God s Justice and Ours [Scalia on the Death Penalty]

First Things via Arts and Letters Daily ^ | June 4, 2002 | Antonin Scalia

[HiTech RedNeck]

So Scalia's read on the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is according to what "cruel and unusual punishment" was at the founding of the republic, progressions in moral understanding (or even the very static dictionary meaning of the word "unusual") be damned. This throws the baby out with the bath water.

[TexConfederate1861]

YES...ex-cathedra...but this was not one of those pronouncements......

[Catholicguy]

Unlike you, most of us ordinary orthodox Catholics look to orthodox theologians to teach us and resolve questions.

I, and I would hope all Catholics, consider Pope John Paul 2 an orthodox theologian

[Catholicguy]

I consider the Encyclical Evangelical Vitae both taught and resolved questions. But, I see I am in a minority here. Again, if the Pope, a Theologian with Supreme Power can't convince you, why would a theologian with absolutely no authority convince you? (still less me)

That really makes no sense (and yet I sense I have somehow begged a question)

[Catholicguy]

.Whether or not the Pope's assessment of the effectiveness of the system of incarceration in this country is or is not a matter of Catholic doctrine, i.e., taught by the Church as divinely revealed, is what we are debating

Go back and read the posts. That is what YOU are debating. Not me. My debate is about the principle whether or not a Catholic can reject an Encyclical and/or Catholic Doctrine. It isn't argueable. He can't.

If he does, and Scalia does, he is just another tray-pusher in the Catholic Cafeteria standing in line with Frances Quisling, the SSPX, McBrien (and sinkspur). Sure, he will select other "options" than do the others; but he is a Cafeteria Catholic just like the rest of them

[Catholicguy]

Magisterium of the Church, Pope Pius XII made the following clarifications on the matter: "[It must not] be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who hears you, hears me’; [Luke 10:16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." (My emphasis)[78] .

That is from my post #13. That is the focus of my arguement. As it is MY position we are talking about, I thought I would remind you of just what my position is.(I always jealously maintain I know better what I think than do others). What you are trying to attribute to me and then argue against is NOT my position or arguement.. It is one you imputed to me.

I have already said, and continue to maintain, that it is not Catholic to dissect Encyclicals and argue about specifics as Encyclicals are Magisterial Teaching. I will stick with the Popes and the Magisterium on this one.

I leave it to others to correct the Pope and accuse him of errors in the Development of Doctrine or imposing novelties

[Catholicguy]

Before I cash them in for the night, I will cite Vatican Two. In Lumen Gentium, Chapter IV, The Laity, #37; "Like all Christians, the laity should promptly accept in Christian obedience what is decided by the pastors who, as teachers and rulers of the Church, represent Christ."

Now, we can do that or we can quibble about specific entries in an Encyclical as a way to reject them. We can do that, or we can reject Doctrine contained in a Universal Catechism.

We can't do both and claim to be good Christians because IF we do as Scalia and other cafeteria Catholics do, we have usurped Divinely-constituted authority.

I guarantee you Scalia would go balllistic if some lawyer stood before him and rejected his authority but he has no problem rejecting Divinely-constituted authority.

I know I am part of an ever-diminishing minority. So be it...

[Catholicguy]

I don't kniow what else to do to convince you that Encyclicals are Magisterial teaching meant to be received by the faithful laity. I have cited Popes, the Universal Catechism and an Ecumenical Council.

Nowhere have I seen the Magisterium itself referenced wherein the Magisterium says, "Look, you read the Encyclicals for yourself and decide what is in them that you will accept or reject."

I think the Pope explained the Development of Doctrine in Evangelium Vitae. I accept it. Others don't. I argue my acceptance is in accord with what is required to be Catholic.

I note that private judgement is more and more becoming "acceptable" among my fellow Catholics. So, I guess we all are protestants now.

Scalia's Bishop ought to call him on the carpet and tell him to CAN IT. If he won't accept the authority of the Pope, Papal Encyclicals and the Universal Catechism , at the very LEAST, he should shut the hell up and stop making himself such a poor example for others. Here is famous Supreme Court Justice being publicly and loudly disobedient. Way to go, Justice.....

[Catholicguy]

I take it then, that every opinion expressed by the Pope, on any topic whatsoever, is thereby incorporated into the Magisterium?

You have GOT to be kidding. You think a Papal Encyclical is just the personal opinion of the Pope that can be trumped by the "personal opinion" of other "theologians?" Do you think that theologians have any Teaching authority?

I know that Scalia thinks his personal opinion is on the same level as the Pope's and so, in one sense, Scalia's public disobedience wil be useful in that it will help to reveal just how many other "Catholics" are protestants that go to Mass.

BTW, those tray-pushers in the Catholic Cafeteria no longer have a leg to stand on when they attempt to criticise other putative Catholics who reject other Encyclicals or Doctrine.

[Catholicguy]

I leave it to others to correct the Pope and accuse him of errors in the Development of Doctrine or imposing novelties

Translation: "Anyone who disagrees with my interpretation is accusing the Pope of errors in Development of doctrine or imposing novelties."

That is crazy. This isn't about MY interpretation vs yours or Scalia's, or Sinkspur's. This is about the Pope's Encyclical, Doctrine taught in the Universal Catechism. This is about the Pope's explanation of the Development of Doctrine concerning Capital Punishment and it is in Evangelium Vitae.

I know you think your arguement is with me over my (non-existent) "question begging" but the arguement, such as it is, is between those who reject this Pope's Doctrinal Teaching and the Pope. It really isn't an "arguement." What it is is an attempt to rationalise opposition to the Magisterium.

[Catholicguy]

You just can't stop begging the question, can you?

I find your irrelevant badgering about supposed "question begging" tiresome. You might think it "smart." I don't. I will follow the Magisterium and the Pope. You can follow whomever the hell you desire.

I don't dissect Papal Encyclicals and badger others to make them PROVE my personal objections to any part of an Encyclical are invalid. Papal Encyclicals are Magisterial. Put that in your "question begging" pipe.

I suggest Avery Dulles as an "orthodox theologian" who saw the Papal Encyclical as a legitimate development of Doctrine. Email him and take up your obsessive quibbling and hair-spliting with him.

I think your obsessive rhetorical tact of repetition about "question begging" is a compass indicating just how far off the true path you KNOW you are. You have made an error and instead of admitting it and going back to the right path, you will quibble the Pope has no Cartographical expertise or authority in this particular area.

If it will make you feel beter - you win. End of discussion. Enjoy the road more travelled. It is wide....

[Apogee]

hmmm - Perhaps I have been taught wrongly.
Did the church teach that the earth was the center of the universe, or is this merely a later interpretation given to perhaps add to a straw man argument? In general it is taught as part of the reasoning behind the church's position that man is the high point of God's creation - secular universities having a vested interest in debunking both of these ideas.
I am always eager for more accurate information, if it is available.