by Church teaching and to stamp one’s feet and claim otherwise is simply wrong.
Because those of us who accept the teachings today, as in the Catechism, are not picking and choosing, we’re accepting the entire Tradition. Not just the parts we agree with, and excluding those we don’t (like some seem willing to exclude parts of the Catechism).Again, why is it that those who defend the longer-established and earlier teachings, such as those of Trent, the ones who are “picking and choosing”? Why is it not those who deviate today?
Well, I guess I am so sick of reminding people that the Church (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) did not stop teaching, believing, and praying, with the Council of Trent. Or any Council.
Then which position do you accept? Is the death penalty suitable and permissible for the good of society (as per Trent) or is it “rarely justified” despite the fact that human nature has not changed and society is more violent and murderous than ever (per the New Catechism)? I’d like a straight answer please.Because those of us who accept the teachings today, as in the Catechism, are not picking and choosing, we’re accepting the entire Tradition. Not just the parts we agree with, and excluding those we don’t (like some seem willing to exclude parts of the Catechism).
It is suitable and permissible if and only if all other options are not sufficient to protect society on the whole. I have never called for the abolition of the death penalty, only a significant reduction in its application. This position is consistent with the current Catechism and the whole of Church’s traditional teaching.Then which position do you accept? Is the death penalty suitable and permissible for the good of society (as per Trent) or is it “rarely justified” despite the fact that human nature has not changed and society is more violent and murderous than ever (per the New Catechism)? I’d like a straight answer please.
I am glad Ender cited Pope Benedict’s explanation earlier, that we are free to hold basically either opinion and not be in error; I don’t think it would have been brought up otherwise.I certainly accept the Holy Father’s ruling on this, especially if it is official and binding. What I cannot accept is the (apparent) claim that the death penalty, which was once accepted, is somehow now unacceptable.
Thank you for giving a straight answer and not just trying to blow my question off by bringing up “picking and choosing”.It is suitable and permissible if and only if all other options are not sufficient to protect society on the whole.
Which has been the case for many decades in America and Europe. The only countries I would presume to overuse the death penalty (and for unjustifiable reasons) would be countries like China, et al - non-Christian or otherwise secular regimes with agendas to enforce and opposition to suppress.I have never called for the abolition of the death penalty, only a significant reduction in its application.
Moderation and just use of anything certainly are; the execution of dangerous criminals is one thing, the execution of political opponents another.This position is consistent with the current Catechism and the whole of Church’s traditional teaching.