Posted on 06/04/2002 6:22:31 AM PDT by aculeus
That is an instance of repitition on your part, not "question begging." I am addressing the matter of whether or not a Catholic can reject an Encyclical and Doctrine.
It appears to me you think he can if he has good reasons. Scalia rejects both the Encyclical E. V. and Catechism #2267. I say that is the act of a protestant (cafeteria Catholic) that is no different, in principle, than what Frances Quisling, the SSPX, Sinkspur (I didn't want to slight you sink) and McBrien do.
Avery Dulles holds with the papacy and the Magisterium that is development of Doctrine. I can add the names Fr Brian Harrison and Cardinal Ratzinger etc etc.
Papal Encyclicals are not intended to be disected by layman to see which parts can safely be opposed and argued about. Encyclicals are meant to be about TEACHING from the Pope not Propositions to be debated by laity and theologians who have NO Teaching authority
You cannot explain the pope's sudden and, you say, authoritative, stance on capital punishment except to invoke "authority," which is no explanation at all.
The only theologians you're going to be able to find to back your point of view are going to be lefties like Rosemary Reuther and Daniel McGuire.
If the death penalty cannot be justified under present circumstances, then should we advocate excommunication of Catholic politicians (like Frank Keating) who refuse to commute death sentences?
If an innocent helpless baby does not have the RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness,..and being treated equally, which is afforded by our Constitution, then WHO does?
Otherwise, I agree with the rest of his essay.
Any thoughts or debate on this matter? Thanks in advance.. as this area of individual rights really concerns me. These children cannot defend themselves.. I would hope our Constitution would defend them. But I read him saying it does not. How can that be??
Tenth amendment: any right not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is reserved to the states.
There is nothing in the Constitution about murder, or robbery. Those are reserved to the states. Abortion should also be a matter for the states.
I have already cited The Pope himself, Card Ratzinger, Avery Dulles and I could compile a list of all living Catholic theroogians in union with the Pope; and I STILL don't think that would unseat you from your pro-contraceptive Hobby Horse.
The Pope explained his theological reasoning in Evangelium Vitae but, as you do not accept his authority OR his Theological explanation (and why should you; you are so much MORE qualified to speak of theology than is this brilliant and Holy Pope)but rely upon your own luminous intellect, a list of faithful theologians (who have NO teaching authority)is not going to sway you from thinking this Pope doesn't understand Development of Doctrine.
I guess Pope Sinkspur stands, like Luther, outside the Church, correct?
How do YOU defend the Pope's shift, and his, IMO, weak argument from "changed circumstances"? Do you regularly accept major changes like this without so much as a whimper, or a nod toward "well, he knows better than I do"?
Should we treat politicians who support the death penalty the same way we treat politicians who support abortion?
Evangelium Vitae addresses matters of morals (Catechism 1749-1761)and the Pope's Theological explanation of the morality involved in Capital Punishment is explicated under the Rubric "Chapter 111: "You shall not kill" God's Holy Law." in the subsection "Human life is sacred and Invioable." This clearly is about morals and this giant of a moral Theologian traces the Development of Doctrine about Capital Punishment which is rejected by the strange bedfellows Scalia and Sinkspur - among many others - ESPECIALLY "conservative" Catholics.
Yes, and as part of that explanation he presumed to know the state of the American penal system and made that the rationale for his presumption that the death penalty can rarely be used, if at all.
THAT is a matter of faith and morals?
My rule of thumb is "he knows more than sinkspur..."
Has the death penalty suddenly become "killing" by the state, whereas, when the "penal system" was not as "improved" as it is today, it was NOT killing?
The Pope, like most popes before him, is a social liberal, and desires to present a "seamless garment" to the world on the matter of life. That is admirable.
But to maintain that the Church's constant teaching on the permissibility of the death is no longer valid, and, in fact, believing it is is committing a sin against faith and morals baffles logic.
Is it within the realm of possibility that the deficency lies within you and that the Pope is NOT mistaken?
You cannot explain this, rationally, can you?
I've enjoyed the repartee, but I'd sure like to read a rational explanation of the Church's sudden disapproval of the death penalty. I don't believe there is one. The Pope's is lame.
And, I suppose Scalia commits a sin when he refuses to commute a death sentence?
Yes, it's very possible. But until he or Ratzinger or someone else does a better job of explaining the rationale, I'll continue to support the death penalty.
Frankly, I haven't enjoyed it. It is ineffably sad to see a putative Catholic self-destruct and adopt protestantism and refer to the Doctrinal explanations of an intellectual giant as "lame."
Self-destruct? All you can do is throw the Pope's words at me and I'M the one who's deficient?
Supporting the death penalty is not "adopting protestantism," and you know it.
The Pope has given NO doctrinal explanations; he cites the "changed circumstances" or, rather, "the improved state of penal systems" as the reason for his changed view.
Nothing "doctrinal" about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.