Cardinal Ratzinger

[qfnol31]

What's unanswerable about it?

Why is that paragraph not Magisterial?

[quote]Even then, once you do ammend your premise, hot stuff answered the question on the other thread.[/quote]

I don't find that answer satisfactory.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 12:20 AM']What's unanswerable about it?

I don't find that answer satisfactory.
[right][snapback]828779[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You study philosophy. When the premise is flawed, the answer will not be valid and the answer will not be sound.

I'm sorry that you don't find the answer satisfactory, but it is the truth.

As I have said, I am not going to rehash this issue for a third time. You continually take it out of context and you continually misinterpret the view of Pope Benedict XVI.

I have shown how. If you don't like it, that is fine, but just because you don't like it doesn't invalidate it.

Your faulty premise does that all on its own.

[qfnol31]

You're arguing something entirely different than hot stuff, methinks.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 01:06 AM']You're arguing something entirely different than hot stuff, methinks. 
[right][snapback]828814[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I doubt it.

[qfnol31]

Oh well.

By the way, you don't have to get involved in this discussion if you don't want. That's why it's in a different thread.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 01:16 AM']Oh well.

By the way, you don't have to get involved in this discussion if you don't want.  That's why it's in a different thread. 
[right][snapback]828822[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Riiiiiiigggghhhhtttt......we all know who this thread was aimed at. And it wasn't hot stuff.

[qfnol31]

Actually, it was. It is best not to assume things like that.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 01:22 AM']Actually, it was.  It is best not to assume things like that.
[right][snapback]828830[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sure. You got it, champ.

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 12:06 AM']You're arguing something entirely different than hot stuff, methinks. 
[right][snapback]828814[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

nope Camster and I are on the same page

[MC Just]

why interpretation? I dont want to sound mean but that reminds me of protestantism. too much interpretation, not enough of just plain ol' undestanding.

[Cam42]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Dec 17 2005, 10:04 AM']why interpretation? I dont want to sound mean but that reminds me of protestantism. too much interpretation, not enough of just plain ol' undestanding.
[right][snapback]828940[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You're right. Thanks for supporting hot stuff and me. Then-Card. Ratzinger was not speaking about the morality of the death penalty, but rather the ability of one to receive Holy Communion.

All he is saying is that one who supports the death penalty cannot be held from receiving Holy Communion. His position on the death penalty is given in a later post, by me.

[qfnol31]

Being allowed to receive Holy Communion means you are in the Church.

If you're against the Church on a teaching then you cannot receive Holy Communion.

It follows from this that if a person disagrees with the Holy Father on the application of the death penalty, then that person does not revoke being Catholic, but remains in full Communion with the Church.

That is the context of the message, especially viewed in other such documents as Vatican II.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Dec 17 2005, 03:19 PM']You're right.  Thanks for supporting hot stuff and me.  Then-Card. Ratzinger was not speaking about the morality of the death penalty, but rather the ability of one to receive Holy Communion.

All he is saying is that one who supports the death penalty cannot be held from receiving Holy Communion.  His position on the death penalty is given in a later post, by me.
[right][snapback]829077[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote] There may be a  There may be a [b]legitimate[/b] diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.[/quote]
A legitimate diversity of opinion - that's a key phrase.
He says that diversity of opinion is legitimate on these issues (i.e. -that one is not morally bound to agree with aparticular Pope's opinion on the application of war and the death penalty.)
He is not simply saying that differing opinions on the application of the death penalty are less sinful or heretical, meriting less punishment.
If "diverse opinions" on this topic were in themselves wrong, he would never use the word "legitimate" to describe them.

Cam, while Card. Ratzinger said there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion on the death penalty, you declare otherwise, and seem to want to anathemize all those who disagree with you.

No Popes prior to John Paul II believed the death penalty to be almost always wrong, so this must be held as a matter of personal opinion, rather than dogmatic teaching.
If I am not Catholic or not "pro-life" for disagreeing, then I must join nearly every Pope and Catholic for nearly 2000 years of the Church in being such.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Dec 17 2005, 08:36 AM']nope Camster and I are on the same page
[right][snapback]828934[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well then come discuss. This thread's here for you.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 17 2005, 07:44 PM']A legitimate diversity of opinion - that's a key phrase.
He says that diversity  of opinion is legitimate on these issues (i.e. -that one is not morally bound to agree with aparticular Pope's opinion on the application of war and the death penalty.)
He is not simply saying that differing opinions on the application of the death penalty are less sinful or heretical, meriting less punishment.
If "diverse opinions" on this topic were in themselves wrong, he would never use the word "legitimate" to describe them.

Cam, while Card. Ratzinger said there may be a  legitimate diversity of opinion on the death penalty, you declare otherwise, and seem to want to anathemize all those who disagree with you.

No Popes prior to John Paul II believed the death penalty to be almost always wrong, so this must be held as a matter of personal opinion, rather than dogmatic teaching.
If I am not Catholic or not "pro-life" for disagreeing, then I must join nearly every Pope and Catholic for nearly 2000 years of the Church in being such.
[right][snapback]829133[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And you totally misunderstand the point of the statement made by Pope Benedict. He was NOT speaking about the morality of the death penalty. He was speaking about the ability of one to receive Holy Communion. It is completely consistent with what I have been saying all along.

I agree that he is not saying that it is sinful or heretical to support the death penalty. Show me where I have said that. That is a misinterpretation and a misread of my position. This also speaks to Zach. Nowhere have I attacked the Catholicity of a person because they accept the death penalty. NOWHERE. However, you assume that I think that of you, I most certainly do not, nor do I to anyone who is Catholic and supports the death penalty.

However, you assume that I delcare one who does not agree with me to be such. That is flat out wrong and it goes to show that you have not read or paid attention to anything that I have written.

Again, I am going to ask you to show me where I have said that this is a dogmatic statement. Or that this is a matter of dogma. It is a matter of doctrine, but not dogma, again, you misrepresent my position.

Finally, you analysis is flat out wrong. It is not a matter of support for the death penalty, it is not even a matter of application of the death penalty. It is simply used as an example to show that capital punishment is not on the same level of morals as euthanasia or abortion. Something I have never denied nor have I ever expected to be discussed.

But to use this statement as a blanket acceptance of the application of the death penalty is taking it out of context. It is not. If you want to look to Pope Benedict's view on the application of the death penalty look to post #6. That is his view.

[qfnol31]

I'm using it to show legitimate diversity can exist. That's how the thread got started, and that's the topic of this thread.

[Paphnutius]

If I might interject (I should probably duck behind something lest I fear flying objects) I think that Cam was restating what Ratzinger said with an emphasis on the distinction between the admittance of a possiblity (X MAY happen) and the confrimation of a reality (X DOES happen).

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 09:37 PM']I'm using it to show legitimate diversity can exist.  That's how the thread got started, and that's the topic of this thread. 
[right][snapback]829168[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And you are using it incorrectly. And I have shown you how you are using it incorrectly, on several threads.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 17 2005, 09:52 PM']If I might interject (I should probably duck behind something lest I fear flying objects) I think that Cam was restating what Ratzinger said with an emphasis on the distinction between the admittance of a possiblity (X MAY happen) and the confrimation of a reality (X DOES happen).
[right][snapback]829173[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Correct. Finally, someone other than hot stuff gets it and will vocalize it.

[qfnol31]

Is that then the only reason that you think that this doesn't apply? Or are there separate reasons that you think "legitimate diversity" is taken out of context?

I think hot stuff said because this document isn't Magisterial (maybe only this part?)

You have said that it is taking this thing out of context to use only that one phrase.

And I think lastly you have said "may" does not imply there absolutely is.

Just trying to get a better understanding...does that align so far?