During her last illness, St. Therese of Lisieux could not retain food so she could not receive Communion. She told her sisters, "Without a doubt, it's a great grace to receive the sacramehnts; but when God doesn't allow it, it's good just the same; everything is grace." (Last Conversations)
This is a good analysis that highlights the big difference between obedience to the Church and personal opinion. Having been founded by God and assured of its continuing existence through the ages, obedience to the Church involves obedience to her founder. On the other hand, personal opinion is subject to personal will and as the will is more focused on the ego, rather than the divine, the decisions made are more or less fallible and never perfect.
Obedience to the Church traces its roots to the obedience that Jesus constantly displays in doing the Father’s will. Besides our Blessed Mother Mary, the saints are the best example of how to exercise this obedience to the Church.
It can easily be argued that the consequences of deciding to rely on personal opinion, instead of relying on obedience to God, traces its root to the personal decision made by fallen angels not to obey God’s will when tested, and then repeated by Adam and Eve when tempted by the serpent.
Whenever Church critics come up with supposedly “ingenious” ways to question Church authority and that of the pope and the magisterium in full obedience, it’s a reminder of the temptation that our first parents were subjected to. They’re mostly variations of what Frank Sheed calls “nonsense” on the part of the critic when attempting to discredit or undermine a Church or papal decision (cf Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed, ch 2 and 3).
Before deciding to question any of the pope’s decisions, any person must have a deep understanding of the tremendous difference between obedience and personal opinion. Then have the wisdom to apply it correctly.
But what if a pope taught that there are 4 persons in the Trinity? Or that Jesus was God (but not man)? You would a. cease to believe in Catholicism? Or would you b. say that Vatican I was flawed, and that the pope was in error. A Popes power has limits. He cannot contradict scripture on faith and morals (which is why he can’t declare the DP to be intrinsically evil or sinful), end of story. A pope who contradicts scripture in a pope in error, it’s happened before, numerous times throughout history. Way too much stock is put into the papacy - Catholicism doesn’t hinge on the papacy. Good luck!
The logical answer, assuming the truth of Catholicism, would be a and b at the same time, as well as their negations. This is because anything can be implied from contradiction or falsehood. The problems with such a question is that it contains in itself a contradiction. Structurally, it's not unlike the question about if God is all-powerful, can he create a stone he cannot lift. This question can be reduced to: If God is all-powerful, can he be not all-powerful?
The Church both teaches the infallibility of the Pope + due ascent to ordinary magisterial teaching as well as the Trinity. If we want to avoid contradiction, then we must hold that something that is blatantly against tradition wouldn't even be stated by the Pope in an official teaching capacity.
Like with the stone, the question reduces to something like: If the Church is infallible, would she be correct if she taught error? Observe that such a question is already on its face absurd.
Now, people who see seeming tensions, in order to resolve the conflict, will often chip at the Pope's authority, but they should checking, more so if not as much, to ensure that their own understanding of the doctrine is accurate, especially when the tension has to do with some details..
Exactly. When traditionalists ask these questions, they are attempting to introduce a type of scenario that I believe to be impossible, but that they believe has already happened.
The idea that "the death penalty is inadmissible" is perfectly reasonable to me, and I have no trouble accepting the Church's logic about how it is a development in continuity with Tradition. Traditionalists find the teaching impossible to accept.
This is not a situation in which I find myself. My point is that if I did, then I would have to grapple with the fact that I *dissent* from Church teaching.
I have a few options: (1) I can submit to the teaching as best I can, and pray for the grace to accept it in mind and will (probably the best option), (2) I can refuse to assent to it but remain in the Church, and essentially become a a "cafeteria Catholic" like 95% of Catholics, or (3) if the situation became intolerable, I might conclude that the Church isn't true and search elsewhere.
Denying the *fact* of the teaching, however, and belligerently arguing that the teaching isn't "true" Church teaching is both illogical and a bit narcissistic.
You have free will and can *respond* to the teaching in whatever way your conscience tells you. But you don't have any control over the teaching. The teaching is settled. It's up to you whether you will accept or reject it.
The death penalty is inadmissible yes - but it’s not a sin. And it’s not a sin to support it. The pope has no power to deem it a sin as God deemed the DP good and instituted it in various ways for those who broke the moral “Law”.
The most a pope can say is that we don’t need it, as we can lock someone up securely - but that’s simple false. Case in point: El Chapo, and numerous others (Camorra, mafia, cartels, terrorists) who have escaped or bribed their way out of prison in Mexico and other countries and gone in to kill numerous people. His assertion is simply wishful thinking.
Francis goes further! He’s said that life sentences should be abolished. What?! Is he that out of touch with reality?
How many lives would executing these murderers who killed after escaping have saved?
Anyone who advocates for protecting these murderers lives in my opinion, is severely misguided. It astounds me actually that the Sr Mary Pantsuit types shed tears over murderers Instead of working to end abortion (most of them actually don’t want to end it). And it’s a slap in the face to the families of victims.
Opposing Francis’ teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible is not sinful. In fact, certain people like Chapo and other mass murderers should have been executed promptly. If the reasons for not executing these vile criminals was inspired by Pope Francis, and in the case of Chapo and others, escaped and went in to cause likely hundreds of additional murders, then Pope Francis is guilty of a grace sin. Francis is detached from reality. As stated - we cannot securely hold these violent criminals in all cases - it’s a proven fact.
Plus, it’s a huge difference to dissent of a Francis teaching, that changed a 2000 (arguably 3500) year old teaching likely temporarily, as opposed to those you dissent on sexual morality like the heretical bishops of Germany.
A huge difference. One is backed by Scripture and Tradition up until Francis (or conciliar popes), the other is condemned by God himself.
Bottom line, I am done with Francis, and I openly reject Francis’ ramblings and ALL he has taught. grandmas lace? Basically insulting many hundreds of years of faithful priests who wore similar vestments? What an evil man.
Surely he wants more lavender boys like Cupich (proof incoming I hear), McElroy, Queen Gregory etc. Surely this is why Barron was banished.
I’m going to go on a limb: Francis has stacked the COC but it won’t matter - he’s insulted and damaged so much that the next Pope will not be a friend of the Left wing “Catholic” or Francis. Guaranteed.
Mr. Sheehan, by even asking such a question, have you not denied the teaching that the Church is indefectable? Read Michael Davies' book about this doctrine. I'm sorry, but even by the teachings of one of our most prominent traditionalists, your position is still wrong.
Let me make it clear, I am not speaking of Francis - who I think is a horrendous pontiff who has a progressive ideology that he’s too afraid to implement, so he calls up the bullpen of progressives like his newest US Cardinal. Francis speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and really, I don’t care what he says or what he writes as it doesn’t effect me - and if I want to make money trading crude oil futures, I’ll do so without a care in the world (5 days a week!). I can care less if a murderer is put to death. It’s not my business. But he is the pope, and if he says the DP is inadmissible, then it’s inadmissible - but it’s not a sin - it cannot be deemed a sin. To do so wouldn’t indict God himself. Moses. Many prior popes.
Regarding my hypos… Read up on the history of popes, and you’ll see that popes have erred before and been called anathema before - by future popes. My question is sound and valid. A pope has free will, he’s not bound nor controlled like a puppet by the Holy Spirit. Such a pope that will contradict Christ (and that includes the moral Law of Moses which will never pass away) may be around the corner if the very heretical German prelates are elected. A pope cannot do what he wants - he cannot contradict Christ or the Law. Such a pope must be deposed by the Church as has happened PLENTY of times in History. This modern notion of the Pope that cannot be opposed is ludicrous. Popes have been ousted. Popes have resigned and then reclaimed the papacy.
Also, something permissible under some circumstances can indeed be sinful under others. Hence, my example about killing in self-defense. It is only permissible if the attacker is actually using deadly force, and only if there is no other way to stop him, and only if you did not want to kill him.
The Pope does have free will, as regards his personal choices, but not as regards to Church Doctrine. On that latter, he is not capable of teaching error. To deny that is to deny the indefectability of the Church. That isn't from me, that's from Michael Davies, one of the prominent traditionalist writers of the late 20th century. Surely, you've heard of him.
Pope Leo II who anathematized and condemned Pope Honorius I leads by example. Who cares what Michael Davies has to say on the matter? I might as well ask Joel Osteen.
Furthermore, Pope Honorius I is but one (there are many others) example of a pope teaching errors and heresy - Vatican I is either 1. In error or 2. Being misinterpreted. Christ, the Sacred Scriptures and Tradition that cannot be simply tossed aside by ideology. When men think they are better than God, and deem a man as having near dirty status, bad things happen. Popes are infallible only until they are in error or heresey - and then they cease to be the Pope - and it may not be during a fallen pope’s reign, or even his successors - but a future Pope has the power to anathematized said Pope. Again, ask Honorius I.
Thank you, I love Byzantine history. Now, we're on my turf! And with all due respect, you don't know history as well as you think you do. Pope Leo II added a qualification that Honorius was only condemned for not acting quickly enough against Monothelitism. And as a matter of fact, St. Maximus the Confessor defended Pope Honorius and argued that Honorius was simply misinterpreted.
Dave, you bring up a point that needs not to be glossed over, since the death penalty is one of the things that is controversial and that Mike no doubt has in mind.
We all know where recent popes have denigrated the death penalty, which many argue constitutes authoritative teaching against it. And we all know the death penalty was considered permissible for almost all of Church history, even to the point of it being used in the Papal States until their dissolution in 1870.
My question: Did past Popes or councils affirmatively teach, as a matter of faith and morals, that the death penalty for certain crimes was, in fact permissible?
That's not simply directed toward Dave, but to Mike and anyone else who can answer.
I have some thoughts on this, based on years of reflecting on the matter. Whether or not the state can kill criminals is peripheral to the main mission if the Church. As such, definining it was never a high priority. In the past, it was assumed to be permissible. Starting with JP II, however, the Popes have developed the doctrine to clarify that it is only permissible under certain circumstances that do not pertain in our world today. Because those circumstances do not pertain, it is not permissible to us. This is no different than saying that killing in self-defense is forbidden if your attacker has not used deadly force against you. The teaching about the morality of the death pwnalty is unchanged, but we now have a clarification that it is not permissible under the circumstances that pertain in our day and age.
The historic Catholic teaching of the death penalty is exactly what needs to be nailed down, whether it was taught as permissible, or merely assumed as such. I had hoped Dave would respond and clarify his remark. Possibly he was referring to Romans 13:4.
A careful reading of St John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae indicates that the death penalty can be permissible in certain instances while stating in modern society "such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent (56)."
That seems to indicate an objection to the death penalty based on prudential considerations, not that it is inherently wrong. (Compare how Evangelium vitae treats abortion).
Certainly that objection, coming from JPII as well as benedict and Francis is nothing for a Catholic to take lightly. But it seems to stop short of a definitive prohibition. And, I assure you, I do not say that lightly, having prayed and contemplated this issue for years.
It is certainly possible I might be wrong. But I'm pretty confident this is a reservation that an orthodox believing Catholic can have without being branded a "traditionalist". In the meantime, to be shown wrong, it would have to be known that what is being taught now about the death penalty does not contradict doctrine taught by the Church at any point in the past. As has been pointed out, it is not possible for the Church to change her teaching.
I don't know if the new teaching should be called "prudential," considering it factors in human dignity in its assessment of the issue. It's definitely an issue with great moral weight. The prohibition is also very clear.
What I take from reviewing the pronouncements of Francis as well as St JPII is that the prohibition is based on *modern* conditions -- either "systems of detention (Francis)" or "possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime (JPII)". That is why I use the word "prudential" because that seems to be what both Popes used in their determinations.
In both cases, the implication is that conditions allowed the death penalty to be permissible (not just to be *considered* permissible, but actually to *be* permissible) in the past, and not just in Old Testament times, but well within the history of the Church.
So I find it hard to remove the word "prudential" from discussion. The death penalty seems to be closer to the Church's "just war" doctrine, which enumerates in considerable detail doctrinal criteria for prudential consideration, than the absolute prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia.
The history of death penalty teaching also seems to be distinct from the history of the Church's stance toward slavery (about which I found a helpful article on your WPI website), which likewise developed over time but which now has no such qualification as to the condition of modern society as opposed to the past.
I think what is key to the historic teaching of the death penalty is that it never was just about giving someone his just deserts. Even the old school formulations and defenses of it involved its use in maintaining stability and security of a people.
It is also important to remember that what is at stake in terms of consistency is not just recent teaching vs medieval up to pre-VII teaching, but also Patristic teaching vs medieval teaching. Those who are more comfortable with the medieval teaching have to contend with how the fathers tended to view the DP. Even assuming some permissibility, it is clear that the fathers saw the DP as contrary to God's message of mercy (this is why I found Francis' statement of the DP as "in se" being contrary to the Gospel easy to work with). It doesn't seem honest to just glean from them that the DP was permissible.
Mind you, I think those who don't just agree with Francis but are also very comfortable with his emphases, if they want to have a bigger scope on the issue and assist those who are struggling, need to contend with the medieval developments on the death penalty and Church teaching on governance in general rather than just dismissing them. Even though I ultimately do assent to Francis' teaching, I haven't seen the biggest efforts to really *reconcile* its current emphases with its past ones. More often than not, the medieval take is treated more as an aberration rather than a development. This attitude seems off to me. The teaching on the DP stemmed both from the Church's reflections on human dignity and its reflections on governance/ power, justice, and mercy, the latter of which occurred when the Church actually had to think about politics.
Again, I do assent to the Church's teaching, and the more I think about it, the less uncomfortable I remain. But I still would like to see a little more understanding of *all* of the Church's developments, not just the ones our current culture is comfortable with.
During her last illness, St. Therese of Lisieux could not retain food so she could not receive Communion. She told her sisters, "Without a doubt, it's a great grace to receive the sacramehnts; but when God doesn't allow it, it's good just the same; everything is grace." (Last Conversations)
Wait. Did someone immediately post a question about a fourth person of the Trinity. 😂🙄
"If I had a dollar for every time someone asked me this type of question, I would have... a lot of dollars."
This is a good analysis that highlights the big difference between obedience to the Church and personal opinion. Having been founded by God and assured of its continuing existence through the ages, obedience to the Church involves obedience to her founder. On the other hand, personal opinion is subject to personal will and as the will is more focused on the ego, rather than the divine, the decisions made are more or less fallible and never perfect.
Obedience to the Church traces its roots to the obedience that Jesus constantly displays in doing the Father’s will. Besides our Blessed Mother Mary, the saints are the best example of how to exercise this obedience to the Church.
It can easily be argued that the consequences of deciding to rely on personal opinion, instead of relying on obedience to God, traces its root to the personal decision made by fallen angels not to obey God’s will when tested, and then repeated by Adam and Eve when tempted by the serpent.
Whenever Church critics come up with supposedly “ingenious” ways to question Church authority and that of the pope and the magisterium in full obedience, it’s a reminder of the temptation that our first parents were subjected to. They’re mostly variations of what Frank Sheed calls “nonsense” on the part of the critic when attempting to discredit or undermine a Church or papal decision (cf Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed, ch 2 and 3).
Before deciding to question any of the pope’s decisions, any person must have a deep understanding of the tremendous difference between obedience and personal opinion. Then have the wisdom to apply it correctly.
But what if a pope taught that there are 4 persons in the Trinity? Or that Jesus was God (but not man)? You would a. cease to believe in Catholicism? Or would you b. say that Vatican I was flawed, and that the pope was in error. A Popes power has limits. He cannot contradict scripture on faith and morals (which is why he can’t declare the DP to be intrinsically evil or sinful), end of story. A pope who contradicts scripture in a pope in error, it’s happened before, numerous times throughout history. Way too much stock is put into the papacy - Catholicism doesn’t hinge on the papacy. Good luck!
The logical answer, assuming the truth of Catholicism, would be a and b at the same time, as well as their negations. This is because anything can be implied from contradiction or falsehood. The problems with such a question is that it contains in itself a contradiction. Structurally, it's not unlike the question about if God is all-powerful, can he create a stone he cannot lift. This question can be reduced to: If God is all-powerful, can he be not all-powerful?
The Church both teaches the infallibility of the Pope + due ascent to ordinary magisterial teaching as well as the Trinity. If we want to avoid contradiction, then we must hold that something that is blatantly against tradition wouldn't even be stated by the Pope in an official teaching capacity.
Like with the stone, the question reduces to something like: If the Church is infallible, would she be correct if she taught error? Observe that such a question is already on its face absurd.
Now, people who see seeming tensions, in order to resolve the conflict, will often chip at the Pope's authority, but they should checking, more so if not as much, to ensure that their own understanding of the doctrine is accurate, especially when the tension has to do with some details..
Exactly. When traditionalists ask these questions, they are attempting to introduce a type of scenario that I believe to be impossible, but that they believe has already happened.
The idea that "the death penalty is inadmissible" is perfectly reasonable to me, and I have no trouble accepting the Church's logic about how it is a development in continuity with Tradition. Traditionalists find the teaching impossible to accept.
This is not a situation in which I find myself. My point is that if I did, then I would have to grapple with the fact that I *dissent* from Church teaching.
I have a few options: (1) I can submit to the teaching as best I can, and pray for the grace to accept it in mind and will (probably the best option), (2) I can refuse to assent to it but remain in the Church, and essentially become a a "cafeteria Catholic" like 95% of Catholics, or (3) if the situation became intolerable, I might conclude that the Church isn't true and search elsewhere.
Denying the *fact* of the teaching, however, and belligerently arguing that the teaching isn't "true" Church teaching is both illogical and a bit narcissistic.
You have free will and can *respond* to the teaching in whatever way your conscience tells you. But you don't have any control over the teaching. The teaching is settled. It's up to you whether you will accept or reject it.
The death penalty is inadmissible yes - but it’s not a sin. And it’s not a sin to support it. The pope has no power to deem it a sin as God deemed the DP good and instituted it in various ways for those who broke the moral “Law”.
The most a pope can say is that we don’t need it, as we can lock someone up securely - but that’s simple false. Case in point: El Chapo, and numerous others (Camorra, mafia, cartels, terrorists) who have escaped or bribed their way out of prison in Mexico and other countries and gone in to kill numerous people. His assertion is simply wishful thinking.
Francis goes further! He’s said that life sentences should be abolished. What?! Is he that out of touch with reality?
How many lives would executing these murderers who killed after escaping have saved?
Anyone who advocates for protecting these murderers lives in my opinion, is severely misguided. It astounds me actually that the Sr Mary Pantsuit types shed tears over murderers Instead of working to end abortion (most of them actually don’t want to end it). And it’s a slap in the face to the families of victims.
Pretty sure that attacks on human dignity (and defiantly opposing the Church's teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible) are sinful.
As for life imprisonment: https://wherepeteris.com/reintegrated-inside-or-outside/
Opposing Francis’ teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible is not sinful. In fact, certain people like Chapo and other mass murderers should have been executed promptly. If the reasons for not executing these vile criminals was inspired by Pope Francis, and in the case of Chapo and others, escaped and went in to cause likely hundreds of additional murders, then Pope Francis is guilty of a grace sin. Francis is detached from reality. As stated - we cannot securely hold these violent criminals in all cases - it’s a proven fact.
Plus, it’s a huge difference to dissent of a Francis teaching, that changed a 2000 (arguably 3500) year old teaching likely temporarily, as opposed to those you dissent on sexual morality like the heretical bishops of Germany.
A huge difference. One is backed by Scripture and Tradition up until Francis (or conciliar popes), the other is condemned by God himself.
Bottom line, I am done with Francis, and I openly reject Francis’ ramblings and ALL he has taught. grandmas lace? Basically insulting many hundreds of years of faithful priests who wore similar vestments? What an evil man.
Surely he wants more lavender boys like Cupich (proof incoming I hear), McElroy, Queen Gregory etc. Surely this is why Barron was banished.
I’m going to go on a limb: Francis has stacked the COC but it won’t matter - he’s insulted and damaged so much that the next Pope will not be a friend of the Left wing “Catholic” or Francis. Guaranteed.
So you think Pope Francis the Supreme Pontiff, the Supreme Interpreter,Legislator and Guarantor of Faith got it wrong, while you got it right?
If Yes, then, this is no longer Catholicism but foolishness at its best.
Proof?
Read Pastor Aeturnus and the words of Jesus Himself in Luke22:32 rebuke your schismatic assertions.
Mr. Sheehan, by even asking such a question, have you not denied the teaching that the Church is indefectable? Read Michael Davies' book about this doctrine. I'm sorry, but even by the teachings of one of our most prominent traditionalists, your position is still wrong.
Let me make it clear, I am not speaking of Francis - who I think is a horrendous pontiff who has a progressive ideology that he’s too afraid to implement, so he calls up the bullpen of progressives like his newest US Cardinal. Francis speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and really, I don’t care what he says or what he writes as it doesn’t effect me - and if I want to make money trading crude oil futures, I’ll do so without a care in the world (5 days a week!). I can care less if a murderer is put to death. It’s not my business. But he is the pope, and if he says the DP is inadmissible, then it’s inadmissible - but it’s not a sin - it cannot be deemed a sin. To do so wouldn’t indict God himself. Moses. Many prior popes.
Regarding my hypos… Read up on the history of popes, and you’ll see that popes have erred before and been called anathema before - by future popes. My question is sound and valid. A pope has free will, he’s not bound nor controlled like a puppet by the Holy Spirit. Such a pope that will contradict Christ (and that includes the moral Law of Moses which will never pass away) may be around the corner if the very heretical German prelates are elected. A pope cannot do what he wants - he cannot contradict Christ or the Law. Such a pope must be deposed by the Church as has happened PLENTY of times in History. This modern notion of the Pope that cannot be opposed is ludicrous. Popes have been ousted. Popes have resigned and then reclaimed the papacy.
Also, something permissible under some circumstances can indeed be sinful under others. Hence, my example about killing in self-defense. It is only permissible if the attacker is actually using deadly force, and only if there is no other way to stop him, and only if you did not want to kill him.
The Pope does have free will, as regards his personal choices, but not as regards to Church Doctrine. On that latter, he is not capable of teaching error. To deny that is to deny the indefectability of the Church. That isn't from me, that's from Michael Davies, one of the prominent traditionalist writers of the late 20th century. Surely, you've heard of him.
Pope Leo II who anathematized and condemned Pope Honorius I leads by example. Who cares what Michael Davies has to say on the matter? I might as well ask Joel Osteen.
Furthermore, Pope Honorius I is but one (there are many others) example of a pope teaching errors and heresy - Vatican I is either 1. In error or 2. Being misinterpreted. Christ, the Sacred Scriptures and Tradition that cannot be simply tossed aside by ideology. When men think they are better than God, and deem a man as having near dirty status, bad things happen. Popes are infallible only until they are in error or heresey - and then they cease to be the Pope - and it may not be during a fallen pope’s reign, or even his successors - but a future Pope has the power to anathematized said Pope. Again, ask Honorius I.
Thank you, I love Byzantine history. Now, we're on my turf! And with all due respect, you don't know history as well as you think you do. Pope Leo II added a qualification that Honorius was only condemned for not acting quickly enough against Monothelitism. And as a matter of fact, St. Maximus the Confessor defended Pope Honorius and argued that Honorius was simply misinterpreted.
Dave, you bring up a point that needs not to be glossed over, since the death penalty is one of the things that is controversial and that Mike no doubt has in mind.
We all know where recent popes have denigrated the death penalty, which many argue constitutes authoritative teaching against it. And we all know the death penalty was considered permissible for almost all of Church history, even to the point of it being used in the Papal States until their dissolution in 1870.
My question: Did past Popes or councils affirmatively teach, as a matter of faith and morals, that the death penalty for certain crimes was, in fact permissible?
That's not simply directed toward Dave, but to Mike and anyone else who can answer.
I have some thoughts on this, based on years of reflecting on the matter. Whether or not the state can kill criminals is peripheral to the main mission if the Church. As such, definining it was never a high priority. In the past, it was assumed to be permissible. Starting with JP II, however, the Popes have developed the doctrine to clarify that it is only permissible under certain circumstances that do not pertain in our world today. Because those circumstances do not pertain, it is not permissible to us. This is no different than saying that killing in self-defense is forbidden if your attacker has not used deadly force against you. The teaching about the morality of the death pwnalty is unchanged, but we now have a clarification that it is not permissible under the circumstances that pertain in our day and age.
The historic Catholic teaching of the death penalty is exactly what needs to be nailed down, whether it was taught as permissible, or merely assumed as such. I had hoped Dave would respond and clarify his remark. Possibly he was referring to Romans 13:4.
A careful reading of St John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae indicates that the death penalty can be permissible in certain instances while stating in modern society "such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent (56)."
That seems to indicate an objection to the death penalty based on prudential considerations, not that it is inherently wrong. (Compare how Evangelium vitae treats abortion).
Certainly that objection, coming from JPII as well as benedict and Francis is nothing for a Catholic to take lightly. But it seems to stop short of a definitive prohibition. And, I assure you, I do not say that lightly, having prayed and contemplated this issue for years.
It is certainly possible I might be wrong. But I'm pretty confident this is a reservation that an orthodox believing Catholic can have without being branded a "traditionalist". In the meantime, to be shown wrong, it would have to be known that what is being taught now about the death penalty does not contradict doctrine taught by the Church at any point in the past. As has been pointed out, it is not possible for the Church to change her teaching.
I don't know if the new teaching should be called "prudential," considering it factors in human dignity in its assessment of the issue. It's definitely an issue with great moral weight. The prohibition is also very clear.
I've written a little bit on that in the past.
https://wherepeteris.com/is-catholic-teaching-against-the-death-penalty-optional/
Mike,
Thanks for the response and the link.
What I take from reviewing the pronouncements of Francis as well as St JPII is that the prohibition is based on *modern* conditions -- either "systems of detention (Francis)" or "possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime (JPII)". That is why I use the word "prudential" because that seems to be what both Popes used in their determinations.
In both cases, the implication is that conditions allowed the death penalty to be permissible (not just to be *considered* permissible, but actually to *be* permissible) in the past, and not just in Old Testament times, but well within the history of the Church.
So I find it hard to remove the word "prudential" from discussion. The death penalty seems to be closer to the Church's "just war" doctrine, which enumerates in considerable detail doctrinal criteria for prudential consideration, than the absolute prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia.
The history of death penalty teaching also seems to be distinct from the history of the Church's stance toward slavery (about which I found a helpful article on your WPI website), which likewise developed over time but which now has no such qualification as to the condition of modern society as opposed to the past.
I think what is key to the historic teaching of the death penalty is that it never was just about giving someone his just deserts. Even the old school formulations and defenses of it involved its use in maintaining stability and security of a people.
It is also important to remember that what is at stake in terms of consistency is not just recent teaching vs medieval up to pre-VII teaching, but also Patristic teaching vs medieval teaching. Those who are more comfortable with the medieval teaching have to contend with how the fathers tended to view the DP. Even assuming some permissibility, it is clear that the fathers saw the DP as contrary to God's message of mercy (this is why I found Francis' statement of the DP as "in se" being contrary to the Gospel easy to work with). It doesn't seem honest to just glean from them that the DP was permissible.
Mind you, I think those who don't just agree with Francis but are also very comfortable with his emphases, if they want to have a bigger scope on the issue and assist those who are struggling, need to contend with the medieval developments on the death penalty and Church teaching on governance in general rather than just dismissing them. Even though I ultimately do assent to Francis' teaching, I haven't seen the biggest efforts to really *reconcile* its current emphases with its past ones. More often than not, the medieval take is treated more as an aberration rather than a development. This attitude seems off to me. The teaching on the DP stemmed both from the Church's reflections on human dignity and its reflections on governance/ power, justice, and mercy, the latter of which occurred when the Church actually had to think about politics.
Again, I do assent to the Church's teaching, and the more I think about it, the less uncomfortable I remain. But I still would like to see a little more understanding of *all* of the Church's developments, not just the ones our current culture is comfortable with.