Tuesday, August 7, 2018

ISSUES WITH THE NEW PAPAL TEACHING ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY BEING INADMISABLE

I was listening to XM's Catholic channel's Gus Lloyd's Seize the Day program. He had a live interview with a theologian Monica Migliorino Miller, who I would consider open minded, academic and sincere as well as respectful toward our Holy Father Francis.

Lloyd remarked that she had written a piece for Crisis Magazine and so I looked at the article and much of the interview centers on what she wrote for Crisis.

Here is the title of the article with a excerpt of the article below it. Press the title for the complete article at Crisis:


Francis Uses Junk Theology to End the Death Penalty


The New Pastoral Effects

The pope has created a situation with far-reaching pastoral implications. If the death penalty “attacks” the “inviolability of the person,” then it is a sin. Yet in 2004 Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, clarified: “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia” and should a Catholic support the death penalty “he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.”
But if according to Bergoglio’s Art. 2267, the execution of criminals “attacks the inviolability of the person” then it must be sin, when before it was not sin. What then becomes of the clarification of Ratzinger in light of the new teaching? Should for instance Gov. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska go to confession as he supports and will oversee the August 14th execution of convicted murderer Carey Dean Moore? These are the nearly unprecedented questions now facing the Church.

Whose Lives Are Inviolable?

Also unprecedented is the use of the term “inviolable” in reference to the lives of those who have committed grave crimes. It is true that all human life is sacred—even the lives of those who commit murder—sacred in the sense that such persons continue their inherent worth as they are made in the image of God. In the doctrinal tradition of the Church that specific term “inviolable” is used to characterize the status of the innocent. For instance John Paul II taught in EV, Art. 57:

If such great care must be taken to respect every life, even that of criminals and unjust aggressors, the commandment “You shall not kill” has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person… In effect, the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is a moral truth … constantly upheld in the Church’s Tradition and consistently proposed by her Magisterium.

The saint then declared as infallible teaching that any direct assault on innocent persons is gravely immoral.

In order for Pope Francis to declare the death penalty “inadmissible” he applied the term “inviolable” to the lives of those guilty of heinous crimes. The Church has not traditionally used this term to designate the moral status of such criminals. Their crimes cause them to forfeit this “inviolability” as is the case with unjust aggressors, thus rendering capital punishment not inherently evil as the new Art. 2267 suggests it is.

47 comments:

TJM said...

Liberals cry HUGE tears for hardened, evil murderers but REJOICE about killing millions on innocents in the womb.

Anonymous said...

She is right. Is there perhaps a hidden agenda in what the current HF has done? I have seen/heard this idea talked about already. Is this initiative a distraction to take away focus from the much more serious episcopal abuse crisis and the role the Vatican has in it? It may be so. The tragedy is that this kind of speculation feels quite reasonable based on the HF actions: failing to teach the German bishops about the proper administration of the sacraments, promulgating Amoris Letitiae, and St. John Paul's adminition to not admit committed homosexuals to holy orders, but the list could go on.

Oh yes, the mismanagement of monies donated by the faithful almost everywhere in the church.

Mark Thomas said...

It is proper that Monica Migliorino Miller is "sincere as well as respectful toward our Holy Father Francis. That is the manner in which we should treat His Holiness.

That doesn't mean that her opinion in question is sound.

Cardinal Burke, who declared that the SSPX is in schism, is "sincere as well as respectful toward our Holy Father Francis." That doesn't mean that Cardinal Burke's opinion in question is sound.

Archbishop Chaput is "sincere as well as respectful toward our Holy Father Francis." Archbishop Chaput declared that as compared to the Traditional Latin Mass, "the Novus Ordo, properly celebrated, a much richer expression of worship;"

That doesn't mean that Archbishop Chaput declaration in question is sound.

Anyway, Pope Francis' teaching in regard to the death penalty, rather than Monica Migliorino Miller's opinion in question, is that to which we must submit.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

In terms of Arcbishop Chaput and many others, thoroughly orthodox, one can make the case that the Novous Ordo is a richer expression of worship if by rich one means more Masses available, more styles of music, for variety of languages, richer lectionary, more prefaces, more Eucharistic Prayers, and more options where options are allowed.

The SSPX is or was in schism when their bishops were excommunicated to include Lefebrve, but once that was lifted, no formal schism although they are on the fence in this regard.

MT, what would you suggest to your Catholic general who in wartime and in a devastated country has to arrest a dictator who is a war criminal and there is no way to keep him
in a secure prison because there aren't any and a military tribunal has to put him on trial and pass sentence of death because he could continue his annihilation of innocent people?

And the fact the pope does not say capital punishment is intrinsically evil but only inadmissible, a very weak, non theological term, like saying making an F on an exam is inadmissible (not allowed).

John Nolan said...

Mark Thomas

What do you understand to be Pope Francis's teaching in regard to the death penalty? What do you make of the terms 'inadmissible' with regard to the death penalty, and 'inviolable' when applied to the lives of the guilty? Miller is asking these questions; why aren't you? It is her arguments that you should be considering, not her opinions.

If, after looking at the arguments, you reach the conclusion that they don't sustain the interpretation that PF is attempting to introduce new doctrine by the back door, then we are all (PF included) submitting to the perennial doctrine of the Church.

Which begs the question - why change the passage, knowing that it would be controversial?



And if he isn't introducing new doctrine

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

Bravo!

Dan said...

EVERYTHING coming from this Vatican is poorly written and subject to a variety of interpretations. But I think think is done purposely.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

“Liberals . . . REJOICE about killing millions on innocents in the womb.”

This Trumpian-type comment is outrageous. I am not a “liberal” (whatever this slur is intended to mean) but if I were I would find your comment disgusting and highly offensive and I would demand that you justify it with evidence (and insist that you not trot out selective and proof texted edits from Michelle Wolf videos again).


Dan said...

BTW Mark Thomas, you are very fond of pointing out that Crd. Burke said that the SSPX is in schism. As was pointed out, this WAS the case at one time. Context of quotes that someone uses to "prove" a point are very important.

Have you found any recent comments of Crd. Burke concerning the canonical status of the SSPX?

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

I don't need to trot out Michelle Wolf, I can use Nancy "Pelosian" statements. She prattled on how abortion was sacred ground to her:

The list of outrageous statements by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, a Roman Catholic, is unending. Her statements—and actions—advancing abortion have been nothing short of astounding, and extremely damaging. They are scandalous. But her latest comment may be her worst yet.

Asked why she refuses to support a bill banning late-term abortions, Pelosi said: “As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me…. This shouldn’t have anything to do with politics.”

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

I don't need to trot out Michelle Wolf, I can use Nancy "Pelosian" statements. She prattled on how abortion was sacred ground to her:

The list of outrageous statements by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, a Roman Catholic, is unending. Her statements—and actions—advancing abortion have been nothing short of astounding, and extremely damaging. They are scandalous. But her latest comment may be her worst yet.

Asked why she refuses to support a bill banning late-term abortions, Pelosi said: “As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me…. This shouldn’t have anything to do with politics.”

Gene said...

Anon 2, Howdy. Long time no see and we are about due for lunch again...now, perhaps "rejoice" is a bad choice of words, but there are a large number of so-called "pro-choice" people for whom abortion is their single issue. Many of them are quite aggressive and strident in their rhetoric, as well. So, TJM's statement is not hyperbole if you consider the zeal of the pro-abortion crowd. Is the comment Trumpian because, as with many of his comments, there is much truth beneath the stridency....probably. That liberals might find the comment disgusting and highly offensive is kind of the point, no?

Mark Thomas said...

Dan, you said that there was a time when the SSPX was schismatic. I don't recall that Rome ever declared that the SSPX had fallen into schism.

Anyway, in 2017 A.D., Cardinal Burke declared that the "Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Abp. Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff."

"And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that's under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X."

The SSPX is schismatic, according to Cardinal Burke's last public declaration in regard to the Society's canonical status.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Adam Michael said...

"If the death penalty 'attacks' the 'inviolability of the person,' then it is a sin."

God bless Monica Migliorino Miller for getting to the essence of the catechism revision. Instead of focusing on the meaning of "inadmissible," which means "forbidden" and, of itself, is ambiguous since things may be forbidden for all sorts of reasons, some practical and temporal, others essential and perennially valid, Miller examines the catechism revision statement in its totality, and thus arrives at the fundamental part of the statement. By teaching that the death penalty is forbidden because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person, Pope Francis is teaching that the death penalty in its essence (he did not mention extrinsic circumstances, but taught regarding the "death penalty" in its abstract and general form) is a sin since the Church considers all violations against the human person to be violations of the moral law. Unless there are non-sinful attacks on human dignity, the death penalty is now being taught to be a sinful act. Consequently, this means that the Church erred in discerning the intrinsic morality of capital punishment in the natural law (what else in the natural law may be similarly misunderstood?) and that the whole Mystical Body of Christ permitted and even required belief in what really was a sinful affront to human dignity because it really did not know better. Faced with such a reality, persevere in the Faith that has been preserved and passed down in the Church.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

I am not necessarily faulting you but I could not help noticing that your second and third paragraphs are a direct lift from the following source (or perhaps from another source that repeated it verbatim as often occurs it seems), which I happened to notice when I researched the point about Pelosi and read the source:

https://catholicexchange.com/abortion-nancy-pelosis-sacred-ground

As to the merits, you appear to be referencing a 2013 exchange Pelosi had with a reporter. Here is a transcript and a video of that exchange:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/13/pelosi_on_abortion_as_a_practicing_and_respectful_catholic_this_is_sacred_ground_to_me.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae_8z24-a3E

Pelosi became very emotional during this exchange. I can see why. The reporter framed his question as a comparison between the criminal trial of abortion provider Kermit Gosnell and House sponsored legislation prohibiting late term abortions (after 20 weeks post conception). I knew nothing about the Gosnell case until this evening. It is absolutely sickening. Here is the Wikipedia account (warning—there are some sickeningly graphic descriptions in it):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell#Regulatory_and_legislative_impact

I can’t be 100% sure but Pelosi seems to have become confused (perhaps because she was so visibly upset). I say this because she seems to think that the House bill bans all abortions not just late term abortions and that the reporter was trying to trap her by positing the “extreme case" of late term abortions. If this interpretation is correct, it casts her remarks about “sacred ground” in an entirely different light from the way the “attack media” have presented it, especially in light of her remarks about bearing five children of her own. Once again, then, it seems that context is everything!

Anonymous 2 said...

Hello Gene:

Yes, we are due for lunch again. I will look forward to it and will email you about arranging a time.

We can of course discuss the matter further over lunch, but for now I can see that the point of TJM’s language might be to provoke outrage, and indeed that it might even be helpful if done as an act of love in the way that Jesus sought to awaken the scribes and Pharisees through His own hyperbolic language (snakes and vipers, etc.). However, while Jesus may have been able to pull this off, I suspect that when we try it the result is more likely to be a doubling down and yet another obstacle placed in the way of “liberals” being able to “hear” the message the Church is trying to communicate. And the further result of this counterproductive setback in the battle for hearts and minds, I fear, will be more, not fewer, abortions. Although I may be wrong about it, that is my concern.


TJM said...

Gene,

You da man! With ZERO evidence, the left can call you Hitler, Racist, Mysogynist, Zenophobe, etc., but if you call them by their true names, they go bonkers. Anonymous 2 may not know this, but when Obama was a state senator in Illinois he voted against legislation requiring healthcare providers to provide healthcare to a baby surviving an abortion and told the press that he wanted abortion freely available (emphasis on free) so his daughters would not have to pay for a 'mistake." Quite the guy! Of course, Hillary said the unborn have no rights until they draw their first breath at 9 months, and lest we forget, their favorite "charity" Planned Parenthood made a lot of money selling body parts from aborted children. Yes, they are WONDERFUL people. Now who is Hitler?

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."MT, what would you suggest to your Catholic general who in wartime and in a devastated country has to arrest a dictator who is a war criminal and there is no way to keep him in a secure prison because there aren't any and a military tribunal has to put him on trial and pass sentence of death because he could continue his annihilation of innocent people?"

1. I would recall the teachings of Popes Francis, Benedict XVI, and Saint John Paul II.

We know that which Pope Francis has taught.

-- Pope Benedict XVI: 2011 A.D., Exhortation AFRICAE MUNUS: "Together with the Synod members, I draw the attention of society’s leaders to the need to make every effort to eliminate the death penalty and to reform the penal system in a way that ensures respect for the prisoners’ human dignity."

-- Pope Saint John Paul II, January 27, 1999 A.D: "I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary."

I would recall also the powerful support that, beginning with Venerable Pius XII, our Popes have offered to the United Nations Organization.

Therefore, Father McDonald, I would refrain from executing the dictator in question. I would turn to the United Nations Organization to assist in the detention of the dictator in question.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald your question that concerned the dictator/war criminal inspired me to recall that Pope Venerable Pius XII provided us with the solution to your question...actually, the solution that would have prevented the dictator in question from having committed war crimes.

Perhaps the world will someday implement the beautiful peace plan that Pope Venerable Pius XII offered to the world.

Pope Venerable Pius XII, Christmas Address 1956 A.D.

"No one expects or demands the impossible, not even from the United Nations; but one should have a right to expect that their authority should have had its weight, at least through observers, in the places in which the essential values of man are in extreme danger.

"This organization ought also to have the right and the power of forestalling all military intervention of one State in another, whatever be the pretext under which it is effected, and also the right and power of assuming, by means of a sufficient police force, the safeguarding of order in the State which is threatened."

"...We desire to see strengthened the authority of the U.N. especially for effecting general disarmament which We have so much at heart, and on which We have already spoken in other discourses."

"In fact only in the ambit of an institution like the United Nations can the promise of individual nations to reduce armament, especially to abandon production and use of certain arms, be mutually exchanged under the strict obligation of international law."

"Likewise only the United Nations is at present in a position to exact the observance of this obligation by assuming effective control of the armaments of all nations without exception..."

"The acceptance of the control is the point crucial for victory, where every nation will show sincere desire for peace."
================================================

May the world implement the above peace plan promoted by Pope Venerable Pius XII.

May the world, in adherence to Pope Venerable Pius XII's great peace plan, surrender control of all armaments to the United Nations Organization.

May the United Nations Organization serve as the world's police force, as Pope Venerable Pius XII envisioned.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Dan said...

Mark Thomas, you're right. Silly me and Crd. Burke for thinking there is anything questionable about bishops being ordained without Vatican approval. After all, the Francis has decided to allow the Chinese government to appoint them.

Anonymous said...

Pelosi is right---but not for the reason she may think. A ban on late-term abortions indeed should not be about politics---it should be about human dignity and respect for our Judeo-Christian heritage. What is political about that? Did we pass civil rights laws in the 1960s because of politics, or because it was the right thing to do?

Of leading Catholic politicians these days, she probably ranks as the worst of the "cafeteria Catholic" crowd---but of course not the only one! I would add Joe Biden to the list, though he is not in office anymore. Certainly Andrew Cuomo (remember "I am personally opposed, but..." daddy, Mario Cuomo, back in the 1980s?)

TJM said...

MT,

The United Nations has become a kleptocracy whose armed forces have raped women in Africa, and it is rabidly pro-abortion. Get a grip on reality. I am sure if Pius XII were alive today he would condemn this phony organization with vigor.

John Nolan said...

Pius XII's comments (Xmas 1956) were made shortly after the Soviet Union, a founder member of the UN with a seat on the Security Council, had brutally crushed the Hungarian uprising. The eighty-year-old pontiff's views on the UN are so out of touch with reality that one can only attribute them to the deterioration of his faculties following his severe illness in 1954.

He was elected on the eve of the Second World War and of course yearned for peace. But his 'peace plan' is nothing of the sort - a plan must be viable, and his patently is not.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark:

For all the Church's history, building on the Bible, the teaching was that the death penalty, used rightly, was morally good.

According to you, the pope now teaches it is now morally evil. And we must accept this.

How did the pope acquire to declare what had been good to be evil? Please cite chapter and verse.

Fr Martin Fox said...

...acquire the power to declare, I meant...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...


On one hand, I am glad the pope used junk theology in changing the catechism because a more intellectual pope/theologian down the road can clarify things. I suspect this will happen in the future, God willing.

The word inadmissible is problematic. But what is good is that the pope did not call the death penalty "intrinsically evil." How could His Holiness say so if in fact the Church allowed the death penalty for centuries although more recently narrowing down its use to specific crimes or people, or circumstances.

But let's face it pro-choice Catholics are always using exceptions when it comes to innocent life in the womb. The Church does not allow and never has allowed exceptions for innocent human life to be destroyed in an abortion, no matter how the conception took place or how deformed the child in the womb might be or even for the health of the mother. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Progressive Catholics do not agree with the absolute no exceptions.

But I suspect they do agree with Pope Francis about no exceptions for the death penalty.

And thus, in a way we have more leverage against dissenting Catholics in terms of the no exceptions for abortion for the innocent now that they have their no exceptions for the guilty in the use of the death penalty.

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald, I appreciated your question:

"MT, what would you suggest to your Catholic general who in wartime and in a devastated country has to arrest a dictator who is a war criminal and there is no way to keep him in a secure prison because there aren't any and a military tribunal has to put him on trial and pass sentence of death because he could continue his annihilation of innocent people?"

Father, one thing about which I'm not certain in regard to your question:

If the Catholic general/new government (or opposition government/group that had formed against the dictator/war criminal) had the means to secure the arrest of the dictator, who (the dictator) is then placed on trial...

...wouldn't that suggest that the new/opposition government (or group) also had the means to secure the dictator's/war criminal's confinement?

At any rate, the Church urges us to seek non-lethal ways, rather than capital punishment, to secure justice.

Again, our holy Popes, beginning with Venerable Pius XII, have promoted the United Nations Organization as the way to secure peace. I stand with our holy Popes in their efforts to secure peace for our world.

1. Surrender all armaments to the United Nations Organization.

2. Establish a United Nations universal police force.

3. Utilize the U.N. the very moment when disputes within and/or between nations, appear to unleash the scourge of war.

I stand with our holy Popes who have exhorted us to abandon the death penalty, as well as war.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

MT,

Don't you read or can't you comprehend basic facts? I already commented that the UN police force RAPED women in Africa, it's rabidly pro-abortion, etc. In addition it routinely condemns Israel, the only democracy in the Mideast, for terrorism, while totally ignoring the real terrorists. You live in a fantasy-land and the sentient among us will never take you seriously so long as you ignore reality. If Pope Pius XII were alive today, he would almost certainly condemn the modern UN for its pro-abortion stand alone, let alone its antisemitism.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"For all the Church's history, building on the Bible, the teaching was that the death penalty, used rightly, was morally good."

Morally Good, or morally tolerated?

Sentient One said...

"You live in a fantasy-land and the sentient among us will never take you seriously so long as you ignore reality."

Someone who thinks Breitbart is a good source of factual information isn't in a position to accuse others of living in a fantasy land, nor in a position to be taken seriously.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

As I recall, the Obama episode is more “nuanced” than you present it. It is also quite complicated and technical. As best I can tell, however, Obama does seem to have been guilty of some dissembling on the matter. What do you make of the following account?:

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/

The Clinton episode is likewise more “nuanced”:

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/04/hillary-clinton-roundly-criticized-for-referring-to-the-unborn-as-a-person/

Similarly, the Planned Parenthood episode is also more “nuanced”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy

My intent is not to defend Obama, Clinton, or Planned Parenthood but to defend the truth and maintain Catholic credibility. Not only is it morally right to be honest, it is also wise to be honest. Catholics must maintain credibility or else the argument is lost almost before it begins (FAKE news and all that).

TJM said...

Anonymous 2, the New York Times aka Hell's Bible is not a credible source. I live in Illinois and no, the Obama situation is NOT more nuanced. I could tell you things about HIM that would make your hair curl. Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, was pure evil. She viewed African Americans as "weeds" that needed to be excised although there has been an attempt by lefties to rehabilitate her because of the "agenda. In terms of "factcheckers" there was an article just the other day which showed many "fact"checkers" are just lefty shills and engage in opinion rather than correcting facts.

Bottom line: the modern Democratic Party supports, aids and abets intrinsic evil such as abortion and gay marriage. How a Catholic in good conscience could cast a vote for that crew defies belief.

TJM said...

Sentient Kavanuagh,

But my source is not Breitbart, but if yours is the New York Times then you are living in fantasyland - it's a "Viewspaper" for lefties. Rebut what I had to say about the UN, point by point, if you can. You're as bad as MT, running away from the facts and engaging in deflection.

Anonymous said...

"I know it won’t come as a shock to any of you that Breitbart News plays dirty. Still, this is a pretty amazing admission by its editor in chief, Alex Marlow, regarding its coverage of the Roy Moore race:..." Rod Dreher, American Concervative, 23 Dec 2017

"But speaking to CNN in a recent phone interview, Marlow took a starkly different tone. He described Moore as a "weak candidate" who "ran a terrible campaign" -- sentiments that Breitbart hadn't clued its readers into as it was serving as a de facto mouthpiece for the judge." Oliver Darcy, CNN Media,
December 20, 2017

"Breitbart's Astonishing Confession - The editor of the right-wing news site admitted that its coverage of a major political campaign was dishonest, but the news barely made a blip in conservative media outlets." Conor Friedersdorf, the Atlantic, Dec 29, 2017




Anonymous said...

Mr. Nolan, it is preposterous to pretend that Pope Venerable Pius XII's positive view of the United Nations Organization is attributable "to the deterioration of his faculties following his severe illness in 1954."

In 1939 A.D., Pope Venerable Pius XII called for the establishment of a "new order of the world" via an international organization akin to the United Nations Organization.

Pope Venerable Pius XII, from the dawn of the United Nations Organization, had throw the Holy See's support behind said organization.

Pope Venerable Pius XII...

-- 1944 A.D. "The decisions already published by international commissions permit one to conclude that an essential point in any future international arrangement would be the formation of an organ for the maintenance of peace, of an organ invested by common consent with supreme power to whose office it would also pertain to smother in its germinal state any threat of isolated or collective aggression. "

"No one could hail this development with greater joy than he who has long upheld the principle that the idea of war as an apt and proportionate means of solving international conflicts is now out of date."

-- Address to delegates of the fourth annual Congress of the World Movement for Federal Government, April 6, 1951:

"Your movement, gentlemen, dedicates itself to realizing an effective political organization of the world.

"Nothing is more in conformity with the traditional doctrine of the Church, with her teaching concerning legitimate or illegitimate war, above all in the present emergency.

"It is necessary, therefore, to arrive at such an organization, if for no other reason than to put an end to the armaments race in which for many tears peoples have been ruining and exhausting themselves through sheer waste."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

From 2017 A.D.

Is there really a definitive teaching of the Church on capital punishment?

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/11/10/is-there-really-a-definitive-teaching-of-the-church-on-capital-punishment/

Dr. Robert Fastiggi is Professor of Systematic Theology, at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Adam Michael said...

"Morally Good, or morally tolerated?"

Anything that is morally tolerated by the Church is morally good since the Holy Bride of Christ, which is the Holy Catholic Church, cannot approve and tolerate that which is not intrinsically good, holy, and meritorious. For this reason, anything which is morally good is capable of increasing charity and all the virtues since all that is good possesses an interior orientation toward God in virtue of its fundamental goodness.

Mark Thomas said...

Father Fox said..."According to you, the pope now teaches it is now morally evil. And we must accept this."

"Francis is within his office to make such a prudential judgment and enshrine that judgment in the Catechism..."

https://catholicmoraltheology.com/death-penalty-development-a-conditional-advance-of-justice/

Barrett Turner is assistant professor of theology at Mount St. Mary’s University, Emmitsburg, MD. He received his Ph.D. in Moral Theology/Ethics from The Catholic University of America in 2015, writing on religious liberty and doctrinal development. His interests include Catholic social thought, early modern scholastic political theology, the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, and bioethics.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Father Martin Fox said..."Mark: For all the Church's history, building on the Bible, the teaching was that the death penalty, used rightly, was morally good.
According to you, the pope now teaches it is now morally evil. And we must accept this. How did the pope acquire to declare what had been good to be evil? Please cite chapter and verse."

Father, it is not according to yours truly. It is according to the Vicar of Christ
It is according to the Apostolic See.

Chapter and verse. Okay.

Father Fox, please read from Luis F. Cardinal Ladaria, S.I., CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty

Excerpts:

-- 7. "...the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine."

-- 8. "All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium."
==========================================================

Thank you, Father Fox.

The True Church has assured us that Pope Francis has not contradicted "the prior teachings of the Magisterium."

As children of God, we are called to obey our Heavenly Father who has commanded us to submit to the teachings of the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

MT, the Venerable Pius XII would NEVER accept the current UN, pro-abortion, anti-semitic, pro-rape organization. Get lost, you are an embarrassment to any thinking, spiritual Catholic. Does George Soros, lefty, lefty, lefty, pay you to post here? Bellum

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Bottom Line: Please refute the factual claims made in the sources I cited rather than vaguely impugning the credibility of those sources. Also, please cite the sources for your own assertions about Obama and about the sources I cited so that we can evaluate those assertions.

On second thought about one of your assertions—You inevitably lose the argument on a technicality: You could not tell me things about Obama that would make my hair curl. I have very little hair to curl. It is yet more FAKE news to imply that I have. -:)

Gene said...

RE: Morally good/tolerated....A better term would be morally just. If we view the death penalty and other severe penalties for crime
from a theological standpoint, then we must understand that God is both righteous and just. But, we also must understand that the death penalty, which I believe is warranted in many cases, is also a judgement upon our society and a reminder that we, too, are under judgement. The fact that we need the death penalty, indeed that we need prisons at all, is a judgement on man's failure. God's justice is far different from our justice and it is true and infallible...unless you believe that the justice handed out down at the courthouse and up at the Supreme Court is the same justice Amos and Hosea are talking about. We must be humbled by the truth that, even as we judge righteously and according to the law, we stand under a judgement that is both more just and more harsh than any we can mete out. In fact, we have no recourse before God except the grace of Jesus Christ, freely given...God's final judgement upon His creation.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

The New York Slimes is evil and not credible. End of discussion

Fr Martin Fox said...

Mark Thomas:

In all charity, either you are extremely naive, or you are duplicitous. I can see no other explanation for your responses.

Out of charity, I will opt for naive; which you must be if you actually think the pope can declare what previously was good, is now evil.

Sorry, but he cannot do that, any more than he can declare an eighth sacrament.

And, yes, the Church has taught -- as has Scripture -- that recourse to the death penalty is "good" -- because it has been taught as a matter of justice.

I am not for the death penalty, but that perhaps virtuous position of mine does not entitle me to pretend what is true, is not true, when it is inconvenient. And the very inconvenient fact -- for you, for me, and for Pope Francis, is that the constant tradition of the Church has always taught, based on Scripture, that use of the death penalty can be morally licit and just, and the civil authority properly can exercise this power. Pope John Paul II reaffirmed this.

But what Pope John Paul II said was that, granting that the death penalty can be used, he argued that, given the times and circumstances, we would be better off not doing so. If we can avoid it, we must.

In other words, JPII made a clear distinction between the morality question -- what is good or evil -- and the prudential question of what's helpful in the here-and-now. This distinction is essential and cannot be omitted. Pope John Paul II clearly understood that, when he addressed the second question, he was not intruding on the first. In short, he knew that while he argued against using the death penalty, he lacked the authority to undo the determination of it under the first question.

As far as I can see, that remains the status of the question; a pope can argue very strenuously against using the death penalty, and give powerful reasons why we will all be better off if societies leave it on the shelf. But what no pope -- because no one -- can do is to declare as evil, what previously had been good.

And it's clear Pope Francis knows this, because he could have said the death penalty is "intrinsically evil." He did not. He created a new and entirely undefined category of "inadmissible." Clear enough in ordinary language, but not clear at all in the precise language of moral theology.

I am forced to conclude that Pope John Paul II's distinctions and language remain operative, and Pope Francis' actions represent a more emphatic expression of Pope John Paul's desire for the maximal minimization of the death penalty, and that is all.

And I predict that, sooner or later, this will be clarified.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

And here is recent commentary on your beloved Times:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/new-work-times-thinks-anti-white-racism-doesnt-count/


Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Fr. Fox, I agree with you and I hope and pray that Cardinal Ladaria allowed this "junk word" inadmissible to be used because he knows that the current pope can backtrack and clarify or a future pope could do so. "Inadvisable" would have been a better term. And to say "Pope Francis' actions represent a more emphatic expression of Pope John Paul's desire for the maximal minimization of the death penalty, and that is all." would have been wonderful. But alas!

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

So, it will be evident to all readers that you are unable or unwilling to refute and address the merits. In short, you are not interested in serious conversation. What exactly_are_you doing on this Blog?

As for the National Review piece, which I have now read, here is some recent commentary on commentary such as that in the piece you cited:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17648566/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-twitter-andrew-sullivan

https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/8/8/17661368/sarah-jeong-twitter-new-york-times-andrew-sullivan

I had never heard of Sarah Jeong before your post, and I do not subscribe to the NYT. It simply came in the Google search for the Hillary Clinton comment.

I am very sympathetic to the argument in the second piece: #NeverTweet. But this is of course very difficult for most people nowadays, especially as we now inhabit a “twitocracy” led by the Twitter-in-Chief, aka Twit-in-Chief, Donald Trump.

I have never tweeted and never will. I do not even really understand what a tweet is, nor do I care to understand what a tweet is. As best I can tell, it seems to be quite an evil thing.