jrndveritatis Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote]QUOTE "Development of doctrine" does not apply here. Nonsense! [/quote] I hope by saying nonsense you are not claiming that that Church has reversed her earlier (and it can be argued current) teachings on the death penalty. Because if you are, you are attacking the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church as guided by the Magisterium led by the Pope. However, development of doctrine could apply if the Church were revealing a fuller understanding of her doctrine without contradicting herself. Now many will argue that this is what has happened, but I still have not seen anyone refute Dunnigan's/Rutler's/Keating's/Dulles' analysis. [quote]The canonization of saints is an example of the Church making infallible prudential judgments. Under Dunningan's argument, I guess we could also consider these as optional beliefs for Catholics to hold. [/quote] No, actually prudential judgments are by definition not infallible. Therefore, canonizations, if they are infallible, are not prudential judgments. Therfore Dunnigan would not hold them as optional. Dunnigan is clearly upholding the teaching that infallible teachings must be obeyed: to do otherwise is heresy/schism. [quote]the US Bishops, as a national conference, have NO JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY AND ISSUE NO BINDING DOCUMENTS except those directly commissioned by the Holy Father, which become particular law for that "region". This is not the case with the issue at hand. [/quote] Exactly.
PhatPhred Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 31 2004, 12:46 AM'] [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=877"]HERE[/url] are some more facts on the issue!!! Read it before posting please! Notice a Bishop wrote the letter!! God Bless Jason [/quote] Good find!!!
Norseman82 Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 30 2004, 10:03 PM'] God is Mercy! God is Judge! "Vengence is mine says the Lord!" This could go on forever! Again I will suggest St. Faustinas Book on Divine Mercy. "The greater the sinner the more he has the right to my Mercy," He said to St. Faustina. The point of the Gospels is Mercy. Be careful on this topic to much Theology debating can lead to trouble. God is Mercy. Long Live JPII!!! and The Holy Catholic Church! Amen. God Bless Jason [/quote] Well, some may argue that the death penalty is showing mercy to the innocent people in society.
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote]I hope by saying nonsense you are not claiming that that Church has reversed her earlier (and it can be argued current) teachings on the death penalty. Because if you are, you are attacking the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church as guided by the Magisterium led by the Pope.[/quote] You are not reading my posts are you? lol Of course I follow The One True Catholic Church and I love JPII! Read more of the post please before making such statements! God Bless You Jason
Carrie Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Norseman82' date='Mar 31 2004, 12:57 AM'] Well, some may argue that the death penalty is showing mercy to the innocent people in society. [/quote] It can be argued that you can show mercy to the innocent people by putting the criminals in jail for life, therefore the innocent people are not in danger AND noone is being killed.
jrndveritatis Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote]Also recall that Keating and Dunningan's dissent extends to the non-prudential part of the Holy Father's teaching as well.[/quote] For example? [quote]HERE are some more facts on the issue!!! Read it before posting please! Notice a Bishop wrote the letter!! God Bless Jason [/quote] Martino also said that he felt sorry for Saddam Hussein because supposedly the U.S. was treating him like a cow. Seriously, that is what he said. I really don't see how giving Saddam medical treatment is treating him like a cow. Martino is an individual bishop. Not the pope. Just like any priest, it is possible that he could fall into error. Martino says it is "cruel and unnecessary". The Holy Father did not say this. In fact he said it is required when the protection of society is required. [quote] Just because a Church teaching involves a prudential judgment doesn't mean that it isn't binding on faithful Catholics. This is stated in canon law number 747 that I quoted earlier. Just because a Church teaching isn't infallible doesn't mean that it isn't binding on faithful Catholics. This is stated in canon law number 752. [/quote] Anyone have a response to these canons? I wonder what Dunnigan would say.
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Norseman82' date='Mar 30 2004, 10:57 PM']Well, some may argue that the death penalty is showing mercy to the innocent people in society.[/quote] Did you read the article. And yes I agree my brain hurts too!! he!he! God Bless You Jason
PhatPhred Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='jrndveritatis' date='Mar 31 2004, 12:52 AM']No, actually prudential judgments are by definition not infallible. Therefore, canonizations, if they are infallible, are not prudential judgments. Therfore Dunnigan would not hold them as optional.[/quote] Now this *is* nonsense. Prudential judgments are, [b]by definition[/b], the application of teachings on faith and morals to the particular circumstances of a situation. The canonization of a saint is the application of the Church teaching of what leads a person to end up in heaven instead of hell to the circumstances of the life of a particular individual. If you think this is not a prudential judgment, then you don't have the slightest concept of what a prudential judgment is. It is not a synonym for "a teaching of the Church that I want to be able to disagree with and not be called a cafeteria Catholic." [quote name='jrndveritatis' date='Mar 31 2004, 12:52 AM']Dunnigan is clearly upholding the teaching that infallible teachings must be obeyed: to do otherwise is heresy/schism.[/quote] Even non-infallible teachings must be obeyed. As I have stated, this is contained in canon law number 752.
popestpiusx Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 30 2004, 11:46 PM'] [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=877"]HERE[/url] are some more facts on the issue!!! Read it before posting please! Notice a Bishop wrote the letter!! God Bless Jason [/quote] Notice: 1) Bishop Martino has NO authority over me (or anyone else for that matter excepting his staff at the UN). His opinion is not binding in any way shape or form, regardless of the fact that he is a bishop. 2)Bishop Martino (nor any other bishop) has the authority to change what the Church teaches or mold it to their personal preferences. 3)That is exactly what he is trying to do. I have already shown why reliance on the CCC does NOT support the argument. He also fails to address the fact that what he is saying directly contradicts what has been stated very clearly by Popes, saints, doctors and councils. By not addressing these, they make it nearly impossible to make a case for a "development of doctrine" rather than a novel belief. 4)The so-called "facts" he attempts to use against the death penalty are not backed up by anything. He makes assertions without supporting them. 5)He has a distored view of what constitutes a "right". He fails to distinguish between the various kinds of rights. 6)The last paragraph is absurd.
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 Thats the way you feel! To say a statement by a bishop is absurd is pretty strong! God Bless You Jason
popestpiusx Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='PhatPhred' date='Mar 30 2004, 11:49 PM'] This is true. The authority of the USCCB teaching on this issue derives directly from the authority of the individual bishops endorsing the USCCB statement. I don't see what difference this makes, however. [/quote] The difference is that not all the Bishops are against the death penalty becasue it is NOT a matter of the faith. It is not required of a Catholic to be against the death penalty. The Holy Father is personally opposed to it. Fine. His opinion does not bind me to ignore 2000 years of Church teaching. Canon Law does not require that I change my beliefs based on the personal opinions of anyone, even if he be the Pope.
PhatPhred Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='jrndveritatis' date='Mar 31 2004, 01:01 AM'][quote]Also recall that Keating and Dunningan's dissent extends to the non-prudential part of the Holy Father's teaching as well.[/quote] For example?[/quote] This is the "A Development of Doctrine?" section of Dunningan's essay that begins with: [quote]The insights of Dulles and Rutler offer assistance in resolving this apparent conflict. However, the distinction between teachings and prudential judgments is relevant primarily to the [i]practical[/i] question of whether or not the circumstances justifying the death penalty are virtually nonexistent. It is less clear that this distinction resolves the [i]doctrinal[/i] issue of whether or not retribution remains a legitimate purpose of capital punishment.[/quote]
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 ppx, The article clearly stated how the Church stands on this issue. You can say what ever you want. I'm not judging anyone who supports the death penalty. I'm just saying my choice is to vote it out! I have that right as well! The Pope diagrees therefore so do I. You have the right to your feelings in this matter and so do I. God Bless Jason
popestpiusx Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='Jason' date='Mar 31 2004, 12:10 AM'] Thats the way you feel! To say a statement by a bishop is absurd is pretty strong! God Bless You Jason [/quote] Come now, fellow. Absurd statements from bishops today are commonplace. There is nothing wrong with admiting that. Cardinal Keeler, just last year echoed Cardinal Kasper, that Catholics should not target Jews for conversion becasue Jews are in a saving covenant. That, my friend, is absurd. What Archbishop Martino said was absurd. Martino has said a number absurd things as jrndveritatis pointed out. Why is that so difficult to swallow. There are many wolves in shepherds clothing. Some are even well intentioned men, but they mislead the faithful nonetheless.
popestpiusx Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='PhatPhred' date='Mar 31 2004, 12:16 AM'] For example?[/QUOTE] This is the "A Development of Doctrine?" section of Dunningan's essay that begins with: [/quote] I don't get the point of your post. Please elaborate.
Livin_the_MASS Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote]There are many wolves in shepherds clothing. Some are even well intentioned men, but they mislead the faithful nonetheless.[/quote] Really Strong!!
popestpiusx Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 If you don't realize this you are in for a rude awakening someday.
PhatPhred Posted March 31, 2004 Posted March 31, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 31 2004, 01:21 AM']I don't get the point of your post. Please elaborate.[/quote] jrndveritatis asked where Keating and Dunningan dissented from the non-prudential moral teaching of Pope John Paul II on capital punishment. I indicated the relevant section of Dunningan's essay.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now