Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Josh

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

Recommended Posts

Peace
3 hours ago, Jack4 said:

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.  

I don't know. How about you research it and get back to me? My guess is that you will be able to find an example of that.

Edited by Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4

I'll research. Meanwhile, you can research too. And also read the various sites I linked to in this thread. 

I would like to make it clear, however, that I still dispute your assertion that the Church can limit the state thusly.

Share this post


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

I'll research. Meanwhile, you can research too. And also read the various sites I linked to in this thread. 

I would like to make it clear, however, that I still dispute your assertion that the Church can limit the state thusly.

That’s fine by me, but then you also reject the JP2 version of the Catechism, right? If you assert that the Church cannot do that, and that is what the Church did in the JP 2 Catechism, then it seems that you must reject it also.

I would think that you can find some other examples in some of the late 17th century encylicals on politics, economics, the role of the state, etc. The prohibitions on socialist economies and the prohibitions against banning private property , etc. come to mind. I don’t think there is any infallible teaching that mandates those prohibitions. 

I think that there the Church takes fundamental moral principles, such as a man has a right to provide for himself and his family, and based on the principle comes to the conclusion that certain economic systems such as those that ban private property, are inconsistent with those principles.

Share this post


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

but then you also reject the JP2 version of the Catechism, right?

I like the CCC very much because it presents the faith well. The aim of a Catechism is to teach the faith, and the CCC is a success. Precisely because it teaches the faith well, I wrote, "I don't have a problem with it ".

 

+Ratzinger in 2004- whom no one would call a heretic dissenter- wrote that Catholics could disagree with JP2's prudential judgement on DP. Being CDF Prefect, and involved in the making of the CCC, he knows what its authority is. We have had this conversation already. A Catholic is simply not obliged to affirm everything in the CCC simply because it is in the CCC

________

I'm not arguing here "for DP" but for the principle that a Catholic may support it, as Ratzinger says.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

The prohibitions on socialist economies and the prohibitions against banning private property

The state banning private property is not legitimate even in principle so there is no prudential judgement involved. We are talking about things legitimate in principle.

Share this post


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

I like the CCC very much because it presents the faith well. The aim of a Catechism is to teach the faith, and the CCC is a success. Precisely because it teaches the faith well, I wrote, "I don't have a problem with it ".

 

+Ratzinger in 2004- whom no one would call a heretic dissenter- wrote that Catholics could disagree with JP2's prudential judgement on DP. Being CDF Prefect, and involved in the making of the CCC, he knows what its authority is. We have had this conversation already. A Catholic is simply not obliged to affirm everything in the CCC simply because it is in the CCC

________

I'm not arguing here "for DP" but for the principle that a Catholic may support it, as Ratzinger says.

Well go ahead and disagree with the living Magisterium if that floats your boat. It's a slippery slope. It starts with disagreeing with the death penalty, and ends with leaving the Church. I hope you don't fall off.

Quote

The state banning private property is not legitimate even in principle so there is no prudential judgement involved. We are talking about things legitimate in principle.

Well that is another rabbit hole. That's up for debate, and before you go quoting things in favor of your position, also look for the things on the opposite side.

Edited by Peace

Share this post


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

Well that is another rabbit hole. That's up for debate, and before you go quoting things in favor of your position, also look for the things on the opposite side.

That my position is correct can probably be inferred from the very encyclicals you referred to.

9 hours ago, Peace said:

Well go ahead and disagree with the living Magisterium if that floats your boat. It's a slippery slope. It starts with disagreeing with the death penalty, and ends with leaving the Church. I hope you don't fall off

I glean that you don't read what I link.

I won't leave the Church precisely because I believe in the traditional doctrines. Pope Francis himself would probably object to you "judging" me.

+Ratzinger says that DP advocacy is "permissible" and that there may be "diversity" of opinions on DP. 

For the gazillionth time: Ratzinger! Ratzinger! Ratzinger!   

If he says something's okay, its okay - he is, inter alia, an erudite, articulate thinker. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4

He is also more qualified to speak on how authoritative the CCC is.

I am no more a heretic dissenter than Thomas Waleys.

The Pope is not an absolute monarch: B16

 

Code of Canon Law
Book II, Part I, Title I: The Obligations and Rights of All the Faithful, canon 212 §3:
According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have
the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion
on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known
to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and
morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and
the dignity of persons.

Share this post


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

That my position is correct can probably be inferred from the very encyclicals you referred to.

No, sorry.

Quote

I glean that you don't read what I link.

I looked at some of it briefly.

Quote

I won't leave the Church precisely because I believe in the traditional doctrines. Pope Francis himself would probably object to you "judging" me.

A little self-conscious are we? I don’t think you are planning to leave the Church, but disagreeing with the Magisterium is a slippery slope that can lead there. It is not something to be taken lightly.

Whether or not you or I believe in “traditional doctrines” is up for debate, although I am sure that you think you do. Besides, even if we do believe in them, that is no guarantee that we will not leave. Doctrines develop, and plenty a trad and a liberal has left the Church because they refuse to accept the developments.

And FWIW, I, you, and every other Catholic is capable of falling away. It is something that we all need to be cautious of.

Quote

+Ratzinger says that DP advocacy is "permissible" and that there may be "diversity" of opinions on DP. 

For the gazillionth time: Ratzinger! Ratzinger! Ratzinger!   

If he says something's okay, its okay - he is, inter alia, an erudite, articulate thinker. 

Heh, well he concluded that communion for the divorced and remarried was acceptable, before his position was contradicted by JP2. He said it, so it must have been okay to believe, right?

You can find very smart people who take all types of positions. He was not even Pope when he made those comments, and there is no indication that they are applicable to the doctrine that the Church teaches today.

But again, if you want to disagree with the Magisterium have at it. It ain’t no skin off of my back.

Edited by Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4

Ratzinger matured over the years. He wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis against communion in those cases, and recently even did something about that old writing. 

He was CDF prefect, and was involved in thr making of the CCC. If I shouldn't trust him simply because he wasn't Pope, then I can dismiss everything you say for the same reason. 

He was Pope when he said that the Pope is not an absolute monarch. 

That DP advocacy is not heresy or dissent from Magisterium is the point he makes. So, please stop alleging that I disagree with thr Magisterium. 

What did you think of Pope Francis' comments in Chile on the abuse crisis there? 

Share this post


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

Ratzinger matured over the years. He wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis against communion in those cases, and recently even did something about that old writing. 

He was CDF prefect, and was involved in thr making of the CCC. If I shouldn't trust him simply because he wasn't Pope, then I can dismiss everything you say for the same reason. 

I didn’t say that you should not trust him, so that is irrelevant. I wrote what I wrote to disprove your “Ratzinger said it, so it must be true” argument.

Besides, even if what he said was correct then, there is no indication that it applies to the revised Catechism. Ratzinger wrote that there can be a diversity of opinion on the proper application of the death penalty, because it was then  permissible to have recourse to the death penalty. But the current teaching is that the death penalty is inadmissible, so it is a stretch to argue that what he wrote then excuses your disagreement today.

You seem to want to take what he wrote and turn it into a huge loophole that allows one to dissent on any Church teaching concerning the death penalty at any point in time, but I do not buy it, sorry.

5 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

He was Pope when he said that the Pope is not an absolute monarch. 

That’s nice.

5 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

That DP advocacy is not heresy or dissent from Magisterium is the point he makes. So, please stop alleging that I disagree with thr Magisterium. 

I never said it was heresy, so that is irrelevant. 

And yes, you disagree with the Magisterium. Get over it.

First, you argue that you have a right to disagree, then you now argue that you do not even disagree, as if the Church has no teaching at all.

I don’t buy it, but don’t take it too personally. It’s not like I called your mother a harlot.

5 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

What did you think of Pope Francis' comments in Chile on the abuse crisis there? 

What specific comments are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KnightofChrist

Jack is not against the Universal Magisterium. The prudential judgement of the current or living magisterium. None of the personal attacks, snarky, belittling, or whatever term you wish to use for less than respectful comments change that fact. 

Peace you'd be a great person to have a conversation with, if you could focus on the subject and not the negatives you see a person.

Edited by KnightofChrist

Share this post


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

What specific comments are you referring to?

https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20180120/news/301209927

You can Google for coverage by other news outlets.

He had received a letter from the victims, but said that the accusations were 'slander'. He later apologised, but at that time, should Catholics have agreed with him?

__________________________

One problem we have is this: That the paragraph is ambiguous; you have given your interpretation but no proof or explanation. You said that the Church now forbids the state from doing it, and the only example of the Church something like that is this. 

So, question, (assuming that your interpretation is correct): When - from which date - did the Church forbid the State from carrying out DP? By which document/speech did this happen?

2 hours ago, Peace said:

I didn’t say that you should not trust him, so that is irrelevant. I wrote what I wrote to disprove your “Ratzinger said it, so it must be true” argument.

My argument is not "Ratzinger said X so it's true" (even though "late Ratzinger said X so it's true" is very often helpful). My arguement is "Ratzinger said X about the CCC, so it's true". Ratzinger speaking on the CCC is something like Neil Armstrong speaking on the moon-landing or JK Rowling talking about Harry Potter. 

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Besides, even if what he said was correct then, there is no indication that it applies to the revised Catechism. Ratzinger wrote that there can be a diversity of opinion on the proper application of the death penalty, because it was then  permissible to have recourse to the death penalty. But the current teaching is that the death penalty is inadmissible, so it is a stretch to argue that what he wrote then excuses your disagreement today.

Question: Do you acknowledge that DP could be carried by the State out in 2004 without disobeying the Church? (yes/no)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4

______________________

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Emphasis mine. That the first and last sentence quoted are irrelevant is clear from what I've said elsewhere in this thread. The bolded part concedes that Magisterium may be problematic, especially in prudential judgements.

________

@KnightofChrist,

In Feser's article in CWR I've linked, he engages four of the Popes defenders on DP. Funnily enough, each of these four have four different interpretations of the Pope. It seems that Peace has another, fifth, interpretation. 

 

And they say that we are the ones who have to analyze and interpret orthodox doctrine. 

Share this post


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

Jack is not against the Universal Magisterium. The prudential judgement of the current or living magisterium. None of the personal attacks, snarky, belittling, or whatever term you wish to use for less than respectful comments change that fact. 

Peace you'd be a great person to have a conversation with, if you could focus on the subject and not the negatives you see a person.

You are right, I could have chosen some of my words more carefully, although ultimately I believe that my assessments are fair.

Share this post


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

https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20180120/news/301209927

You can Google for coverage by other news outlets.

He had received a letter from the victims, but said that the accusations were 'slander'. He later apologised, but at that time, should Catholics have agreed with him?

I don’t think they should have, no.

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

__________________________

One problem we have is this: That the paragraph is ambiguous; you have given your interpretation but no proof or explanation.

The text means that the death penalty cannot be used today, what other explanation would you like?

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

You said that the Church now forbids the state from doing it, and the only example of the Church something like that is this. 

No, I have you another example.

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

So, question, (assuming that your interpretation is correct): When - from which date - did the Church forbid the State from carrying out DP? By which document/speech did this happen?

When the Catechism was revised. 

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

My argument is not "Ratzinger said X so it's true" (even though "late Ratzinger said X so it's true" is very often helpful). My arguement is "Ratzinger said X about the CCC, so it's true". Ratzinger speaking on the CCC is something like Neil Armstrong speaking on the moon-landing or JK Rowling talking about Harry Potter. 

So you want your cake and to eat it too, huh? Ratzinger is correct with respect to the things you like, but not necessarily with respect to the things you don’t like. I don’t buy it, sorry.

There is no indication that his comments are directed to the Catechism anyway, so your argument still fails. The letter he wrote to the US Bishops does not even mention the Catechism a single time.

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Question: Do you acknowledge that DP could be carried by the State out in 2004 without disobeying the Church? (yes/no)

No, I do not acknowledge it, because I do not know if the prerequisites set forth in the Catechism were true at that time.

But if we assume that if the prerequisites were met, one could have applied the death penalty without disobeying the Church.

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...