Execute Them!

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 5 2005, 03:06 PM'] And as I stated above  Lumen gentium is a pastorial document and neither infallable nor even authoritative in the manner in which you speak, further as I said we are required by it to submit mind and will to all writings of the Roman Pontiff, So what about previous popes who disagree with the JPII or more than that, it is obvious that Ratzingers writings disagree with JPII on certian matters particularly on the matter of dissent on Capital Punishment and War. He is now Pope so either ALL Popes opinions are equally valid or JPII don't count anymore anyway, so which is it? [/quote]
I've decided I will respond

First of all, can you back up where Pope Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger) disagreed with Pope John Paul II? I want to see evidence.

Next, Popes can disagree. They don't owe each other that assent, as do we. We follow the current Pontiff, unless were Sede Vacantanists.

And you better believe Lumen Gentium has authority.

Edited May 5, 2005 by Q the Ninja

[Q the Ninja]

Here's the main part of the First Vatican Council, which I believe falls under infallible.

[quote]2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,
o by divine ordinance,
o the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
o this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
§ episcopal and
§ immediate.
o Both clergy and faithful,
§ of whatever rite and dignity,
§ both singly and collectively,
o are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
§ not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
§ but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.[/quote]

We are faithful. We are singly and collectively bound to submit to the power by duty of hierarchical subordination and [b]true[/b] obedience, no only in matters concerning faith and morals...

Well, this concerns faith and/or morals.

[Aloysius]

[quote]. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. [b]There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty[/b], but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.[/quote]
-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI

there may be disagreement about applying the death penalty, not about the doctrine of the death penalty. meaning all Catholics must believe as part of the deposit of faith those things that Trent et cetera have said about the death penalty: that it is the just right of the state, that people who murder absolutely deserve it, that by the principle of forfeiture homicide is akin to suicide, that any time the death penalty is administered to a person that person receives it justly.

now it has been proposed that in the modern world it is not necessary and the state ought to consider non-lethal means. this is not doctrinal in the least, it is a prudential judgment in regards to the application of the doctrine. notice before i said that the person always receives it justly, THIS IS DOCTRINE that must be believed, any time a person who is actually guilty of a capital crime is executed by the state that person receives the death penalty justly. the question arises as to whether or not it should be administered when non-lethal means are available. the pope has expressed the idea that in the modern world there ought to be prudential judgement and avoidance of these just means whenever possible. here's where I part ways:

1) do modern times have such non-lethal means available that they didn't have in the past? no, and the Holy Father has no teaching authority to say we do have such non-lethal means. his expertise is in faith and morals, not in whether or not the modern society has the ability to do something they couldn't do in history

2) are cases where the death penalty "rare if practically non-existant"? no, I do not believe so. the CDF specifically clarified in my above Ratzinger quote that I may disagree about the APPLICATION of the death penalty. The Holy Father's expertise is not in specific dp cases throughout the world. he is wrong in saying the cases are rare if non-existant; I say they are quite common and I am in no way threatening any peice of doctrine he has laid forth be it ex cathedra or not.

he has expressed his opinion about prudential judgement in application of the death penalty, and it has no binding force fallible or infallible. Catholics must accept doctrine that is pro-death penalty, the ONLY viable Catholic anti-dp position is "while the DP is the just right of the state and what a guilty person actually deserves, the state should decide to use non-lethal means when possible ; however any time the state does execute it does so justly if the person is actually guilty"

[Q the Ninja]

Our disagreement stems well beyond just disagreeing with the Holy Father.

[Q the Ninja]

Al, reread what you left bold.

We can disagree on the application of the death penalty and just war, but we cannot disagree on what is taught behind that, as everyone here is.

[Anna]

I haven't read a single post on this thread. I will only say that anyone caught in the act of scandalizing a little one should have a millstone tied around his neck and be immediately cast into the sea. Period. -_-

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 5 2005, 06:06 PM'] And as I stated above  Lumen gentium is a pastorial document and neither infallable nor even authoritative in the manner in which you speak [/quote]
Wrong.

Edited May 5, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[MichaelFilo]

Cmother, you know very well you have to have a reason. I am pretty interested, actually. This is something that has been going back and forth in my mind and I have spent some time praying about...

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

Its been posted several times.

"In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

[Aloysius]

exactly, we can disagree on the application of war or the application of the death penalty, but we cannot disagree on the teaching. i.e. every Catholic must believe that the death penalty is the just right of the state, that people who murder forfeit the right to their own life, that anytime a person guilty of murder is executed they are done so justly because that is what justice demands and what they deserve. those are the things we must agree upon, those are the things many Catholics dissent from in their ultra-pacifist anti-death penalty views where they put it on the same level as abortion et cetera.

where we can dissagree is APPLICATION; i.e. you say in the modern world it shouldn't be used that much I say it should be used now more than ever.

we can have a LEGITIMATE diversity of opinion in regards to this application, i.e. it is legitimate for a Catholic to argue that the death penalty still is absolutely necessary and still ought to be used often.

[Alpha Centauri]

Indeed. Kill them all.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='May 5 2005, 09:12 PM'] Its been posted several times.

"In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." [/quote]
So you believe that all acts of Councils are infallable and authorative... you are sure you want to hold to that position.

[MichaelFilo]

My sentiments exactly.

Alpha Centauri, while it is true you are entitled to your opinion, this is a debate table and therefore there needs to be reasons behind your opinion. Otherwise, your post was as effective to add to this post as posting nothing.

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 6 2005, 10:18 AM'] So you believe that all acts of Councils are infallable and authorative... you are sure you want to hold to that position. [/quote]
I am quoting Church teaching.

Edited May 6, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='May 6 2005, 12:40 PM'] I am quoting Church teaching. [/quote]
And so I ask agian, are you saying all acts of Councils are infallable and authoritive? Perhaps I should say currently authoritive but since one council cannot contadict anopther that seems redundent.

[Aloysius]

all teachings of the twenty Ecumenical Councils in matters of faith and morals are infallible and authoritative

[Don John of Austria]

Aloysius I didn't ask you and that isn't what I asked, I asked Cmom.

That isn't intended asa hostile statement I just need CMOM to answer.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 5 2005, 09:43 PM'] exactly, we can disagree on the application of war or the application of the death penalty, but we cannot disagree on the teaching. i.e. every Catholic must believe that the death penalty is the just right of the state, that people who murder forfeit the right to their own life, that anytime a person guilty of murder is executed they are done so justly because that is what justice demands and what they deserve. those are the things we must agree upon, those are the things many Catholics dissent from in their ultra-pacifist anti-death penalty views where they put it on the same level as abortion et cetera.

where we can dissagree is APPLICATION; i.e. you say in the modern world it shouldn't be used that much I say it should be used now more than ever.

we can have a LEGITIMATE diversity of opinion in regards to this application, i.e. it is legitimate for a Catholic to argue that the death penalty still is absolutely necessary and still ought to be used often. [/quote]
But here you're contradicting the Holy Father. He said that it is not just to always use the death penalty when someone commits a murder, and we need to look for better means.

But everyone here disagrees on the teaching itself! Because someone kills someone else DOES NOT mean we can legitimately take their life every time! If that's the case, then the Pope has erred [i]while exercising his Papal authority![/i] and we have a right to say something about it...and this implies the Second Vatican Council has also erred in asking us to give a religious submission of mind and will. I'm very concerned about this logic, and I don't think that it needs to prevail here.

I think that the Pope made it explicit that the death penalty really isn't always just, even when used for the reasons that you have stated. One or the other is correct, I cannot see both.

Also, our disagreements are more along the lines of, "Is the Pope in Evangelium Vitae correct or not," whether implicitly or explicitly. I say, it doesn't matter, we CANNOT say.

This next statement of the Pope disagrees with what you have said about the state having the right to execute all murderers:

[quote]It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: [b]"If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority [i]must[/i] limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".[/b][/quote]

If the bolded part is not him using his office as Pope, I want to know what is. That is definitely the Holy Father using his office not as an opinion, but as a teaching, with other teachings behind it. According to Vatican II, we owe a religious submission of [i]mind[/i] and will.

******************************

I'm very concerned by how often it has been stated that we can say that the Pope was wrong in Evangelium Vitae. Well, then, we are not following the command that has been posted over and over again. It has been done here...

******************************

[quote]So you believe that all acts of Councils are infallable and authorative... you are sure you want to hold to that position. [/quote]

By the way (for Don), teaching does not equal infallible, so your question is really invalid...they are authoritative, regardless of whether or not the infallibilty charism is invoked. This is so often misunderstood that I think it is well within my rights to answer you here because you ask an answer that isn't really even valid.

I believe I also posted earlier from the First Vatican Council that the Pope has jurisdiction that we cannot deny, even when not speaking infallibly. That is an infallible teaching, so whether or not the Second Vatican Council is infallible, we still must follow it. Were this not the case, we could not disagree with it anyways. It may not be infallible, but wow is it authoritative.

*******************************

Lastly, I want to point out that I have not disagreed with a particular case, but the teaching of the death penalty as presented here. I think it contradicts the Holy Father in a grave way.

[MichaelFilo]

You know. If St. Athanasius went about giving into what the pope said as opposed to sticking to constant Catholic teaching on something, we'd have had a period in history when no one would stop the Pope from teaching the Arian heresy, or at least sympathizing with them. St. Athanasius did not give said submission of mind and will, and instead fought for the doctrine that he knew. A life is forfieted whenever one is taken. That is how it is. That is justice. We are to forgive him and have mercy on the one who is to die, but the government must ceaslessly carry out justice.

God bless,
Mikey

[Q the Ninja]

First off I want to mention the difference between public teaching and private belief. We have no idea that St. Athanasius actually disagreed with any public teachings of the Pope.

In fact, I've seen no hard evidence that the Pope was an Arian or even a semi-Arian.