What do you think:
On one hand, I am glad the pope used junk theology in changing the
catechism concerning the death penalty 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 and ambiguous. 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 as it concerns innocent human life and they certainly believe that it should be the mother's choice whether to abort or keep her baby, which is another exception..
But I suspect progressive, pro-choice Catholics do agree with Pope Francis about NO EXCEPTIONS FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.
And thus, in a way we who believe what the Church teaches about no exceptions for abortion whatsoever for the innocent unborn have more leverage against dissenting Catholics in this regard because now that they have their no exceptions for the guilty in the use of the death penalty.
The word inadmissible is problematic and ambiguous. 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 as it concerns innocent human life and they certainly believe that it should be the mother's choice whether to abort or keep her baby, which is another exception..
But I suspect progressive, pro-choice Catholics do agree with Pope Francis about NO EXCEPTIONS FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.
And thus, in a way we who believe what the Church teaches about no exceptions for abortion whatsoever for the innocent unborn have more leverage against dissenting Catholics in this regard because now that they have their no exceptions for the guilty in the use of the death penalty.
Ultimately though, the no exception for the innocent unborn is due to the intrinsic evil of abortion in all situations. It isn't a rule, discipline or directive like changing the Eucharistic fast from midnight to three hours before Mass and then to one hour before Holy Communion. It is a matter of Church discipline, no matter the rule, that is binding on Catholics.
This change, though in the death penalty and no exceptions, is like the progression of the Eucharistic fast from midnight, to three hours before Mass and then finally to one hour before Holy Communion and even that could be relaxed further or a more rigorous fast could be instituted and to be followed under the pain of mortal sin for wantonly rejecting the legitimate authority of the Church in this regard.
Pope Francis' change in the catechism about no exceptions for the use of the death penalty is a matter of Church discipline, which nonetheless binds Catholics to accept as long as it is the discipline of the Church, but the discipline can change.
15 comments:
I doubt it because with liberals it is always the double standard, so no this will not help. If liberals didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all.
No that we are off the block, one can only imagine where we will next be lead by "junk theology". To TJM's point, we could be at the threshold of a new springtime of double standards.
Nah, I'm sure abortion is okay so long as one has discerned that this is the best option. In fact, one might say one is having an abortion "for the children" so that the current child or children may have enough over priced sneakers and video games...
Works for adultery, right?
'Pope Francis's change in the Catechism ... is a matter of Church discipline'.
No it isn't. The pope can change Church discipline. He cannot change the Church's perennial teaching on the admissibility of capital punishment. Even if every country in the world abolished the death penalty, the doctrine would stand.
"Pope Francis' change in the catechism about no exceptions for the use of the death penalty is a matter of Church discipline, which nonetheless binds Catholics to accept as long as it is the discipline of the Church, but the discipline can change."
Since when did the Church introduce a disciplinary change with the words "the Church teaches" (as happened with the catechism revision on capital punishment)? The Church only teaches doctrine, not prudential or disciplinary laws that change depending upon the will of the legislator. Likewise, disciplinary changes regarding moral actions would be limited to extrinsic evils deriving from temporal circumstances - all of which are absent in the catechism revision since capital punishment was prohibited in its totality through use a term ("death penalty") that denotes the action in its general, fundamental sense, apart from circumstances. Finally, the action was forbidden (the Latin means that "it may not be admitted" - even in theory?) due to its violation of the human person, all violations of whom are sins against the moral law. In short, this means that the death penalty was prohibited and can not even be admitted because it makes one sin. How can something that makes one sin be potentially reversed without the Church permitting evil? All of this proves that Pope Francis condemned the death penalty as a moral evil (because it attacks the human person), not as a mere disciplinary ruling.
During the past few days, I have read the writings of several theologians who have insisted that Pope Francis' teaching on the death penalty is far from "junk theology."
Beyond that, Cardinal Ladaria, for example, did not present the teaching in question as something that flowed from "junk theology."
Father McDonald, in regard to the notion that "a more intellectual pope/theologian down the road can clarify things. I suspect this will happen in the future, God willing."
I read Cardinal Ladaria's presentation of the teaching. I have read that which several theologians had written in positive fashion in regard to Pope Francis' teaching in question.
I have read the responses offered by Cardinals and bishops...and I'm not sure as to why the teaching must be clarified by a "more intellectual pope/theologian."
I am a dope. But even I have grasped the teaching in question.
After all, for decades, our holy Popes had prepared us to receive the teaching at hand.
For a great many years, it has been clear to me as to why our holy Popes exhorted us to oppose the death penalty.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas:
"I have read the responses offered by Cardinals and bishops...and I'm not sure as to why the teaching must be clarified by a "more intellectual pope/theologian."
Father McDonald, to my way of reading, did not say it MUST be changed but that it could be changed.
As Pope Saint John Paul II and now Pope Francis have both done.
The Roman Catechism of Trent on the Execution of Criminals:
...“The just use of this power[Death penalty], far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.” ...
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?)
Anonymous,
Good work.
MT why couldn't YOU find these?
Also Pius XII approved of the death penalty.
Anonymous said.."Mark Thomas: Father McDonald, to my way of reading, did not say it MUST be changed but that it could be changed."
Thank you for your response.
I thought that Father McDonald had meant that a "more intellectual pope/theologian" would better explain (clarify) Pope Francis' teaching in question.
My understanding is that Father McDonald supports Pope Francis' teaching in question. However, Father believes that His Holiness' employed "junk theology" in regard to the teaching in question.
Therefore, a future Pope who is "more intellectual" than Pope Francis will better explain the teaching in question.
I apologize to Father McDonald if I've misunderstood his comment in question.
===============================================================================
Thank you for the quotes from The Roman Catechism of Trent on the Execution of Criminals, as well as Pope Saint Pius X in his Catechism, 1908.
Cardinal Ladaria explained as to why Pope Francis' teaching on the death penalty is in perfect harmony with that which the Pope's predecessors had taught in regard to the death penalty.
Pope Francis' Magisterium will not fail us.
I am very happy and thankful to submit to Pope Francis' awesome God-given authority to teach, govern, and sanctify me.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Cardinal Ladaria claimed that the new wording represents a development of doctrine, rather than a change. However, a reading of the passage in question makes this difficult to sustain. This is how it will appear in the AAS and in the official Catechism text:
Quapropter Ecclesia, sub Evangelii luce, docet "poenam capitalem non posse admitti quippe quae repugnet inviolabili personae humanae dignitati" [1]
The vernacular versions appeared before this, and many took issue with a phrase in the Italian, directly translated into English, which suggested that the death penalty would 'definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption'. The Latin has something quite different:
'... verum nullo modo imminuant reorum potestatem sui ipsius redimendi' (and yet in no way diminish the ability of the guilty to redeem themselves). It refers to what immediately precedes it, namely modern theories (rationes) of detention. In other words, the prisoner's ability to atone for his crimes is as easily accomplished by penal servitude as it is by execution.
Then we come to the key sentence beginning 'Quapropter, Ecclesia, sub luce Evangelii, docet ...' (Wherefore the Church, under the light of the Gospel, teaches ...' and what follows is in inverted commas, since it refers to something Pope Francis said on 11 October last year. This is an odd way of presenting authentic Church teaching. It says a lot for the sloppy way
this change has been handled that the published French version uses a different quotation!
No doubt Mark Thomas believes that Francis can make up doctrine on the hoof, but the inverted commas give the lie to the preceding 'Ecclesia docet', since it can be easily demonstrated that the Church does not so teach, and never has. It to a certain extent lets Francis off the hook of formal or material heresy - neither you, nor I, nor Mark Thomas is obliged to agree with the Pope's opinion on capital punishment, climate change or whatever else takes his fancy. 'Ecclesia docet' can likewise be regarded as an opinion, and an erroneous one at that.
Unfortunately it rather undermines the Catechism as a more or less authoritative source of right doctrine. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to come in a similar vein, but rest assured it will not pass without scrutiny.
John Nolan,
Notwithstanding your lucid and cogent analysis, we will now be subjected to the ravings and various non sequiturs from MT. He will NEVER address the substance of what you are saying.
John Nolan said..."...neither you, nor I, nor Mark Thomas is obliged to agree with the Pope's opinion on capital punishment..."
Mr. Nolan, please quote the Apostolic See's declaration that CCC #2267 is just Pope Francis' "opinion."
Cardinal Ladaria said that the teaching on the death penalty, CCC 2267, reflects "the development of the doctrine on this point that has taken place in recent times."
Again, the Apostolic See declared that in regard to the teaching in question, that we're dealing with "doctrine."
However, Mr. Nolan, in regard to the topic at hand, that we've dealt with Pope Francis' mere opinion in that regard.
Cardinal Ladaria said that in "this development, the teaching of the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitæ of John Paul II is of great importance."
Cardinal Ladaria declared also that the "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."
However, Mr. Nolan, I note again that in opposition to the above, you categorized Pope Francis' teaching on the death penalty as mere "opinion." In addition, we are free to reject CCC 2267, as 2267 constitutes mere "opinion," according to you.
Cardinal Ladaria added that "number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium."
Again, Mr. Nolan, contrary to your claim in question, the Apostolic See has declared that Pope Francis' teaching in regard to the death penalty falls within the realm of doctrine.
Therefore, Mr. Nolan, why have you claimed otherwise?
Mr. Nolan, who authorized you to pass such judgment upon Papal teaching?
Mr. Nolan, when did you situate yourself on the Throne of Saint Peter?
Mr. Nolan, you have, if you will, preached a Gospel that differs from the Gospel preached by the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
TJM
I have read the above drivel from MT and thought of replying but realized there is no point in doing so. You can't reason with someone who has no intention of listening to reason.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Mr. Nolan: Translation of your reply:
You are aware, but refuse to admit publicly, that your declaration in question — that CCC, #2267 is Pope Francis' mere opinion — is false.
Pope Francis authorized Cardinal Ladaria to present the teaching in question.
Cardinal Ladaria, speaking with the Vicar of Christ's authorization, declared that CCC, #2267, concerns Church doctrine.
Therefore, your claim, that #2267 is the Pope's mere opinion, is nonsense.
Those who hear Pope Francis hear Jesus Christ.
Mr. Nolan, those who hear you, at least in regard to your declaration in question, hear false, anti-Catholic nonsense. That is a fact.
The Apostolic See has declared that CCC, #2267 concerns doctrine. That is a fact.
Mr. Nolan, it is you who has refused to listen. You have refused to listen to the Apostolic.
Pope Francis' teaching on the death penalty is related to doctrine. Holy Mother Church has assured us that the CCC, #2267, "is in continuity with the preceding Magisterium."
Pope Francis has preserved immaculate the True Religion.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas
Translation of my reply:
Non possum ratiocinari contra eum qui audire non vult.
Perhaps you can reconcile 'Ecclesia docet poenam capitalem non posse admitti' with 'Traditionalis doctrina Ecclesiae ... recursum ad poenam mortis non excludit'. 'Excludit', by the way, is present tense.
Because, if you cannot, your sainted PF is either contradicting traditional doctrine (which is ipso facto heresy) or proclaiming a new doctrine, which is outside his competence.
If there is a third interpretation, we would love to hear it. Over to you. And stop blustering incoherently - let's have some real arguments for a change.
Post a Comment