Inadmissible?
There are a few problems I have with the following Vatican statement on the catechism's revision on the death penalty. Let me post the revision from the Vatican with its brief commentary:
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
My comments and questions:
Who is depriving the guilty of the possibility of redemption? In fact, a Catholic about to go to the gallows can be assured of redemption if he has repented, gone to confession, and accomplished his penance. If he has received a "plenary indulgence" worthily, he can also be confident of no time in purgatory. The death penalty may well be the catalyst to his redemption which he might not otherwise consider. Also, doesn't our all powerful God know the future, what might have happened if one's life wasn't "unjustly" cut short?
Just a bit of anecdotal evidence, when I was pastor in Augusta, I offered a Requiem for a parishioner who had been condemned 13 years earlier to the electric chair in South Carolina. After exhausting all possible avenues to have the penalty removed to life in prison, he was executed. The man executed was not the same man who committed a triple homicide 13 years earlier. I believe he should have had the death penalty sentence commuted to life without parole. But even here the pope seems to be opposed in life without parole.
Secondly, how in the name of God and all that is holy can the pope or any member of the clergy be secure in saying the following: more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens (from convicted criminals, i.e life in prison)?
With today's technology, who is to say that it can't be smuggled into the most secure prison for a serial murderer, the mafia or a terrorist the likes of Ben Laden who can then orchestrate more horrors from behind the bars??????????????????????????????????
I think in the case of mafia crime bosses, heads of terror groups and murderous dictators, the danger of manipulation of their supporters from behind the bars is a greater threat today than in medieval times.
This brings up the concern of many faithful Catholics today, that the hierarchy is more concerned with those who harm people than those who are harmed. If from behind the bars, a mafia boss orders his henchmen who are free to execute me, then what about the victim or potential victims????????
I fear, with all the horrible scandals of sexual abuse by bishops and priests that once again a message is sent that there is more concern for victimizers than for victims and potential future victims.
There are a few problems I have with the following Vatican statement on the catechism's revision on the death penalty. Let me post the revision from the Vatican with its brief commentary:
2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
My comments and questions:
Who is depriving the guilty of the possibility of redemption? In fact, a Catholic about to go to the gallows can be assured of redemption if he has repented, gone to confession, and accomplished his penance. If he has received a "plenary indulgence" worthily, he can also be confident of no time in purgatory. The death penalty may well be the catalyst to his redemption which he might not otherwise consider. Also, doesn't our all powerful God know the future, what might have happened if one's life wasn't "unjustly" cut short?
Just a bit of anecdotal evidence, when I was pastor in Augusta, I offered a Requiem for a parishioner who had been condemned 13 years earlier to the electric chair in South Carolina. After exhausting all possible avenues to have the penalty removed to life in prison, he was executed. The man executed was not the same man who committed a triple homicide 13 years earlier. I believe he should have had the death penalty sentence commuted to life without parole. But even here the pope seems to be opposed in life without parole.
Secondly, how in the name of God and all that is holy can the pope or any member of the clergy be secure in saying the following: more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens (from convicted criminals, i.e life in prison)?
With today's technology, who is to say that it can't be smuggled into the most secure prison for a serial murderer, the mafia or a terrorist the likes of Ben Laden who can then orchestrate more horrors from behind the bars??????????????????????????????????
I think in the case of mafia crime bosses, heads of terror groups and murderous dictators, the danger of manipulation of their supporters from behind the bars is a greater threat today than in medieval times.
This brings up the concern of many faithful Catholics today, that the hierarchy is more concerned with those who harm people than those who are harmed. If from behind the bars, a mafia boss orders his henchmen who are free to execute me, then what about the victim or potential victims????????
I fear, with all the horrible scandals of sexual abuse by bishops and priests that once again a message is sent that there is more concern for victimizers than for victims and potential future victims.
52 comments:
So basically Francis is saying that the Church was wrong for 2000 years. Are to wake up one morning to find that Francis has decided that there are two persons in the trinity or four, do I hear five. He has no authority to change doctrine. He is formally teaching heresy. Is he stil pope? And will any bishop defend the teachings of the Church and name Francis the heretic that he is.
It isn't on the same level. Moral teachings are always more fluid and open to further development, such as issues concerning genetic manipulation, hydration, feeding tubes and the like.
Inadmissible is an interesting term too. It isn't theological at all but disciplinarian and ambiguous. Forbidden would have been much clearer, no?
In the pope's view mercy needs no justice. This flower power mentality refuses to accept that justice can mean respecting the dignity of all people in society, of the victims as well as the criminals. There are cases where justice demands placing the soul of the criminal directly at the mercy God for the sake of the common good, actually allowing him a share in the kingdom through his repentance(assuming one believes in an after-life in the first place, something that this change seems to cast doubt on). A dilemma? Yes, but where is the discernment here that considers this dilemma in individual cases? Why is the pope making such rigid rules? Or, is the assumption here that we need not follow such rigid rules in the first place, in which case lets get rid of rules and just have discernment?
This is a problem. How much of a problem, I haven't decided yet. It may be solveable. But this is not a smooth move.
Sale on all catholic teaching in aisle 666 - everything must go!
CCC 2267 p 3 "Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
(68 refers to John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56. 69 Cf. Gen 4:10.)
"...are very rare, if not IN PRACTICE nonexistent" is a better translation than "practically" which can mean "almost."
"So basically Francis is saying that the Church was wrong for 2000 years."
No, he's not.
To say what you think he's "basically saying" the Pope would have to say, "The state has never had a right to use the death penalty." or "The Church was aware of the dignity of criminals, but chose to overlook this dignity." or "There are no other means of punishment/rehabilitation available under any circumstances." or something else.
Yes, the dignity of all people in society must be respected, including that of the criminal. The dignity of a human as human is not set aside or reduced because that person has committed a terrible crime.
Principles stand even when circumstances test those principles. If you are opposed to his teaching because some criminal MIGHT get a gun in prison or MIGHT escape, then you ought to be opposed to the death penalty because some innocent person MIGHT be convicted and executed.
Bottom line, though, is that execution does not deter criminals. If it did then countries that execute criminals should have lower capital crime rates than those who do not, and that is not the case.
Next...Pope Francis will "change" Church teaching in regard to Confession an penance. "Modernist" Pope Francis will declare that it's unnecessary to impose upon the Faithful harsh penances that last for years. Oh, that's right...that teaching was "changed"
Well...Pope Francis next will "change" the Church's teachings related to the Eucharistic midnight fast. Oh, yeah...Pope Venerable Pius XII changed those teachings.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Not to worry. The "leading" "traditional" Catholic bloggers/Twitter folks have rejected Pope Francis' teaching in regard to the death penalty.
Example: Rorate Caeli has informed the Church and Faithful that Pope Francis "is in open violation of the authority recognized to him by Christ and His Church throughout the ages:"
We are free to ignore Pope Francis' teaching in regard to the death penalty, according to Rorate Caeli.
Rorate Caeli has spoken, the case is closed. Rorate Caeli sits on the Throne of Saint Peter.
Uh-oh...as Rorate Caeli noted in 2012 A.D:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/11/love-pope-no-ifs-and-no-buts-for.html
"...whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope." (Pope Saint Pius X.)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bee here:
Dan at Aug. 2, 2018 at 2:15 pm...
Good one.
God bless.
Bee
MT other popes were at least Catholic.
The papal apologists have already come out....Why do we not just state it as it is?....The teaching HAS changed. Prudential judgments shouldn't be in a book designed to organize the TEACHINGS of the Church.
It's rather interesting how this has come out within a relatively short time of the McCormick situation. It's as if it's a designed to be a distraction from the perverted ones in the hierarchy.
Enough with the BS....May his pontificate be short, and another take his office ASAP....
Without the death penalty, we do not have our redemption in Christ. I can't with this pope anymore.....not that I've been able to.....
"Without the death penalty, we do not have our redemption in Christ."
I have never read a more absurd, more bizarre statement on this blog.
The Roman Catechism of Trent on the Execution of Criminals:
...“The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.” ...
Blessed Pope Pius IX, the longest reining pope. 32 years, 1846 -1878.
Pope Pius IX convened the First Vatican Council in 1869, decreed papal infallibility, and defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
He ordered several executions in the Papal States
Pope Saint Pius X in his Catechism, 1908
“ It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war and when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime.” (Answer to question 3 - Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?)
Pope Pius XII in 1952
“Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life … by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.” - Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328
Pope Francis revised Church teaching on the Death penalty in the Catechism.
It has been revised before;it can be revised again.
'more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens': If those systems do not fulfill their expectation, what then ??
And:
'it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person': why should the dignity of one individual outweigh the dignity and rights of the one who has been transgressed eg Murder
Best explanation of the change I have read is from Fr. J. Scott Newman, cited with permission to Fr. Dwight Longenecker:
https://dwightlongenecker.com/do-you-have-to-accept-the-popes-death-penalty-decision/
Mark Thomas
I have pointed this out to you before, but Rorate Caeli is a discussion forum which reflects the views of those who contribute to the discussion; it does not purport to be an authority on anything.
Its most recent (indirect) contributor was St Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church. Whatever his own views on capital punishment might have been, his answer is in line with the teaching of the Church since apostolic times. John Paul II was personally opposed to the death penalty, but acknowledged that the traditional teaching of the Church (traditionalis doctrina Ecclesiae) did not exclude (non excludit) recourse to it.
So, PF's comment that 'the Church teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible' is either incorrect in point of fact, or is meant to promulgate a new doctrine, which even you have to accept is not within his competence.
You are fond of quoting Pius X: 'Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope' as if it means we have to agree with whatever a pope says or does. Many would argue that Pius X's revision of the breviary was unwise; that Pius XII's allowing Bugnini to mutilate the liturgy of Holy Week was a gross error of judgement; and as far as Paul VI is concerned his poor judgement on many issues is legendary.
Are you not even slightly uneasy regarding PF's choice of advisors and confidants? (Kasper, Danneels, Baldisseri, Spadaro, Forte, Fernandez, to name but six.)
PF also believes that the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina, and those Argentine soldiers who were killed in 1982 were 'defending their homeland' rather than participating in an illegal (according to the UN) invasion of the sovereign territory of another.
But since he is an 'oracle of God' he must, in your eyes, be above criticism, whatever he may say or do.
Fr. J. Scott Newman gave a local interview to a television station in Greenville, SC which is owned by the same company that owns WTOC in Savannah and there is news sharing between these stations. So the interview was shown last night and was very good I thought as well. If I can find the interview on line I will post it
Mark Thomas said... "Not to worry. The 'leading' "traditional" Catholic bloggers/Twitter folks have rejected Pope Francis' teaching in regard to the death penalty."
https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfworthycom.htm
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Confirmed by Pope John Paul II
3. 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. 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.
It appears that Pope St. Pius IX is no longer Catholic.
I wonder, given Pope Francis' allowance for different conferences of bishops to have for different teachings on Communion to protestant spouses and for those in irregular unions, that the same will be applied to this teaching?
John Nolan said..."I have pointed this out to you before, but Rorate Caeli is a discussion forum which reflects the views of those who contribute to the discussion; it does not purport to be an authority on anything."
Mister Nolan, Rorate Caeli has lied repeatedly about Pope Francis and additional Churchmen who have not marched in lockstep with Rorate Caeli's right-wing views.
Rorate Caeli has pretended repeatedly that they've espoused authentic Catholic teaching...to the point that they've promoted mutiny against the Holy Father, Pope Francis.
That is the case currently as in regard to the story at hand, Rorate Caeli declared yesterday that the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, "is in open violation of the authority recognized to him by Christ and His Church throughout the ages:"
Rorate Caeli, who sits obviously on the Throne of Saint Peter, informed Catholics yesterday that they (Rorate Caeli/the Faithful)have every right to resist Pope Francis' God-given authority to teach, govern, and sanctify the Holy People of God.
Rorate Caeli has, time and again, promoted fake news (lies). Rorate Caeli has, time and again, performed Satan's work as Rorate Caeli has led Catholics to believe that the Church of Rome teaches "errors"..."errors" that Catholics have the right to ignore/reject.
Oh, yeah...Rorate Caeli has also been keen to have blocked on their Twitter feed those who've exposed Rorate Caeli's lies/two-faced actions.
Anyway...Jesus Christ has assured us that those who hear Pope Francis' voice, as well as the voices of bishops in communion with Pope Francis, hear also Jesus Christ's voice.
Rorate Caeli, as well as additional "leading" "traditional" Catholic bloggers/Twitter folks, don't possess the slightest authority within the Church.
The Holy People of God reject Rorate Caeli's garbage and venom that Rorate spews daily at His Holiness Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Dan, it is acceptable for a Pope to "change" Church teaching as long as said Pope is "Catholic." Is that your stance?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Did not Jesus die on the Cross? Death penalty...How doea that not make sense? I cant ..Chriat deatroyed Death by His death...It seems to me, not only can this pope put his foot in his mouth via a plane, now hes made it official teaching as well...hes done the impossible, take a matter of prudential judgement, and codify absolute opposition...even Pope JPIi didnt go that far. (Judgements, prudential or otherwise shouldnt be in a catechism anyway)...
DJR, what you posted differs radically from "traditional" Catholic bloggers/Twitter folks who yesterday (such as Rorate Caeli) who declared that Pope Francis "is in open violation of the authority recognized to him by Christ and His Church throughout the ages:"
There is a difference between that which Cardinal Ratzinger said versus certain "traditional" Catholics who foment mutiny against the Vicar if Christ, Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
John Nolan,
MT is a left-wing loon, that's why he adores PF who is a big time lefty. Instead of getting misty eyed over hard hearted and cold blooded murderers, PF should be raining down anathemas on fake catholic politicans who uphold abortion as some kind of sacrament. Liberal "logic" is an oxymoron
Hey you New York Times worshippers, this should give you pause:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/lets_all_thank_sarah_jeong_for_showing_us_what_liberals_think_of_white_people.html
First, it is given that under the previous catechism (that sounds odd, doesn’t it?) a Catholic must at least prefer to not use the death penalty if not actually reject it. Secondly, the legal system can release people who kill again. This is not to conclude that we should have a death penalty merely to stop people from killing, but that we must change our system of parole to meet the currently incorrect description Pope Francis gives to claim a system that can safely retain any criminal, no matter how determined. So the problem before the arrogance of changing the catechism is the ignorance of the situation.
Mark Thomas said..."Rorate Caeli has, time and again, promoted fake news (lies)."
The person who runs Rorate Caeli would not be the only person who has problems with lies.
Mark Thomas said... "Right-wing bloggers will publish every fake news, vile lie that they can find to defame the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.
However, the right-wing bloggers in question will never...ever...ever promote Pope Francis' condemnations of abortion...right-wing bloggers refuse to publish Pope Francis' Apostolic Blessings in support of pro-life marchers. Right-wing bloggers will never, ever promote Pope Francis' declarations in favor of marriage between a man and woman.
Rorate Caeli publishes Pope Francis' condemnation of abortion. Title of article:
"Pope Francis: strong words against abortion."
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/09/pope-francis-strong-words-against.html
Rorate Caeli publishes pope's airplane remarks condemning abortion February 18, 2016.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-most-confusing-papal-interview-ever.html
From the Rorate Caeli article:
Pope Francis: Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil.
Mark Thomas said: "Right-wing bloggers will never, ever promote Pope Francis' declarations in favor of marriage between a man and woman."
Rorate Caeli publishes pope's letter (while ordinary of B.A.) condemning same sex marriage:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/03/letter-of-cardinal-bergoglio-to.html
Rorate Caeli publishes prayer for Pope Francis:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/p/oratio-pro-summo-pontifice.html
Lifesite News article May 1, 2017: Pope Francis praises pro-life cause: "There is no more important work."
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pope-francis-praises-pro-life-cause-there-is-no-moreimportant-work.
Lifesite News article August 3, 2016: Pope Francis: "Teaching kids they can choose their gender is terrible."
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-denounces-idea-of-gender-choice
Lifesite News article June 17, 2014: Austrian bishop: "Pope Francis told me gender ideology is demonic."
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/austrian-bishop-pope-francis-told-me-gender-ideology-is demonic.
Mark Thomas, April 7, 2016 at 3:45 PM: "We can employ traditional Catholic terms without having to resort to name-calling and the spewing of venom at sinners."
Mark Thomas, July 11, 2017 at 11:22 AM: "The right-wing Catholic blogs are utterly pathetic. They are cesspools. They are satanic."
He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.
Mark Thomas in my opinion a pope's role especially includes guiding the faithful in the Catholic faith.
The blog owner, and a priest as well, mentions in a comment above, that Francis allows "different conferences of bishops to have different teachings..."
This isn't very catholic even in the sense of "catholic" meaning universal. This is "shepherding" by someone intent on destroying catholicism.
I suppose MT thinks he is one of 'the holy people of God' (that's if MT actually exists - his posts are so repetitive and formulaic that they might well be computer-generated).
Be that as it may, Rorate has published two articles on the catechism issue, which has ramifications far beyond the question of capital punishment. Neither was particularly venomous, and neither was garbage. In fact, the concerns voiced were those raised last October by the learned Fr Hunwicke (and others) when PF first made the contentious remarks.
Nor does either article make any statements which are untrue. The second has a long quotation, in Latin and English, from St Alphonsus Liguori, whose feastday happens to be 2 August, and which is germane to the argument.
I suspect MT has his own reservations about PF's latest move, but would rather shoot the messenger than deal with the message. He is hampered by his extreme and indeed heretical notion that every time the Pope opens his mouth, we hear Jesus Christ.
We have had over five years to evaluate the Bergoglio papacy and many of us find it wanting on a number of levels. That doesn't mean we harbour any personal animosity towards the Pope. He may really believe that his opinions have the force of law; he may have convinced himself that he has the power to overturn established doctrine; it is quite possible that he is unaware of what the Church actually teaches.
Making a virtue out of vagueness and refusing to confirm the brethren is bad enough. But writing, in the Catechism no less, that 'the Church teaches X' when she clearly and demonstrably does not, and never has done, is to cross a red line. The repercussions have only just started.
Let's hope that MT's 'holy people of God' will include some prominent individuals who, like St Athanasius, are prepared to speak truth to power.
The "traditional" Catholic bloggers/Twitter folks whose pronouncements that I've read today have continued their assault against the Vicar of Christ in regard to Pope Francis' teaching on the death penalty.
The "traditional" Catholics in question have mutinied against Pope Francis...and informed Catholics that it's acceptable for the Faithful to mutiny against Pope Francis.
I stand with our Holy Father, Pope Francis.
May God grant Pope Francis many blessed years.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"Mark Thomas, July 11, 2017 at 11:22 AM: "The right-wing Catholic blogs are utterly pathetic. They are cesspools. They are satanic."
DJR, thank you for having posted that. My comment was posted to the following from Father McDonald:
http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2017/07/fake-news-secular-and-religious-its-got.html
FAKE NEWS, SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS--IT'S GOT TO END, PRAY GOD!
We all know that so much of the 24 hour a day news on the cable news shows and on network broadcast stations is fake news. CNN has been caught in the act.
But the same is true about some right wing Catholic blogs who report hearsay and malicious gossip about Pope Francis and others in the hierarchy, but particularly Pope Francis. I would say that in days gone by this could have led to excommunication of Catholics. Perhaps it should return and with a vengeance.
1Peter5 has a remarkable story today that I would classify as fake news. It is scurrilous and not worthy of Catholics reporting such nonsense as news when it is simply fabrication.
================================================================================
Yes, DJR, one right-wing "traditional" Catholic blog/Twitter page after another is a cesspool...satanic.
Daily they spew lies about and venom at the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.
Time and again they've refused to call attention to his "orthodox" declarations as that would ruin their false narrative about Pope Francis.
Yep...they perform Satan's work.
When, for example, "traditional" Catholic Rotate Caeli declared the following two days ago, they performed Satan's work:
Pope Francis "is in open violation of the authority recognized to him by Christ and His Church throughout the ages:"
Pax.
Mark Thomas
John Nolan said..."You are fond of quoting Pius X: 'Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope' as if it means we have to agree with whatever a pope says or does. Many would argue that Pius X's revision of the breviary was unwise; that Pius XII's allowing Bugnini to mutilate the liturgy of Holy Week was a gross error of judgement; and as far as Paul VI is concerned his poor judgement on many issues is legendary."
Mr. Nolan, none of the above examples constitutes "dissent from the Pope."
It is acceptable for a Catholic to express respectfully his opinions, for example, as whether Pope Venerable Pius XII's radical liturgical reform was wise...whether said reform benefitted the Church.
It would be unacceptable should a Catholic declare that Pope Venerable Pius XII's liturgical reforms constituted heresy...or that Catholics are free to revolt against Pope Venerable Pius XII."
Expressing opinions in respectful fashion about Pope Francis' teaching on the death penalty is one thing...
...it's another thing to declare that Pope Francis' teaching in question is heretical or, as Rorate Caeli said, Pope Francis "is in open violation of the authority recognized to him by Christ and His Church throughout the ages:"
Thank you, Mister Nolan. Peace to you and your family.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"The blog owner, and a priest as well, mentions in a comment above, that Francis allows "different conferences of bishops to have different teachings..."
Were this true, it would be highly problematic and, not Catholic.
It is, however, not true. It is uninformed hyperbole.
""Without the death penalty, we do not have our redemption in Christ."
Your assumption seems to be that God could not - COULD not - have chosen to bring about our salvation without the death penalty being imposed on Jesus.
Is that assumption correct?
Mark Thomas said: "When, for example, 'traditional' Catholic Rotate Caeli declared the following two days ago, they performed Satan's work..."
Lying about others is also Satan's work, and you have told falsehoods about "right wing bloggers" on this very blog. Here's an example:
Mark Thomas: "However, the right-wing bloggers in question will never...ever...ever promote Pope Francis' condemnations of abortion...right-wing bloggers refuse to publish Pope Francis' Apostolic Blessings in support of pro-life marchers. Right-wing bloggers will never, ever promote Pope Francis' declarations in favor of marriage between a man and woman."
The links listed in the prior post demonstrate that the above statement is a lie.
Matthew 7:5 comes to mind. See also John 8:44 for what Our Lord has to say about that.
The person who runs Rorate Caeli is in communion with Pope Francis, as he has made clear numerous times, and your position is that, if he is in communion with Pope Francis, he is orthodox.
That's your position.
You have stated that dogma-denier Hans Kung is orthodox and that abortion-voter Robert Drinan was orthodox. If they are/were orthodox, so is the RC blogger.
(Incidentally, you've also stated that you're not confused about the Catholic Faith, but your statements regarding what constitutes orthodoxy demonstrate that you are indeed extremely confused, as Hans Kung meets the definition of heterodoxy if anyone does.)
I wish you peace as well, but I also wish that you would not lie about others you oppose. What justification is there for that?
I have read Steve Skojek's article in 1Peter5 (An Opening of Pandora's Box), which MT claims is 'scurrilous', 'fake news' and 'fabrication', checked out his sources and verified his quotations. I can only assume that MT either has not read it, or has read a different article. Its arguments are sound. Its conclusions, though highly disturbing, are valid and compelling. I challenge MT to refute any of them.
If Skojek infers that the statement represents a 'flat-out contradiction of dogma' then he is giving a conclusion based on his understanding of the evidence; and if he is correct (he doesn't claim he is) then such a statement would constitute material heresy, as defined theologically. This is not to say 'Pope Francis is a heretic', although those like MT who see everything in simplistic terms would no doubt read it as such.
To dissent means to disagree. PF has said that possession of nuclear weapons is immoral. I happen to disagree. PF said in October 2017 that the death penalty was 'inadmissible in all cases'. I also happen to disagree. However, when it is stated in black and white that 'the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible', does my repectful disagreement with PF's opinion now become dissent from Church teaching? The answer must be 'no', since a) the Church has always taught otherwise, so the statement is factually incorrect or b) it is an entirely novel teaching which contradicts (rather than develops) previous doctrine, and since the pope does not have the authority to do this, the statement does not require assent; indeed, dissent would be imperative, whatever one's own opinion on capital punishment.
The last executions in the UK took place 54 years ago this month. Yet opinion polls show that half of the population would like to see capital punishment brought back for at least some murders. I would agree in principle, but not in practice (it would throw up no end of difficulties, not least those of legal definition). One effect of abolition is that life sentences are much longer nowadays. In the 1950s a reprieved murderer could be out in ten years, and who was reprieved and who was hanged depended on a number of seemingly arbitrary factors. Now judges set minimum tariffs of 20, 30, even 40 years, and in a few cases life actually means life.
Finally, regarding redemption. In 1961 the investigative journalist Ludovic Kennedy wrote the book '10 Rillington Place' which purported to prove that Timothy Evans, hanged in 1950, was innocent. Evelyn Waugh wrote that most people had missed the point. 'Evans, a lapsed Catholic, was hell-bent. As a result of his conviction he was reconciled to the Church and died shriven.'
John Nolan said..."I have read Steve Skojek's article in 1Peter5 (An Opening of Pandora's Box), which MT claims is 'scurrilous', 'fake news' and 'fabrication', checked out his sources and verified his quotations. I can only assume that MT either has not read it, or has read a different article."
Mr. Nolan, I believe that what you had read is that which Father McDonald had said last year in regard to a fake news story that 1Peter5 had promoted...
"Source: Before Dismissal of Cardinal Müller, Pope Asked Five Pointed Questions"
https://onepeterfive.com/source-before-dismissal-of-cardinal-muller-pope-asked-five-pointed-questions/
The Vatican Press Office, as well as Cardinal Gerhard Müller, declared that the story was garbage.
However, 1Peter5, continued to promote the lies in question.
1Peter5 has, time and again, promoted trash to defame and dehumanize the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.
1Peter5 traffics in trash.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mr. Nolan, I just read the beginning of the 1Peter5 story that you referenced: An Opening of Pandora's Box.
1Peter5 said that in regard to Pope Francis' CCC/death penalty teaching, "this represents a flat-out contradiction of dogma and, as such, a material heresy."
To believe 1Peter5's vile declaration in question, we must conclude that...
-- The Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, traffics in heresy, according to 1Peter5.
-- The Catechism of the Catholic Church traffics in heresy, according to 1Peter5.
Sorry, but 1Peter5 traffics in trash.
1Peter5's declaration in question is satanic.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Fr. McDonald stated that the Church often develops moral teachings. This is true, but with an important caveat. The development that one witnesses with moral teachings pertains to their temporal application, not the doctrinal essence of what is right or wrong. For example, the development of new weapons or forms of warfare, a new form of family planning (as initially was the birth control pill), advances in science pertaining to the time of ensoulment, etc. would be subject to scrutiny by the Church in order to determine its relationship to the moral teaching, itself (what is just warfare is approved; what is contraception is condemned; what is abortion is condemned). However, never has the Church sought to move a general action (not dealing with its historically malleable application) from the category of the condemned to that of the approved, or vice-versa. If the Church possesses such power, logical consistency dictates that any moral prohibition is subject to a development that reverses the fundamental goodness or evil of an action to its opposite. All that is required is the acquiescence of a majority of people positioned in ecclesial authority. One of the practical and tragic results of this relativization of morality is that disturbed individuals begin to accommodate morality to their evil desires, as have many scandal-plagued prelates of the Church, who more times than not tell their victims that what their abuse is holy and God’s will. If what was good, in principle, yesterday, is essentially evil tomorrow or vice-versa, how can we confidently refute this perversity? By accepting the fundamental evolution of ethical norms, far from providing a response to child abuse, we create the atmosphere of moral evolution that makes the worst abuses possible.
Mark Thomas,
The length of penances or the form of the Eucharistic fast are examples of Church disciplinary laws that have not only varied across centuries, but in some cases, were always geographically varied. These are not doctrinal teachings of the Church.
Dan,
No fire sale for Catholic items yet, my friend. The more the post-Vatican II materials (e.g. the rite of the Consecration of Virgins and now the Catechism of the Catholic Church) are altered in ways unpalatable to the remaining future churchgoers (read conservatives and traditionalists), the easier it will be for the traditionalists to replace them when they rise to authority in the Church. The same was true of the revelation that one of the key advisors at Vatican II (and drafter of conciliar schema), Gregory Baum, was an active homosexual. Likewise for the post-Vatican II prelates whose credibility is compromised in the massive sexual abuse crisis. It’s called “taint” and it is politically very powerful. Expect this to have much practical import in the coming decades.
Sorry, Mark Thomas, I'm not going to let you get away with such blatant dishonesty. Yesterday (3 Aug) you wrote, somewhat ungrammatically:
'1Peter5 has a remarkable story today [i.e. 3 Aug] that I would classify as fake news. It is scurrilous and not worthy of Catholics reporting such nonsense as news when it is simply fabrication.'
Today you write:
'I just read the beginning of the 1Peter5 story that you referenced ...
In other words you only read the beginning of the article and yet dismissed it out of hand. However, given your less than exemplary command of English, I don't exclude the possibility that you intended to use the perfect rather than the imperfect tense, and are saying 'I have just [i.e. today] read the beginning of the 1Peter5 story ...' which would mean that you are prepared condemn an article in vituperative terms before you have even started reading it.
Which is it to be, Mr Thomas? Neither interpretation does you much credit.
And it should be clear even to you that the article I was referring to was not something which appeared last year.
I suggest you read the whole article before commenting on it, and when you do (assuming that you are capable of textual criticism) it would be helpful if you would desist from throwing playground insults around and instead give a measured response. How, for instance, do you yourself view this statement which is already generating great controversy? If it is merely a development of doctrine, then the question of material heresy does not arise. If it contradicts what the Church has always taught (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est), and many (not only Skojek) have concluded that it does, the implications are serious and cannot be simply brushed off.
However, it is clear that you have no intention of so doing. Your intervention at 3:26 was supposedly addressed to me, but gave no indication that you actually read my post at 12:10. If there are flaws in the arguments I made in the second and third paragraphs, then by all means point them out.
If you read Pastor Aeternus (Vatican Council, 1870) you will appreciate, more than you do now, what the pope can and cannot do.
John Nolan said..."Sorry, Mark Thomas, I'm not going to let you get away with such blatant dishonesty. Yesterday (3 Aug) you wrote, somewhat ungrammatically:
'1Peter5 has a remarkable story today that I would classify as fake news. It is scurrilous and not worthy of Catholics reporting such nonsense as news when it is simply fabrication.' "
==========================================================================
Mr. Nolan, please note that I did not write the above. Father McDonald had written the above on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 A.D.
Yesterday, I provided a link to Father McDonald's post. Yesterday, I also quoted Father's comment in question.
Mr. Nolan, here is the link to Father McDonald's post in question:
http://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2017/07/fake-news-secular-and-religious-its-got.html
Father McDonald said on July 11, 2017 A.D.: "1Peter5 has a remarkable story today that I would classify as fake news. It is scurrilous and not worthy of Catholics reporting such nonsense as news when it is simply fabrication."
Mr. Nolan, Father's comment pertained to the following fake news story that 1Peter5 promoted last year:
"Source: Before Dismissal of Cardinal Müller, Pope Asked Five Pointed Questions"
https://onepeterfive.com/source-before-dismissal-of-cardinal-muller-pope-asked-five-pointed-questions/
==================================================================
Mr. Nolan, 1Peter5 continued to promote the lies in question even though his fake news story was trashed by Cardinal Müller, as well as Greg Burke, Director of the Vatican Press office.
1Peter5 has promoted fake news (lies) stories concocted to defame and dehumanize the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
John Nolan said..."Today you write: 'I just read the beginning of the 1Peter5 story that you referenced ... In other words you only read the beginning of the article and yet dismissed it out of hand. If it contradicts what the Church has always taught (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est), and many (not only Skojek) have concluded that it does, the implications are serious and cannot be simply brushed off."
I have dismissed 1Peter5's anti-Catholic article in question.
Steve Skojec said that Pope Francis' teaching on the death penalty "represents a flat-out contradiction of dogma and, as such, a material heresy."
Steve Skojek's claim that Pope Francis, via the Holy Father's teaching in question (regarding the death penalty), has trafficked in heresy is anti-Catholic.
Steve Skojec has attacked and placed himself above Jesus Christ. Our Lord and Jesus Christ has assured us that he who hears Pope Francis hears Jesus Christ.
However, Steve Skojec has assured us that he who hears Pope Francis has not heard Jesus Christ. What we've heard is heresy, according to Steve Skojec.
Steve Skojec has attempted to trump Pope Francis' God-given authority to teach the Faith. In that regard, Steve Skojec has thrown in with Satan.
Conversely, I have throw in with Jesus Christ via Pope Francis. I stand with the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.
Mr. Nolan, do you stand with Jesus Christ, as well as Pope Francis? Or do you stand with Steve Skojec?
Mr. Nolan, do you believe that Pope Francis traffics in heresy?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"....do you believe that Pope Francis traffics in heresy?" I'm sure you mean this as a rhetorical question.
Interestingly, sedevacantists, such as the folks at Novus Ordo Watch, are "traditionalists" who, unlike such "traditionalists"/right-wingers as Rorate Caeli and 1Peter5, comprehend the Church's teachings in regard to Papal authority.
That is, sedevacantists, such as the Novus Ordo Watch folks, insist that Pope Venerable Pius XII was the "last true Pope".
However, said folks, understand — unlike such "traditionalists" as Rorate Caeli and 1Peter5 — that those who accept that Pope Francis is Pope must obey Pope Francis' teachings.
Time and again, Novus Ordo Watch, for example, has cited Church teachings that prohibit rejection of the Magisterium.
Again, even sedevacantists are aware that if one believes that Pope Francis is Pope, then God commands he or she to submit to Pope Francis' teachings.
That is Catholicism 101.
The notion that Rorate Caeli, 1Peter5, and additional "traditional" Catholics are free to recognize that Pope Francis as the Bishop of Rome while resisting his teachings is satanic.
Novus Ordo Watch yesterday cited the following Encyclical — AD BEATISSIMI APOSTOLORUM ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV, 1914 A.D. — to demonstrate the absurd notion that one is free to "recognize but resist" Pope Francis:
22. "Hence, therefore, whenever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience.
"Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church.
"All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune.
"The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says."
===========================================================================
It is satanic for a "traditional" Catholic...any Catholic...to recognize Pope Francis as the Bishop of Rome, but resist Pope Francis' teachings.
"...whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope." (Pope Saint Pius X.)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
If Pope Francis is Pope, than a Catholic must submit to Pope Francis' God-given, awesome .
Hello, Dan.
Bottom line...Catholicism 101:
If you, I, or any Catholic believes that Pope Francis is the Bishop of Rome, then we must submit to his teachings.
We are not free to "recognize but resist" Pope Francis...(the absurd belief that one right-wing, "traditional" Catholic after another has promoted throughout Pope Francis' reign).
God has empowered Pope Francis, not you, I, John Nolan, Rorate Caeli, 1Peter5, etc., to teach, govern, and sanctify the Holy People of God.
Thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ, the Church of Rome has preserved immaculate the True Religion.
To dismiss Pope Francis' official teachings as unorthodox...heresy...to claim that we are free to resist Pope Francis' Magisterium is satanic.
Dan, I hope that you stand with Pope Francis. I hope that you please God via, in childlike fashion, obedience to Pope Francis' teachings.
One either stands with the Vicar of Christ Pope Francis or Satan.
Jesus Christ's flock stands obediently with Pope Francis.
"...whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope." (Pope Saint Pius X.)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas
I stand with Pope Francis when, holding to the truth, he hands on the Catholic and Apostolic faith.
If he were to teach anything contrary to that truth, I would not stand with him. If he, or any pope, believed that he had a mandate from the Holy Ghost to formulate new doctrine, or to flatly contradict what the Church has infallibly taught via the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, I would not stand with him.
Would you? Perhaps if you could express your ideas coherently, in proper joined-up English, answer pertinent questions and advance cogent arguments to back up your statements, people might take you seriously.
I don't claim infallibility, but my ideas are my own, and if I quote anyone else I follow the established literary conventions (inverted commas, ellipsis, parentheses, attribution). Your breathless, near hysterical style, with constant repetition, absurd name-calling and failure to make it clear when you are speaking for yourself and when you quoting others, simply adds to the confusion.
I tend to agree with Mark Thomas. A valid Pope that can heretically mislead his flock until he makes ex cathedra statements (something that is not required and may not occur for entire generations) would be worse than useless - he would be a purveyor of doctrinal and moral corruption, ensured to ravage the flock through the doctrinal requirement for all bishops to teach in communion with him. And if he can regularly err without losing his office, the bishops in submission to him would commonly correct him and the person (the Pope) whom no man may judge would be regularly judged by all. This is not Catholic doctrine and practice. We must not change our Faith, but we may not sacrifice the Papacy either.
The church has never taught that any catholic must submit to every word or whim of any pope... but if you believe that MT, I hope you are practicing recycling and not using plastic bags when shopping.
Post a Comment