Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Josh

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

Recommended Posts

Peace
3 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

In each of the four cases, I can prove that my beliefs are taught clearly by the traditional Magisterium. 

Everybody thinks that he is correct and that he can prove his belief sufficiently, but I think you are missing the point. Who gave you the authority to decide those issues for yourself? Who gave you the authority to decide who to follow and who to reject? And if you have the authority to decide those issues for yourself, what need is there for a succession of bishops and the Pope? What need is there for Church authority when at the end of the day you still get to perform your own analysis and do whatever you conclude is correct?

Share this post


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

The situation is basically the same for married priests in the Latin rite. It is permissible in principle and was permitted in the past, but it is not permitted today (for the most part).

What is your objection to that? Does the Church not have the authority to prohibit something today that she permitted in the past?

You are comparing apples to oranges. Clerical celibacy belongs completely to the Church. DP is a matter of the State. The Church as a moral teacher authoritatively teaches that if bloodless means are sufficint then DP shouldn't be used. Whether in the current situation such bloodless means exist is not taught with Magisterial authority and cannot be taught so. It is a prudential judgement. 

Similar is the Pope's judgement of a just war. The just war theory is taught by the Church. Using these criteria and logistic facts, he judges a war. However, if these facts are wrong, the Pope's judgement may be wrong. 

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

Everybody thinks that he is correct and that he can prove his belief sufficiently

Come on, dude - in each case (except DP) you know that my beliefs are clearly taught in the Documents I refer to.

 

Quote

Who gave you the authority to decide those issues for yourself? Who gave you the authority to decide who to follow and who to reject? And if you have the authority to decide those issues for yourself, what need is there for a succession of bishops and the Pope? What need is there for Church authority when at the end of the day you still get to perform your own analysis and do whatever you conclude is correct?

I may be exaggerating, but I don't have to 'analyze' and 'interpret' traditional teaching no more than you have to 'analyze' and 'interpret' the incumbent Pope's teaching.

Share this post


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

You are comparing apples to oranges. Clerical celibacy belongs completely to the Church. DP is a matter of the State. The Church as a moral teacher authoritatively teaches that if bloodless means are sufficint then DP shouldn't be used. Whether in the current situation such bloodless means exist is not taught with Magisterial authority and cannot be taught so. It is a prudential judgement. 

No, the Church teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible. You don't like that, obviously, but that is what the Church teaches. I already gave you the link the the revised portion of the Catechism.

Regardless, I think your distinction is one without consequence. The Church has the authority to make decisions that are based on prudential judgements, and there is nothing that states that you are free to ignore them. Clerical celibacy is a prudential judgement. And there is nothing that requires the Church to abdicate her authority concerning the prudential aspects of the death penalty to the state. The Church has allowed the state to carry out certain functions, but at any time the Church can place limits on what the state may or may not do. The Church has the authority to set the boundaries in which the state must operate, and that includes putting the death penalty out of bounds.

Like I said before, I think this line of argument is simply a smokescreen.

Edited by Peace

Share this post


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

Clerical celibacy is a prudential judgement.

The practice of clerical celibacy is canonical discipline. 

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

the Church can place limits on what the state may or may not do.

Can you explain and prove this point with examples, please - that something permissible in principle may be forbidden by the Church for the State?

Edited by Jack4

Share this post


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

Come on, dude - in each case (except DP) you know that my beliefs are clearly taught in the Documents I refer to.

I didn't know that you were omniscient. Good to know. What will I be having for dinner tomorrow night?

19 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I may be exaggerating, but I don't have to 'analyze' and 'interpret' traditional teaching no more than you have to 'analyze' and 'interpret' the incumbent Pope's teaching.

Well obviously you do need to do more analysis, because the Pope has been around 82 years while the Church almost 2000.

3 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I don't see how it is a prudential judgement.

A prudential judgement is a judgement

When I say prudential judgement I simply mean to refer to decisions that are not mandated by revelation. Decisions that are of a discretionary nature and that may change according to the time and the circumstances.

13 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

Can you explain and prove this point with examples, please - that something permissible in principle may be forbidden by the Church for the State?

You have already given one example yourself:

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Do you think that is a divinely revealed truth?  Plenty of traditionalists reject the old 2267 for substantially the same reasons that you reject the new 2267. Because they do not view the Catholic tradition as limiting the state's authority to impose the death penalty to situations where it is necessary to "defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor". They view the tradition as authorizing the state to impose the death penalty for other reasons, and it is difficult to argue that the Church did not permit the state to impose the death penalty for other reasons, in the past.

Share this post


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

I didn't know that you were omniscient. Good to know. What will I be having for dinner tomorrow night?

Quote

I may be exaggerating, but I don't have to 'analyze' and 'interpret' traditional teaching no more than you have to 'analyze' and 'interpret' the incumbent Pope's teaching.

Well obviously you do need to do more analysis, because the Pope has been around 82 years while the Church almost 2000.

I think we can continue our discussion without being snarky.  

42 minutes ago, Peace said:

Decisions that are of a discretionary nature and that may change according to the time and the circumstances.

You are talking about 'discipline', not 'prudential judgement'.

43 minutes ago, Peace said:

When I say prudential judgement I simply mean to refer to decisions that are not mandated by revelation. Decisions that are of a discretionary nature and that may change according to the time and the circumstances.

That DP is legit in principle is in the Bible. 

44 minutes ago, Peace said:

You have already given one example yourself:

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Do you think that is a divinely revealed truth?

a) The whole point was to use an example not related to DP.

b) Revelation affirms life and dignity as a good. From this, reason concludes that the quoted sentence.

Reason works harmoniously with revelation.

 

Share this post


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

I think we can continue our discussion without being snarky.  

And we can also continue our conversation without you attempting to tell me what I know.

Quote

You are talking about 'discipline', not 'prudential judgement'.

Feel free to call it whatever you like. It makes no difference to me.

Quote

That DP is legit in principle is in the Bible. 

That's nice. I wasn't aware that we were debating this.

Quote

a) The whole point was to use an example not related to DP.

You asked for an example, I gave you an example. Now you don't like my example because it proves my point, so you want a different example. Well, that's too bad.

Quote

b) Revelation affirms life and dignity as a good. From this, reason concludes that the quoted sentence.

Reason works harmoniously with revelation.

Well reason, for the very same reason, can lead to the deduction that the death penalty is inadmissible.

Edited by Peace

Share this post


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

You asked for an example, I gave you an example. Now you don't like my example because it proves my point, so you want a different example. Well, that's too bad.

You said that, if I'm understanding you correctly,:

-the Church can authoritatively prohibit (as opposed to counsel) the state from doing what is permissible in principle

-this is what the Church did re: DP

 

Now, the first premise seems odd to me. So, I ask you "1) Can you explain that further? 2) Is there any other thing (than) prohibited thus?" That was what I wanted to ask. If you intend to persuade me, please try to see what I'm getting at.

"On DP, the Church did X, The Church did X about DP" is circular logic. 

 

In fact, Pope Emeritus Benedict implies that the Church cannot prohibit the state thus:

Quote

 

This is where Catholic social doctrine has its place: it has no intention of giving the Church power over the State. Even less is it an attempt to impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to faith. Its aim is simply to help purify reason and to contribute, here and now, to the acknowledgment and attainment of what is just.

The Church's social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church's immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church.

 

 

He writes that the Church works by helping to form consciences, not by making its teaching prevail in political life or having power over the state. 

From this, it is at least understandable that I ask you to prove your point.

Share this post


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

And we can also continue our conversation without you attempting to tell me what I know.

My point was not reading your mind but saying that any thinking person would reach at the same understanding of the Magisterial texts to which I referred. They are perspicuous and unambiguous so there is no need to "interpret" them. The Bible is written in different literary style(s), including non-literal* ones so private interpretation of the Bible is a different case. 

9 hours ago, Peace said:

That's nice. I wasn't aware that we were debating this.

 

9 hours ago, Peace said:

Well reason, for the very same reason, can lead to the deduction that the death penalty is inadmissible.

 

As I have already said, I only intend to defend DP in principle.

9 hours ago, Peace said:

Feel free to call it whatever you like. It makes no difference to me.

Clerical celibacy is not referred to anywhere in the Magisterium as "prudential judgement". 

At the risk of oversimplifying, discipline is practice and PJ is discernment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4

______________________________________________

I think we're going nowhere with this, so let me try this:

a) DP is legitimate in principle. (You already said "I can say that it it permissible in principle", so we're good).

b) How do the pope’s Magisterium and the Tradition of the Church relate? When he interprets the words of Jesus, must the pope be in continuity with the Tradition and the previous Magisterium, including that of the most recent popes? Or is it rather the Church’s Tradition that has to be reinterpreted in the light of the pope’s new words? What if there are contradictions? Cardinal Mueller writes:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/01/by-what-authority

 

b) the traditional teaching of the Church has always allowed for the possibility of criticism of a pope who teaches error Edward Feser writes:

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-church-permits-criticism-of-popes_20.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dominicansoul

The Church has never taught that self-defense is immoral.  Is the Pope reading out of his liberation theology catechism again??? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by dominicansoul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

@Jack4 you are going down too many rabbit holes for me, sorry.

If you think that my reasoning is circular that is fine by me. But none of that changes the fact that you follow the JPII version of the Catechism with respect to the death penalty, and that provides precisely an example of what you asked for in your initial request. If the Church can place limits on the state as it did in the JPII version, she can do the same in the new version. The only difference is that the particular standards in the new and old versions are different. You like the old standards so they are fine, you don’t like the new standards so here you think the Church has no authority. I simply don’t buy it, sorry.

And in neither case was I suggesting that the Church replace the state or coerce it to do anything, so all of that is a nonsequitor.

If you want to keep discussing the proper meaning of terms be my guest. I already told you how I used the phrase herein. Whether or not you think that is a proper use of the term is not something that I care about, but please carry on if that floats your boat.

Anf if the only thing you want to argue is the DP in principle, there is nothing left for us to argue, because I have stated multiple times that I have not asserted that it is intrinsically evil.

Peace

Edited by Peace

Share this post


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

Anf if the only thing you want to argue is the DP in principle, there is nothing left for us to argue, because I have stated multiple times that I have not asserted that it is intrinsically evil.

I had noted that you agreed that DP was legitimate in principle. The other thing we were discussing were tradition and criticism of Popes, and I have given links about it.

 

Quote

 

If you think that my reasoning is circular that is fine by me. But none of that changes the fact that you follow the JPII version of the Catechism with respect to the death penalty, and that provides precisely an example of what you asked for in your initial request. If the Church can place limits on the state as it did in the JPII version, she can do the same in the new version. The only difference is that the particular standards in the new and old versions are different. You like the old standards so they are fine, you don’t like the new standards so here you think the Church has no authority. I simply don’t buy it, sorry.

And in neither case was I suggesting that the Church replace the state or coerce it to do anything, so all of that is a nonsequitor.

If you want to keep discussing the proper meaning of terms be my guest. I already told you how I used the phrase herein. Whether or not you think that is a proper use of the term is not something that I care about, but please carry on if that floats your boat.

 

I do not like the old standards either (JP2 Catechism). But I don't have a problem with it because it makes it clear that 1) The Church's traditional doctrine is upheld - that DP is legit in principle and 2) the opposition to DP is based on prudential judgement.

The New paragraph does not make these points clear (even though I've seen  attempts to read it in an orthodox way: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/10/magisterial-irresponsibility

Feser writes: On capital punishment, even the pope’s defenders are confused

Re: coerce the state, limit the state, proper meaning:

I think I do not understand what you mean by "limit", especially opposed to "coerce". If individual Catholics could disagree with JP2's prudential judgement - as Ratzinger noted when that version was in force - then the state could do that too. 

Has the Church ever placed limits on the state on something legit in principle in the first 1900 years of her existence? I'm asking whether the DP case of limits on the state is unprecedented.  

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...