Maintaining peace right now is critical, even though it's tough, lest we fall in this other major sin of spiritual suicide: "Those who commit these types of scandals are guility of the spiritual equivalent of murder, but I’, here among you to prevent something far worst for you. While those who give scandal are guilty of the spiritual equivalent of murder, those who take scandal- who allow scandals to destroy faith- are guilty of spiritual suicide.”They are guilty, he said, of cutting off their life with Christ by abandoning the source of life in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. (St Francis de Sales) Many back in the days of early protestantism, seeing the scandalous behavior of clergy, broke away from the Church, today we face the same possibility with the pedofilia scandal and the scandal of prelates contradicting Church teaching.
True, but we are not now only talking about behavior, we are talking about doctrine seemingly changing - in an official way. I'll await the orthodox heavy hitters before reaching a conclusion, but my initial thoughts are ... worrisome
I find that what can cause the confusion in such pronouncements by the Pope....often times unexpected and w/o any preparation to receive them by the faithful....is that whenever the Pope seems to speak as the lone ranger on these social matters (this of course being a moral matter as well and question of justice) he speaks with a rather black and white perspective. Did this latest "done deal" blanket cover even those cultures that don't have as much ability for the means of security, housing such people, etc. as those systems that are far more sophisticated and also have the monetary means for greater protections installed? When he says that our modern times differ from what went before and so made it necessary for the death penalty rather than for the public to remain in fear, terror, or simply danger in general....I don't know if that's the case in particular those more remote areas within supposedly modern countries. So, again, should the most innocent possible victims in such situations (perhaps even other members of prison populations or those who enter for various services or the guards who have to manage things) also to be considered when making such overall "coverage"? Or are such considerations considered as getting too much in the weeds for this Pope's way of proceeding? Would any of this way of thinking be examples of those in moral charge placing more burdens upon the little ones w/o themselves having to lift a finger in order to carry out such "policies" in the real world? More than likely where this Pope lived and experienced injustices towards the poor those experiences may be forming a more overall blanket outlook for all situations. That kind of thinking seems to be similar to how he sees and classifies everyone, on one side only, of the massive immigration question, disregarding the goals of those who create abusive pathways for the vulnerable as well as endangering whole populations since he doesn't know or allow for what it takes to vet such mobs in many cases. He simply covers himself by offering platitudes like "of course there are responsibilities for the immigrants and questions of simple prudence"!
I think you meant to say "...all the rest." Not "...nearly all the rest." In regards to this issue (of capital punishment) there is no pope in the 2000 years of the history of the Catholic Church that has agreed with Pope Francis. They could not because it is a dogma of the Church. In fact he is contradicting their teachings on this issue.
I personally know the theologian Skojek quoted in his article (excerpted below), who is definitely a heavy hitter. My mind is settled. We're in a new stage in the end game now. The only thing that isn't settled is the immediate significance of a pope being a formal heretic. The traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the intrinsic morality of the death penalty is irreformable dogma. To deny this or assert the contrary is formally heretical. Catholics remain obliged to believe and accept this doctrine regardless of any changes to the Catechism. What does it mean to say that this is “formally heretical”? 1. Formal versus material heresy. This is a distinction pertaining to the objective status of doctrinal propositions. A heresy is any proposition opposed to any dogma. Two things are required for a doctrine to be dogma: (1) it must be contained in divine revelation and (2) it must be proposed as such by the Church (either by solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium). If both of these requirements are met, then the doctrine is a formal dogma, and the denial of such a dogma is a formal heresy. If a doctrine is contained in divine revelation but has not yet been proposed as such by the Church, then it can be called a “material dogma”. Such was the case with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the patristic and medieval periods. Material heresy is the denial of a material dogma. 2. Formal versus material heretic. This is a distinction pertaining to the subjective culpability of persons. A heretic is a person who believes or teaches heresy. A material heretic is a person who believes or teaches something which is objectively a heresy; a formal heretic is one who continues to do so obstinately after having been duly corrected. So in the case of the dogma of the intrinsic morality of the death penalty, the denial of this dogma is formally heretical, since it contradicts a doctrine which is contained in divine revelation and which has been proposed as such by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. The person who denies this dogma is a material heretic simply in virtue of his denial; but he is not formally a heretic unless he persists in his denial after having been duly corrected.
What is clear though is that the Church is now in a state of TOTAL confusion. The one thing I hold on to is that nothing will destroy the Church, this is God's promise and my only hope right now. “There was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens. The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicæa, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly 60 years” —Newman
I think St. Pope John Paul II, much as I admire him, vacillated a bit regarding this subject, though not to the degree of altering the Catechism. I equivocated in anticipation of someone pointing it out! But, effectively, you are dead right.
I'm no theologian, but would Our Lord choose execution by the lawful authorities of His time as His method of carrying out the most important job in the history of His universe, if such a method was intrinsically wrong?
I tend to agree with you. The only thing that stops me from stating such 100% is the way it is worded. The use of "Consequently" is cleverly used right after speaking of the effectiveness of detention systems. One could argue that is what he meant while publicly touting otherwise. It seems like it may be vague enough to pass and I doubt anyone of stature will officially set the record straight one way or another. Quite like the game played in AL.
Valid distinction. What he has done qualifies as formal heresy. Does that make him a formal heretic? When he has clearly been guilty of formal heresy, do we need someone to give us permission to call him a formal heretic? (I honestly don't know.)
He becomes a formal heretic when he persists with the heresy subsequent to having been corrected. The problem is, who is to do the correcting?
Yes, for the good of all our souls I think we should err on the side of caution in this one. In charity we cannot read the Pope's mind and we cannot absolutely know for sure that he understands the problems in what he is teaching. It is possible he thinks this is a genuine growth of what Pope St. John Paul II taught. A lot of people in the Church were extremely poorly catechized this past generation, including those now in the highest places in the Church. Best to wait to wait for acknowledgement that someone (a group of cardinals perhaps...) has spoken to Pope Francis and made him aware of all of the intricacies of the issue.
Dolours, I have to admit that when I posted that article I assumed that what they stated was not up for debate but after reading many of the posts on MOG about this subject I see that it may be. I have to sit this one out, obviously, and wait see what happens but I did find the following upon doing a very quick search about whether the Catholic Catechism is infallible. http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showr...+Sanctam&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=20 "And I do believe that the Catholic Catechism is infallible." - Dr. Carroll (4/5/2001) Warren H. Carroll, Ph.D. Warren H. Carroll was the founding President, and later Chairman of the History Department, of Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia. He is the author of the Church history series Christ the King, Lord of History and Isabel of Spain: The Catholic Queen, as well as many other history texts. While retired from Christendom College and EWTN’s Expert Forums, his knowledgeable answers continue to serve those looking for the truth. It also appears that this may be a mute point per Brian's post above, #8168 . Again, I feel as though I am way over my head and it is best that I continue to pray about this and wait patiently to see what happens.
Would Warren Carroll have attributed infallibility to a changing catechism, one that contradicted itself from one year to another?
I am not a theologian, but my understanding is that the Catechism contains many infallible teachings and it is an authoritative teaching instrument, but that it is not entirely infallible. For example they revised it after the 1983 edition because it had some errors in it. From the USCCB (Emboldened parts mine): Question: Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to that of the dogmatic definitions of a pope or ecumenical council? Answer: By its very nature, a catechism presents the fundamental truths of the faith which have already been communicated and defined. Because the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine in a complete yet summary way, it naturally contains the infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils in the history of the Church. It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms. This does not mean that such teaching can be disregarded or ignored. Quite to the contrary, the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine as an organic whole and as it is related to Christ who is the center. A major catechism, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, presents a compendium of Church teachings and has the advantage of demonstrating the harmony that exists among those teachings. http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...bout-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm
Very good point DeGaulle!! If Our Lord hadn't chosen capital punishment for our redemption,... where would that have left us? So He would have had to agree with it. Just like the belief that no one really goes to hell for eternity as that would go against a loving and merciful God. But we know as great as Gods mercy is, there is a penalty to pay for irrepentance. The death penalty is reserved for the most grievous of crimes and there should be some sort of deterrence in place in my opinion. As for Pope Francis claims that one needs time to repent of their crimes, I honestly think that facing death and the short time that is given would be more than enough to move someone to repentance if that is in their heart.
The truth is that inmates on Death Row spend years there because their lawyers file appeals and delays. The Pope didn’t mention this aspect. And I agree with you.
