Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Josh

Pope Francis: Former popes ignored mercy in using ‘inhuman’ death penalty

Recommended Posts

Peace
9 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

Popes (like everyone else) should be given the benefit of doubt. Every effort must be made to interpret the teaching in continuity. 

In real-life situations, what happens is that all Popes before current Pope B (not just Pope A, but all Popes), saints and theologians affirm something and Pope B contradicts. In such a case, Pope A's teaching is to be presumed to be God's revelation. (God cannot reveal contradictory things, ergo only one is his.)  

1) If I'm understanding you correctly, then the answer is No, slavery* is wrong.

2) If you want to understand me, define slavery. 

On criticising Popes, I had already linked Feser. I link again: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-church-permits-criticism-of-popes_20.html

See link above.

Bro. I am not about to read the whole article. If there is a particular part of it that you would like me to read, please summarize the  point or quote the relevant portion here.

>>In real-life situations, what happens is that all Popes before current Pope B (not just Pope A, but all Popes), saints and theologians affirm something and Pope B contradicts. In such a case, Pope A's teaching is to be presumed to be God's revelation. (God cannot reveal contradictory things, ergo only one is his.)

I dunno about all that. Look at the issue of communion for the divorced and remarried, for example. Ratzinger at one point was in favor of allowing them to receive. I think that the "real-life" reality in a lot of situations is that people try to make things black and white to support their own views, when in fact the issue is more complicated than they would like.

I'll let the dictionary define slavery:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery

the state of a person who is a chattel of another

Why exactly are you debating with @Josh then? Basically your argument is that "no Josh, the Church has never approved slavery as we commonly speak of it". Is that correct?

18 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

(God cannot reveal contradictory things, ergo only one is his.)  

Can God allow one law to apply at one point in time, and another law to apply at another point in time?

The answer is yes, obviously.

Just because X is permissible at one point in time does not mean that it is permissible at another point in time. And just because Y was prohibited at one point in time does not mean that it is prohibited today.

Who has authority to decide those things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
3 minutes ago, Peace said:

Why exactly are you debating with @Josh then? Basically your argument is that "no Josh, the Church has never approved slavery as we commonly speak of it". Is that correct?

What you and Josh call slavery was never upheld by the Church. The "slavery" in the Bible et al is a different thing, as I told Josh:

Quote

 

In most societies in which slavery existed, it was a temporary condition that people entered into more or less voluntarily, for example, if they owed a huge debt that they couldn't pay back, they might agree to become slaves for a period of 10 years on the condition that at the end of the 10 years, the debt will be forgiven. It was not an inherited condition that passed from father to son for generations, slaves had the ability to purchase their freedom and they had legal rights if their masters abused or mistreated them, the law held that the contract was void and the slave was freed. Only prisoners of war were ever made slaves against their will.

Moreover, in most societies, slaves are considered to be almost like members of the family, it was not unusual in ancient Rome for slaves offered their freedom to refuse to accept it and continue serving the same family, they did this voluntarily because there were genuine bonds of warmth and affection between master and slave, it was a lifestyle to which they had grown accustomed.

Involuntary, race-based chattel slavery that existed as an inherited condition from one generation to the next and from which one could never escape is definitely wrong, but it is also something that has never existed anywhere else except the antebellum south.'

Sometimes, people guilty of minor crimes are given punishment in the form of 'community service'. Prisoners are made to do jobs like making chapatis. These are not entirely voluntary, but imposed from outside.  What do you think of these cases? Or hired servants who clean the house, cook food, etc? This was what slavery was in most places.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
Just now, Jack4 said:

What you and Josh call slavery was never upheld by the Church. The "slavery" in the Bible et al is a different thing, as I told Josh:

Fair enough. So basically what you are saying is that what Josh wrote is wrong. I guess I missed that. I thought that you were actually trying to take the position that slavery is cool. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
6 minutes ago, Peace said:

Bro. I am not about to read the whole article. If there is a particular part of it that you would like me to read, please summarize the  point or quote the relevant portion here.

Okay, but if you want a deeper understanding you'll have to read the whole thing. I'll give you a rough idea:

Quote

 

Moreover, the Instruction Donum Veritatis, issued by the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger, makes it clear that not all disagreement with the Magisterium of the Church constitutes dissent of the objectionable kind that Küng, Curran, et al. are guilty of...

When the Magisterium is simply reiterating such traditional teaching, disagreement cannot be justified by appeal to these passages from Donum Veritatis.  

Rather, as theologian William May notes, legitimate disagreement of the kind the Instruction has in view is most plausible when theologians “can appeal to other magisterial teachings that are more certainly and definitively taught with which they think the teaching questioned is incompatible” (An Introduction to Moral Theology, Revised edition, p. 242).  In other words, the possibility of legitimate criticism of a magisterial statement is most plausible precisely when that statement seems to conflict with long-standing past teaching, and not when it merely reiterates long-standing past teaching.  

There are, after all, strict limits on what the Church and the popes can teach, as the Church and the popes have themselves constantly affirmed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KnightofChrist

THE POPES AND SLAVERY: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

Fr. Joel S. Panzer

When did the Catholic Church condemn slavery? According to some notable figures, the Church did not finally condemn slavery until recently.

Judge John T. Noonan stated that it was not until 1890 that the Church condemned the institution of slavery, lagging behind laws enacted to outlaw the practice. He and others argue that slavery is one of the areas in which the Church has changed its moral teaching to suit the times, and that the time for this change did not come until near the end of the last century.

Theologian Laennec Hurbon may be cited as representing a belief among many authors that no Pope before 1890 condemned slavery when he stated that, ". . . one can search in vain through the interventions of the Holy See—those of Pius V, Urban VIII and Benedict XIV—for any condemnation of the actual principle of slavery."

Author John F. Maxwell wrote in his 1975 work on slavery that the Church did not correct its teaching on the moral legitimacy of slavery until 1965, with the publication, from the Second Vatican Council, of <Gaudium et Spes> (The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World).

There existed, of course, the practice of various types of slavery before the 15th century. However, it was not until the 15th century, and with growing frequency from the 16th to the 19th centuries, that racial slavery as we know it became a major problem. It is this form of servitude that is called to mind when we think today of the institution of slavery, and is the type which was to prevail in parts of the New World for over four centuries.

This brings us back to our initial question: When did the Church condemn this slavery? If it was not until 1890, or even 1965, then a great shadow has indeed been cast upon the Magisterium. If, however, it can be shown that the Magisterium condemned from the beginning the colonial slavery that developed in the newly discovered lands, then it may be necessary for some historians and others to revise their opinions of that teaching office, and of the Catholic Church as well.

From 1435 to 1890, we have numerous bulls and encyclicals from several popes written to many bishops and the whole Christian faithful condemning both slavery and the slave trade. The very existence of these many papal teachings during this particular period of history is a strong indication that from the viewpoint of the Magisterium, there must have developed a moral problem of a different sort than any previously encountered. In this article I will address three—from many more—of the responses of the papal Magisterium to the widespread enslavement that accompanied the Age of Discovery and beyond.

Eugene IV: <Sicut Dudum>, 1435

On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull <Sicut Dudum>. Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. The Pope stated that after being converted to the faith or promised baptism, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved:

"They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (<subdiderunt perpetuae servituti>), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them.... Therefore We ... exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands ... who have been made subject to slavery (<servituti subicere>). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."

The date of this Bull, 1435, is very significant. Nearly 60 years before the Europeans were to find the New World, we already had the papal condemnation of slavery as soon as this crime was discovered in one of the first of the Portuguese geographical discoveries.

Eugene IV was clear in his intentions both to condemn the enslavement of the residents of the Canary Islands, and to demand correction of the injustice within 15 days. Those who did not restore the enslaved to their liberty in that time were to incur the sentence of excommunication ipso facto.

With <Sicut Dudum>, Eugene was clearly intending to condemn the enslavement of the people of the Canaries and, in no uncertain terms, to inform the faithful that what was being condemned was what we would classify as gravely wrong. Thus, the unjust slavery that had begun in the newly found territories was condemned, condemned as soon as it was discovered, and condemned in the strongest of terms.

Paul III: <Sublimis Deus>, 1537

The pontifical decree known as "The Sublime God" has indeed had an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World. Recently, authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez have noted this fact: 'The bull of Pope Paul III, <Sublimis Deus> (June 2, 1537), is regarded as the most important papal pronouncement on the human condition of the Indians." It is, moreover, addressed to all of the Christian faithful in the world, and not to a particular bishop in one area, thereby not limiting its significance, but universalizing it.

<Sublimis Deus> was intended to be issued as the central pedagogical work against slavery. Two other bulls would be published to implement the teaching of <Sublimis,> one to impose penalties on those who fail to abide by the teaching against slavery, and a second to specify the sacramental consequences of the teaching that the Indians are true men.

The first central teaching of this beautiful work is the universality of the call to receive the Faith and salvation:

"And since mankind, according to the witness of Sacred Scripture, was created for eternal life and happiness, and since no one is able to attain this eternal life and happiness except through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary to confess that man is of such a nature and condition that he is capable to receive faith in Christ and that everyone who possesses human nature is apt for receiving such faith . . . Therefore the Truth Himself Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, when He destined the preachers of the faith to the office of preaching, is known to have said: 'Going, make disciples of all nations.' 'All,' he said, without any exception, since all are capable of the discipline of the faith."

The teaching of <Sublimis> continued:

"Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians of the West and the South who have come to our notice in these times be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic Faith. And they reduce them to slavery (<Et eos in servitutem redigunt>), treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals."

The common pretext of the allies of "the enemy of the human race," i.e. Satan, for enslaving the Indians was that they lacked the Faith. Some of the Europeans used the reasoning that converting the Indians should be accomplished by any means necessary, thus making the Faith an excuse for war and enslavement. Paul III stated that the practice of this form of servitude was "unheard of before now." This clearly indicates that the practice of enslaving an entire ethnic group of people—the Indians of South America—for no morally justifiable reason was indeed different from anything previously encountered.

The second core teaching of <Sublimis Deus> which follows from this is the necessity of restoring and maintaining the liberty of the Indians:

"Therefore, We, . . . noting that the Indians themselves indeed are true men and are not only capable of the Christian faith, but, as has been made known to us, promptly hasten to the faith' and wishing to provide suitable remedies for them, by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples—even though they are outside the faith—who shall hereafter come to the knowledge of Christians have not been deprived or should not be deprived of their liberty or of their possessions. Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered null and void. These same Indians and other peoples are to be invited to the said faith in Christ by preaching and the example of a good life."

Thus, we see that Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known to the Holy See. Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639. Indeed Urban, in his document <Commissum Nobis>, appealed to the teaching of his predecessors, particularly Paul III. The pontifical teaching was continued by the response of the Holy Office on March 20, 1686, under Innocent XI, and by the encyclical of Benedict XIV, <Immensa Pastorum>, on December 20, 1741. This work was followed by the efforts of Pius VII at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to have the victors over Napoleon outlaw slavery.

Gregory XVI: <In Supremo>, 1839

The 1839 Constitution <In Supremo> by Gregory XVI continued the antislavery teaching of his predecessors, and was in the same manner not accepted by many of those bishops, priests and laity for whom it was written. As we will see, even today many authors do not have an accurate understanding of this work. First, however, let us consider the content of <In Supremo> itself.

The introduction of <In Supremo> tells us that it was written to turn Christians away from the practice of enslaving blacks and other peoples. In it, Gregory first mentioned the efforts of the Apostles and other early Christians to alleviate out of the motive of Christian charity the suffering of those held in servitude, and that they encouraged the practice of emancipating deserving slaves. At the same time, he noted that:

"There were to be found subsequently among the faithful some who, shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid gain, in lonely and distant countries did not hesitate to reduce to slavery (<in servitutem redigere>) Indians, Blacks and other unfortunate peoples, or else, by instituting or expanding the trade in those who had been made slaves by others, aided the crime of others. Certainly many Roman Pontiffs of glorious memory, Our Predecessors, did not fail, according to the duties of their office, to blame severely this way of acting as dangerous for the spiritual welfare of those who did such things and a shame to the Christian name."

Gregory then cited the various predecessors and their antislavery teachings, even recalling the familiar phrase in <servitutem redigere> contained in the work of Paul III and his successors. He mentioned the efforts of Clement I, Pius II, Paul III, Benedict XIV, Urban VIII and Pius VII, before concluding this historical summary:

"Indeed these sanctions and this concern of Our Predecessors availed in no small measure, with the help of God, to protect the Indians and the other peoples mentioned from the cruelties of the invaders and from the greed of Christian traders."

However Gregory was well aware that there was still much work to be done:

"The slave trade, although it has been somewhat diminished, is still carried on by numerous Christians. Therefore, desiring to remove such a great shame from all Christian peoples ... and walking in the footsteps of Our Predecessors, We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery (<in servitutem redigere>) Indians, Blacks or other such peoples. Nor are they to lend aid and favor to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not humans but rather mere animals, having been brought into slavery in no matter what way, are, without any distinction and contrary to the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold and sometimes given over to the hardest labor."

Thus, the historical papal teaching against unjust servitude and the slave trade was upheld, and in 1839 was once again presented to the Christian faithful for their adherence.

In Gregory's time, as with the previous papal efforts, there was obviously widespread non-acceptance on the part of Catholic clergy and laity. Thus, <In Supremo> also contains a closing prohibition against clerics as well as laity who were attempting to defend slavery or the slave trade:

"We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in these Apostolic Letters."

The primary area of contention with <In Supremo> lies in determining what was actually being condemned by Gregory. The text of the Papal Constitution itself clearly condemned both the slave trade and slavery, as is apparent from the preceding paragraph citations. Both of the above citations prohibit the slave trade. Likewise, in the first paragraph we read that slavery itself is also condemned: "... no one in the future dare to ... reduce to slavery (<in servitutem redigere>) Indians, Blacks or other such peoples." In the second paragraph, the prohibition of "opinions contrary to what We have set forth in these Apostolic Letters" indicates that no one may hold that slavery itself is somehow not condemned.

The question that should be asked, then, is why have many bishops, historians and others interpreted <In Supremo> as condemning the slave trade, but not slavery itself?

Besides the quotation from Laennec Hurbon given at the beginning of this article, we may illustrate the problem by citing also the American Church historian James Hennesey, S.J. The following is taken from his consideration of the Church's efforts, or lack thereof, to obtain the abolition of slavery in the United States:

"Opponents of slavery found slight support in official church teaching. Pope Gregory XVI in 1838 (sic) condemned the slave trade, but not slavery itself" (emphasis added).

John T. Noonan also believes that Gregory condemned only the slave trade, and that there were exceptions even to this condemnation. He wrote:

"In 1839 Gregory XVI condemned the slave trade, but not so explicitly that the condemnation covered occasional sales by owners of surplus stock."

The American Bishops in the last century, who were charged with applying the teaching of <In Supremo> to the slavery institution that existed in our country, as a teaching body fell into this same error regarding what was condemned.

Hennesey wrote: "No (American) Catholic bishop spoke for abolition in the pre-war years. In 1840 (the Bishop of Charleston) John England explained to (President Martin) Van Buren's Secretary of State, John Forsyth, that Pope Gregory XVI had condemned the trade in slaves, but that no pope had ever condemned domestic slavery as it had existed in the United States" (emphasis added).

Thus, the misreading of <In Supremo> that exists among scholars today actually has its roots in the partial rejection of that papal Constitution by the American hierarchy over a century and a half earlier.

On the other hand, John Maxwell is quite right in his statement of what Gregory actually taught in <In Supremo>: "It is clear that the Pope is condemning unjust enslavement and unjust slavetrading" (emphasis added).

Also correct is the papal historian, J.N.D. Kelly, who states, "In the brief <In Supremo> ... he denounced <slavery> and the slave-trade as unworthy of Christians" (emphasis added).

From the documents we have very briefly considered, it is clear that the forced enslavement of Indians and blacks was condemned from the time that the "Age of Discovery" began, and that as this problem continued and expanded in the territorial finds of the New World, the same teaching of the Roman pontiffs was reiterated time and again. Likewise, the buying and selling of slaves unjustly held was also condemned by 1435.

The development of this teaching over the span of nearly five centuries was occasioned by the unique and illicit form of servitude that accompanied the Age of Discovery. The just titles to servitude were not rejected by the Church, but rather were tolerated for many reasons. This in no way invalidates the clear and consistent teaching against the unjust slavery that came to prevail in Africa and the Western Hemisphere, first in Central and South America and then in the United States, for approximately four centuries.

The substantial teaching against slavery that was provided by the papal Magisterium rightly should give Catholics, and indeed all Christians, a great sense of pride.

This teaching was founded in the teachings of Our Lord that all people are loved immensely by God the Father, and have received the vocation to redemption and eternal happiness in Christ the Son. At the same time, it must be remembered that Christians themselves, and notably members of the clergy, frequently and sometimes blatantly violated this same teaching. Nevertheless, the Catholic tradition of opposition to unjust servitude was a great help in eventually bringing about an end to the enslavement of the Indians and blacks in many parts of Latin America, as well as of the peoples in the Philippines and other areas.

The prevalent attitude of the American hierarchy, with some notable exceptions in both directions, was that many aspects of slavery were evil, but that to change the law would be, practically speaking, a greater evil.

Some put forth strong arguments in favor of the institution of slavery, such as Bishop John England of Charleston, who believed it to be among the accepted practices of the early Church: "The right of the master, the duty of the slave, the lawfulness of continuing the relations, and the benevolence of religion in mitigating the sufferings ... are the results exhibited by our view of the laws and facts during the first four centuries of Christianity."

Answering the charge that Catholics were widely supporting the abolitionist movement—which sadly was far from accurate—England noted that Gregory XVI was condemning only the slave trade and not slavery itself, especially as it existed in the United States.

To prove his opinion, England had <In Supremo> translated and published in his diocesan newspaper, The United States Catholic Miscellany, and even went so far as to write a series of 18 extensive letters to John Forsyth, the Secretary of State under President Martin Van Buren, to explain how he and most of the other American bishops interpreted <In Supremo>.

In one of these letters we learn of the events of the 1840 Council of Baltimore, where the bishops read and discussed this apostolic letter:

"Thus, if this document condemned our domestic slavery as an unlawful and consequently immoral practice, the bishops could not have accepted it without being bound to refuse the sacraments to all who were slave holders unless they manumitted their slaves; yet, if you look to the prelates who accepted the document, for the acceptation was immediate and unanimous: you will find, 1st the Archbishop of Baltimore ...2d, the Bishop of Bardstown ... 3d, the Bishop of Charleston: ... 4th, the Bishop of St. Louis ... 5th, the Bishop of Mobile ... 6th, the Bishop of New Orleans ...and 7th, the Bishop of Nashville ... they all regarded the letter as treating of the 'slave-trade,' and not as touching 'domestic slavery.' I believe, sir, we may consider this to be pretty conclusive evidence as to the light in which that document is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church."

Amazingly, it was decided that papal pronouncements against slavery, particularly Gregory XVI's <In Supremo>, did not apply to the institution as it existed in the United States, thus yielding on this issue a sort of Americanized Gallicanism.

However, it is clear that Gregory wrote <In Supremo> to condemn precisely what was occurring in the United States, namely the enslavement of blacks:

"We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery (<in servitutem redigere>) Indians, Blacks or other such peoples."

England evidently felt justification for this dissent lay in the episcopal (mis)interpretation of <In Supremo>.

These arguments are not dissimilar to the widespread dissent from the Church's teachings against slavery by bishops, priests and laity that was common from the 17th to 19th centuries. For the Catholics of the United States—as for Catholics everywhere—there was the consistent, historical teaching of the Church, as presented through Eugene IV. Pius II, Paul III, Gregory XIV, Urban VIII, Innocent XI, Benedict XIV, Pius VII and others.

For the early 19th century, in the midst of the volatile decades before the Civil War, Gregory XVI issued <In Supremo>, with its clear condemnation of both the slave trade and slavery itself.

Since that Constitution mentioned the documents of the previous pontiffs, it is hard to understand how the American hierarchy was not aware of the consistency of the teaching and its nature.

All of these teachings, nonetheless, went unknown to the Catholic faithful of the U.S., perhaps through willful ignorance, or were explained away by many of the American bishops and clergy. Thus, we can look to the practice of dissent from the teachings of the Papal Magisterium as a key reason why slavery was not directly opposed by the Church in the United States.

In the light of <Humanae Vitae> of Pope Paul VI, and <Veritatis Splendor> and <Evangelium Vitae> of John Paul II, can we not hope that the shepherds of the Church will not fall into the same mistakes of their predecessors?

Fr. Panzer was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Lincoln, Neb., in 1994. He studied philosophy at St. Philip's Seminary, Toronto, and theology at St. Joseph's Seminary, in Yonkers, N.Y., where he earned a master of arts degree in dogma. He currently is assigned to the Newman Center at the University of Nebraska. This is his first article for "The Catholic Answer.

Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/popslave.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
10 minutes ago, Peace said:

Fair enough. So basically what you are saying is that what Josh wrote is wrong. I guess I missed that. I thought that you were actually trying to take the position that slavery is cool. My bad.

My keypal D. has his D.'s laws: The first law is that if a person X says Y said <insert outright stupidity>, then X is most probably misrepresenting Y and you should read Y yourself.

The sad thing about our exchange about slavery is that I only had to quote what I already said - which means that if you had already read my previous posts on this topic in this very thread, you wouldn't even take an issue about it. No offense to you.

The even sadder part is that Josh read the same thing and doubled down. He thinks that anything and everything that happens to be called "slavery" is automatically wrong for that reason. Hence, if I invent a computer and name it "slavery", then Josh would be all against it. The problem is that the names of social customs and systems are difficult to translate to other languages. eg in my culture there are/were two types of marriages among Hindus - veli and sambandham. Both are translated as "marriage" in English, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

26 minutes ago, Peace said:

Can God allow one law to apply at one point in time, and another law to apply at another point in time?

The answer is yes, obviously.

Just because X is permissible at one point in time does not mean that it is permissible at another point in time. And just because Y was prohibited at one point in time does not mean that it is prohibited today.

Can you explain this, please?

27 minutes ago, Peace said:

I dunno about all that. Look at the issue of communion for the divorced and remarried, for example. Ratzinger at one point was in favor of allowing them to receive. I think that the "real-life" reality in a lot of situations is that people try to make things black and white to support their own views, when in fact the issue is more complicated than they would like.

The problem about Communion-remarried issue is the underlying moral theology:

-Whatever conscience decides is right

-God's commandments are impossible to obey

-Good and evil are decided by situation. Nothing is always bad (not even lying, adultery, blasphemy, etc)

JP2 rejects these in the good but uber-long Veritatis Splendor. Bishop Alexander Sample of Portland, Oregon says the same things in a more summarised way in A True and Living Icon.

This was upheld always and everywhere - Trent, Augustine, Newman, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
2 hours ago, Peace said:

2) Could you please provide the verse that where "Saint Paul guided by the Holy Ghost, makes perfectly clear God Himself gives the state the sword to put the wicked to death"?

I think he's referring to Rom 13:4

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/11/28/hot-air-versus-capital-punishment-a-reply-to-paul-griffiths-and-david-bentley-hart/ Feser argues that the verse refers to DP.

I might possibly differ with @KnightofChrist on other matters, but he and I are making the same point about slavery. 

Re: Popes, I have already posted about it. I'll add this: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/by-what-authority (By Cardinal Mueller).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KnightofChrist

Yes, Paul's Catholic Letter to the Romans 13:4. 

The State is given the sword, by God Himself (who cannot be overruled by man), to use against the wicked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Okay, but if you want a deeper understanding you'll have to read the whole thing. I'll give you a rough idea:

 

Thanks

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Okay, but if you want a deeper understanding you'll have to read the whole thing. I'll give you a rough idea:

 

Personally, what is your standard for choosing when to follow the living Magisterium, and when to disagree with it?

I think some level of disagreement is OK as long as a person still gives assent. Like at work there may be plenty of things that I disagree with my boss about. I may even tell him that I think he is wrong. But I still do what he says because I recognize that he is the boss and I am not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Can you explain this, please?

Well there are plenty of examples of that in the Bible, where the rules change for different groups of people at different times. Divorce and remarriage was permitted in the Old Testament. Now obviously it isn’t. Polygamy was allowed in the OT, now it is not allowed. . .

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

The problem about Communion-remarried issue is the underlying moral theology:

-Whatever conscience decides is right

-God's commandments are impossible to obey

-Good and evil are decided by situation. Nothing is always bad (not even lying, adultery, blasphemy, etc)

 Nah. This is a straw-man, with all due respect.

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

JP2 rejects these in the good but uber-long Veritatis Splendor. Bishop Alexander Sample of Portland, Oregon says the same things in a more summarised way in A True and Living Icon.

This was upheld always and everywhere - Trent, Augustine, Newman, etc.

I’ve read Veritatis. It’s good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

I think he's referring to Rom 13:4

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/11/28/hot-air-versus-capital-punishment-a-reply-to-paul-griffiths-and-david-bentley-hart/ Feser argues that the verse refers to DP.

I might possibly differ with @KnightofChrist on other matters, but he and I are making the same point about slavery. 

Re: Popes, I have already posted about it. I'll add this: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/by-what-authority (By Cardinal Mueller).

Yeah, I was guessing that was going to be the verse, but it ain’t exactly the world’s strongest argument now is it?

There seems to be strong support for the idea that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, but I don’t think Pope Francis or anyone else has said that it is intrinsically evil.

Even though it was allowed in the past, I don’t see why the Church cannot prohibit it in her prudential judgment, just as She prohibits other things today that were permissible in the past. I mean really, if She can say that Latin Rite priests cannot be married and so forth, why can She not say that we may not put people to death? Why does She not have the authority?

The whole “power of the state” stuff seems to be a smoke and mirrors argument to mask the fact that some folks simply like the DP and and are upset that the Magisterium views it differently than they do. Those same folks have no issue with the ban on married priests and other things, although it was also permitted for a thousand years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
57 minutes ago, Peace said:

Personally, what is your standard for choosing when to follow the living Magisterium, and when to disagree with it?

I follow the traditional teaching of the Church. If the current Pope, etc say something that seem to contradict, I will try my best to reconcile them, to interpret him well, and even consider whether my understanding of traditional teaching was wrong. 

 

Quote

I think some level of disagreement is OK as long as a person still gives assent. Like at work there may be plenty of things that I disagree with my boss about. I may even tell him that I think he is wrong. But I still do what he says because I recognize that he is the boss and I am not.

I do not understand the point you're making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
9 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Yes, Paul's Catholic Letter to the Romans 13:4. 

The State is given the sword, by God Himself (who cannot be overruled by man), to use against the wicked. 

Well apparently when it comes to the death penalty the state has more authority than the Church.

Can the state enact a law that would put to death a 16 year old who shoplifts a $20 pair of jeans from Target?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
28 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well there are plenty of examples of that in the Bible, where the rules change for different groups of people at different times. Divorce and remarriage was permitted in the Old Testament. Now obviously it isn’t. Polygamy was allowed in the OT, now it is not allowed. . .

That is because there was new revelation (Jesus). Now,there is no more (public) revelation. Hence such changes wouldn't happen. 

See also the doctrine-discipline distinction.

30 minutes ago, Peace said:

Nah. This is a straw-man, with all due respect.

Maybe I didn't understand you. Let's go back:

 "all Popes before current Pope B (not just Pope A, but all Popes), saints and theologians affirm something and Pope B contradicts. In such a case, Pope A's teaching is to be presumed to be God's revelation. (God cannot reveal contradictory things, ergo only one is his.)"

31 minutes ago, Peace said:

I’ve read Veritatis. It’s good.

I agree it's good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
1 minute ago, Jack4 said:

I follow the traditional teaching of the Church. If the current Pope, etc say something that seem to contradict, I will try my best to reconcile them, to interpret him well, and even consider whether my understanding of traditional teaching was wrong. 

Well, you follow what you believe is the traditional teaching of the Church.

Who has authority to decide what the traditional teaching of the Church is? Is that something that each Catholic gets to decide for himself?

Mu guess is that your understanding of “what the Church has always taught” is based on your own personal analysis and research. This is subject to confirmation bias, is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...