Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

There are 1 billion Catholics on the Earth. It ain’t hard to find 4 that disagree on something.

a) So how is the Pope's supporters having different opinions different from traditionalists having to 'interpret' orthodoxy?

b) They aren't disagreeing on DP but on what the new para means.  This means that the new para is ambiguous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 201
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Jack4

    75

  • Peace

    73

  • BarbaraTherese

    13

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

1) I had said, "Popes had come close to errors on Christology, Beatific vision, etc. The Church has survived them." Details: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html That Pope

I have to admit that the whole death penalty thing is very challenging and to me, and causes me to question my faith more than anything else. For the record I support the full abolition of the de

I’ve witnessed an execution. There was nothing I saw that day that was merciful, just, or Godly. 

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

 

:huh: What did I concede? The JP2 CCC does not forbid the state. It only offers its judgement. 

It indicates that the DP should not be applied if non-lethal means can be used to protect society. You can call that whatever you like, but it is a limitation.

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

That’s nice, but it doesn’t change the fact that he and many others disagree with the other conditions set forth in that paragraph.

That punishment is retributive is implicit in the DP para and made explicit in its context. 

12 hours ago, Peace said:

The church forbade anyone from teaching that heliocentrism was true for hundreds of years.

Can you link me to the document of this prohibition, please?

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

That punishment is retributive is implicit in the DP para and made explicit in its context. 

That’s nice, but it doesn’t change the fact that he and many others disagree with the other conditions set forth in that paragraph.

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

a) So how is the Pope's supporters having different opinions different from traditionalists having to 'interpret' orthodoxy?

b) They aren't disagreeing on DP but on what the new para means.  This means that the new para is ambiguous.

I don’t understand your first question, and no, the fact that people disagree on a document does not mean that it is ambiguous. 500 million Protestants disagree with us on the meaning of “this is my body” but the text is perfectly clear. 

2 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

It's not a "stretch"; if Catholics could not disagree with the then-Holy Father on DP then Ratzinger would have written that they could not.

That’s nice.

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

That’s nice, but it doesn’t change the fact that he and many others disagree with the other conditions set forth in that paragraph.

That para is not what it plainly means - it is implicit that punishment is retributive. Hence they do not disagree. 

1 minute ago, Peace said:

That’s nice.

That's nice.

8 minutes ago, Peace said:

It indicates that the DP should not be applied if non-lethal means can be used to protect society. You can call that whatever you like, but it is a limitation.

No, there is no "limitation", the Church doesn't "limit" the state. He only offers his judgement. 

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

That para is not what it plainly means - it is implicit that punishment is retributive. Hence they do not disagree. 

That's nice.

So what? I did not argue that the two paragraphs in the Catechism disagree. Of course they agree, but what I wrote is still true.

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

Your argument in a nutshell is that you only have to accept what is written in the Catechism to the extent that it agrees with your own private interpretation of other documents.

Ugh. My 'interpretation'? I try to 'interpret' them such that it's harmonious with the living Magisterium. Only when that's impossible do I disagree.

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

Ugh. My 'interpretation'? I try to 'interpret' them such that it's harmonious with the living Magisterium. Only when that's impossible do I disagree.

Good, then you accept the revised paragraph of the Catechism. Have a nice day.

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

Questions of conscience, known versus unknown falsehood, and authority to determine truth versus falsehood would make the answer much longer and nuanced, but I would rather not get into all of that at this time.

I feel an "error has no rights" retort coming. Please try to think it all the way through before going there.

If a person is convinced in good conscience that the Pope is wrong, should he agree with the Pope acting against his conscience?

24 minutes ago, Peace said:

Good, then you accept the revised paragraph of the Catechism. Have a nice day.

 

Quote

For these reasons, the inserted material in number 2267 of the Catechism is not and cannot constitute a doctrinal rupture. However, this does not mean one ought to be unreservedly happy about it. There are four reasons for viewing this revision critically and with measured dismay.

From First Things; I've already linked to it. 

13 hours ago, Peace said:

We have an obligation to give it religious assent, regardless of whether we like it or not, and regardless of our own personal analysis or conclusions.

This Pope also says that spanking children is permissible in principle. Should all Catholics agree with that?

(Personally, I agree with the Pope here - but my question is the second sentence; do Catholics who think it's wrong dissent?)

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

If a person is convinced in good conscience that the Pope is wrong, should he agree with the Pope acting against his conscience?

 

From First Things; I've already linked to it. 

This Pope also says that spanking children is permissible in principle. Should all Catholics agree with that?

(Personally, I agree with the Pope here - but my question is the second sentence; do Catholics who think it's wrong dissent?)

Yes, they are all rank heretics and should be excommunicated because they do not like spanking their children.

Have a nice weekend.

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

If you are free to reject the current on teaching on the death penalty because you conclude that it is incorrect, what is there to stop me from rejecting any and all other current teachings of the church that are not infallibly defined, as long as I reach my own personal conclusion that the teaching are incorrect? 

In this case, the question arises: How do you judge whether it's incorrect? What standard/benchmark do you use? 

It's the writings of previous Popes, Church Fathers, Doctors, etc.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that "any and all other current teachings" cannot be read without contradicting tradition - mind you, this is impossible - then, I think you may disagree.

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Yes, they are all rank heretics and should be excommunicated because they do not like spanking their children.

Have a nice weekend.

I'm assuming that you are being sarcastic. I'm not a person who gets sarcasm in writing. So please be clear. 

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

In this case, the question arises: How do you judge whether it's incorrect? What standard/benchmark do you use? 

It's the writings of previous Popes, Church Fathers, Doctors, etc.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that "any and all other current teachings" cannot be read without contradicting tradition - mind you, this is impossible - then, I think you may disagree.

I'm assuming that you are being sarcastic. I'm not a person who gets sarcasm in writing. So please be clear. 

You can have the last word on the topic. I have spent about as much time as I want on it. Have a nice weekend. Good luck.

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

You seem to be of the opinion that "first in time" = "correct" but the Church does not teach this.

Christ taught the Apostles, they taught the Early Church. Faith is handed down. The Magisterium is not the Master of revelation but its servant, as V2 teaches. If the first is wrong and the new is correct, then revelation is alleged to be in need of correction. 

Quote

It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means... Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason.

Qui Pluribus

2 minutes ago, Peace said:

You can have the last word on the topic. I have spent about as much time as I want on it. Have a nice weekend. Good luck.

I don't understand :huh:

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.



It costs about $850 a year for Phatmass.com to survive–and we barely make it. If you’d like to help keep the Phorum alive, please consider a monthly gift.



×
×
  • Create New...