Redstate

This picture seems appropriate.

Though they bear him like a common man, he was the most uncommon kind.

if you believe that the view against euthanasia and abortion are upheld in the Bible and the Catholic faith, I would assume the primary proof would boil down to Thou Shalt not Kill.  Wouldn't that apply equally to war and death penalties?  I would think the pope was adhering closer to the stated catholic position then your view might be in this case(although I'm only making an assumption about your views, so I'm sorry if I'm mistaken)

As the term is correctly understood. The teaching against abortion is indistinguishable from the teaching against murder as a matter of infallible teaching. It is a matter of Biblical injunction and tradition.

War is handled within the same impulse, but in a different way, because the moral concerns are different, and because the historical development is different.

The death penalty had very little opposition within the Church until recently, and is explicitly a prudential judgment within the teaching of the Church (i.e., the parameters of debate are set, and there is no official, infallible position within those infallibly set parameters). See "war," above.

There's much more here, but I think you could get an idea by reading the catechism on the Vatican's web page.

I try (and occasionally fail) to tread carefully when I'm addressing the religious views of others.  And I want to note at the outset that John Paul II was worthy of deep respect, regardless of one's religious background; we should all mourne his passing.  But I'm confused by the following statement, and hope that you'll clarify it:

First, it is not "his" Catholic Church more than it is mine, unless this means "The Catholic Church under his stewardship," in which case it's still wrong, because the Church is no different than it was before him, and will be no different tomorrow.

This seems to imply both an unchanging Church and a mininal role for the Pope.  The former is clearly incorrect -- and, I have to guess, probably isn't your intent.  The Roman Catholic Church does indeed change, sometimes by demography, sometimes by direction (Vatican II, for instance).  

The latter is more understandable to me, but it still is not quite right.  It's not at all clear that another Pope would have directed so much attention to Communism or the Eastern Block countries.  Just as, previously, it's possible that a Pope other than Pius XII might have confronted Nazism in a different (and more aggressive) way.  

If you could speak a bit more to your thoughts regarding the role of the Pope in the Catholic Church, I'd very much appreciate it.

As Thomas points out there is a quantum difference in Catholic teaching between the proscription on murder, abortion, and euthanasia (the innocent, the helpless, the unwanted) and that on war and capital punishment.

So your question might be a good rhetorical device in some circles differences in those cases have been exhaustively treated within the Church over the past two millenia.

views and traditions are more subtle than "Do This" or "Don't Do This", but where I run in to problems is with the idea that while the circumstances surrounding war and the death penalty can make them morally ambiguous, there can be no recognition of similar circumstances surrounding euthanasia and abortion.          

Not to be argumentative but clearly there is a difference between killing the helpless and unwanted and defeating the Nazis or executing Ted Bundy.

There can be no justification for the first category but the very fact that innocent civilians are going to be killed in any war, no matter how just, renders it morally ambiguous by its nature.

On that subject.

In the interest of brevity and keeping my audience awake:

(1) My larger point is that the Pope does not define the Catholic Church. He may take actions, guide, and, rarely, issue infallible proclamations. He may emphasize. But the teachings of the Church are universal and not susceptible to being altered because the Pope suddenly disagrees.

(2) Of course the demographic makeup changes over time.

(3) The change accorded Vatican II is really fairly overstated. But that's a post for another time. Suffice it to say that no infallible doctrine going in was changed on the way out. Some prudential differences now exist, is all.

(4) As for Pius XII and papal decisions in general, see (1) above.

The very short of this is, that most folks assume both an outsized and undersized role of the Papacy. He's not some sort of god-king who cires Deus lo volt! (very often) and certainly not one who changes the fundamental teachings of the Church. Thus, all the talk about "whether rules John Paul II stressed, like the prohibition on abortion or birth control or women's ordination, will change," is precisely that: Talk.

On the other hand, the Pope impresses his tak on Catholicism in hundreds of ways, great and small: Through encyclicals, bulls, and other documents (with which I won't bore you now). He appoints bishops and cardinals. His word can really screw up an errant theologian's career (as some folks at Catholic U once found out).

I'm not being snide: More?

With others' ability to say in one sentence what it takes me 500 words to express.

Abortion from conception onward wasn't specifically prohibited by the church until the 19th century.  Their position has changed several times throughout the millinia.  At one point the official church doctrine was that ensoulment of the fetus doesn't occur until the quickening (when the mother can feel the child move).

The bible itself says very little about abortion, the only passage that directly mentions death of a fetus states that the offender should pay a fine to the family.

It says nothing about an intentionally aborted fetus at all.

for these rather stunning and patently false statements?

This is the position of the Catholic Church on the death penalty as per your link.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.NT

I would agree that it doesn't wholly condemn the death penalty, but for all practical purposes it does condemn it in the United States.

I mean, it's wrong, but still, it seems well-packaged.

The teaching against abortion reaches back to the first century. As a probative matter, it was difficult to establish deliberate abortion until quickening. These are two different things.

Try checking out Church reaction to the Greco-Roman practice of abortion (and birth control) and then get back to me.

Read elsewhere in thread about "not fundamentalists."

And that's your take, not mine. It is, after all, a prudential judgment.

The prohibitions on abortion and euthanasia are absolute.

Capital punishment is left to prudential judgment and no Catholic is morally obliged, again unlike when dealing with abortion or euthanasia, to be against the death penalty per se.

but at least take note that Markos isn't the author. And calling a truthful first-person report "unyielding hate" is mind-boggling. Priests raped boys, and the pope let it go on. Do I hate the pope because I made a true statement about what went on?

I think it's unlikely any pope would have directly confronted the Nazis.

The church has a long memory, and Catholics have often been persecuted when the Pope has spoken out against another government.

To name just one example, the Pope issued a Bull

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnans_in_Excelsis

against Queen Elizabeth declaring her a heretic and freeing Catholic subjects from allegiance to her, which caused a tremendous amount of harm to befall Catholics in England when it proved ineffective at ending her rule.

Unless someone hijacked the username "kos."

I never said he wrote the first link. But bonus points for illogical inferences!

If we must ascribe labels based on the hot button issues of the day, I must sadly inform you one and all that the unerring and timeless opposition to the murder of unborn children weighs more heavily on the ledger than the prudential judgment that there is no longer a need for a death penalty.

One of the more enduring accusations that "conservative" Catholics like to throw out at their more "liberal" brethren is that of being "cafeteria Catholics", choosing the parts of the doctrine they like and ignoring the parts they don't (usually those having to do with sexuality and birth control).  You seem to be doing the same here, strict adherence to the church's stance on abortion (which is not as enduring as the Church would have you believe as they have wavered on the question of ensoulment and "quickening" throughout history) allows you to pass on other aspects of the Church's teachings that would make your political views less in line with your faith (I assume you are Catholic).

The death penalty is a case in point.  The Church's stance is clear and unambiguous.  The death penalty is only justified it is necessary to prevent the condemned party from perpetrating future crimes.  If an adequate prison system exists it is never justified.  Consequently it is never justified in the United States.  The Pope's position on this could not be clearer and he personally intervened in 1997 in a Missouri death penalty case.  

Opposition to the Iraq War is also a central tenet of church teaching--and since war involves the unnecessary death of innocents (like abortion) it is as central to Church teaching as abortion.  Although you may quibble with the Pope as to his reasons for opposing the first Gulf War (although my understanding is that the Pope is infallible on issues of doctrine and therefore disagreeing with him is a sin of itself) there can not be much argument that the current war was a preventative war if not an outright war of aggression, both of which are not justified under the "just war" doctrine and consequently, rightly condemned by the Catholic Church (and not coincidently by the president's own church, the United Methodist Church).  So I really don't see how you can say that opposition to the Iraq war should not be equivalent to opposition to abortion, since both involve to unjustified killing of innocents.

Not sure what you mean.

The Churh clearly makes a distinction between the death penalty in a society that cannot protect itself from the aggressor and a society that can.  

If you believe the US can not protect itself from  criminals, aggressors, etc. by sentencing the them to a life sentence I am interested to hear why you believe that.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

Hardly the least biased source of information on the subject, but it clearly states that position of the church has changed to apply to all abortions after conception in the 19th century, and that pope gregory XIV had instituted a rule stating that only abortions after the quickening lead to excommunication.

Popes change, Bishops change, Demographics change, the vernacular might change, but the Church doesn't change.

JohnPaulII wrote

Each day the Church looks to Christ with unfailing love, fully aware that the true and final answer to the problem of morality lies in him alone. In a particular way, it is "in the Crucified Christ" that "the Church finds the answer" to the question troubling so many people today: how can obedience to universal and unchanging moral norms respect the uniqueness and individuality of the person, and not represent a threat to his freedom and dignity? The Church makes her own the Apostle Paul's awareness of the mission he had received: "Christ . . . sent me . . . to preach the Gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power . . . We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:17,23-24).

Since you've accused me of lying about it?

My point is the Vatican absolutely prohibits the dealth penalty in a society that can protect itself from the aggressors by other means.

The United States clearly falls into that category.

although my understanding is that the Pope is infallible on issues of doctrine and therefore disagreeing with him is a sin of itself

This statement alone marks you as someone who simply does not understand what they are talking about.

Go allllllll the way down. Don't pick out a bit on Papal pronouncements.

Free hint:

The early Christians are the first on record as having pronounced abortion to be the murder of human beings, for their public apologists, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Minutius Felix (Eschbach, "Disp. Phys.", Disp. iii), to refute the slander that a child was slain, and its flesh eaten, by the guests at the Agapae, appealed to their laws as forbidding all manner of murder, even that of children in the womb. The Fathers of the Church unanimously maintained the same doctrine. In the fourth century the Council of Eliberis decreed that Holy Communion should be refused all the rest of her life, even on her deathbed, to an adulteress who had procured the abortion of her child. The Sixth Ecumenical Council determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers.

It continues at some length.

Good luck.

But your initial question betrays a complete misunderstanding of Catholicism.

Then tell me what the word "authority" means to you in that context. Then, as a bonus, tell me why the second sentence does not set up a discretion, especially in light of the first sentence.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

no one even vaguely familiar with Catholicism would posit such a question.

complicated.

How do you prevent them from killing other inmates or prison staff?

No prison system anywhere or ever is or has been 100% escape proof.  

I am quite sure the Catholic Church knew this when they adopted the rule I quoted above.

Fortunately, the Vatican and I need not agree; it's a prudential thing.

 -- from the article you cite. emphasis added.

The Catholic Church has not relaxed her strict prohibition of all abortion; but, as we have seen above, she has made it more definite.



The terms "quickened" and "animation" in present usage are applied to the child after the mother can percieve its motion, which usually happens about the one hundred and sixteenth day after conception. But in the old canon law, which established the irregularity here referred to the "animation" of the embryo was supposed to occur on the fortieth day for a male child, and on the eightieth day for a female child. In such matters of canon law, just as in civil law, many technicalities and intricacies occur, which it often takes the professional student to understand fully.

Abortions are always murder.  

At the time of the Renaissance Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion with the greatest severity.[12] A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.[13] In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.[14] Pius XII clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.[15] John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life "which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator."[16] Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: "Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."[17] The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church "has not changed and is unchangeable."[18]

they prevent every other inmate from killing other inmates or prison staff.  

Protecting people from an aggressor does not mean a government has to build escape proof and violence free prisons.

The Vatican itself makes it abundantly clear that instances where it would approve of the death penalty are 'practically nonexistent.'

This is the link to the Vatican's website that Thomas provided earlier.  You can find the following there:

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

n/t

Try Exodus 20:13.

Because, I'm a confirmed Catholic and attended a Catholic elementary and High School.  I even studied Latin for a few years.  I'm pretty well versed in Catholic theology and history.

But thanks for the random ad-hominem attack.

I find consulting the Catechism first eliminates lots of disconcerting errors.

these things as overarching ideas or policies and taking specific examples as you do.  I think there is a difference between executing bundy and the possibility of executing an innocent person.  I also think there is a difference between fighting against the Nazis and invading Iraq.  I even think there are circumstances in which an abortion would be reasonable even if you thought of the fetus as a person, (if the mother would die for example).  There are always going to be mitigating circumstances when you apply a broad policy to a diverse set of situations.  Either you take the viewpoint that the circumstances dictate the reaction, or you choose one reaction and apply it to all situations.  I don't think it is possible to do both.  And as an added point, why are the lives of innocent people who die in war worth less than the lives of babies who die during abortions?

The church has a vested interest in making it appear as if their moral positions are eternal and unchanging, but the truth is that they have wavered on exactly when abortion becomes a murder.

We've already had our conspiracy theory for the day. Please confine yourself to provable facts.

I do appreciate you taking the time to answer me.  

What is prudential?  

Making a distinction is not the same thing as allowing for judgement.  

If everyone with blue eyes got to take next Thrusday off from work would you have to judge who had blue eyes?

Also, if that is your standard for prudential then the Vatican makes euthenasia a prudential thing:  

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

So much of that is so silly I don't know where to start. But here's an idea: Apply the word "intent." See where it takes you.

what you believe. Don't get me wrong. Your beliefs may be honestly and strongly held but they are hardly relevant in a discussion of Catholic theology.

I've been agnostic on religion for a decade, so I'm not really interested in what the catechism says currently.  The truth is that the Church's position only became formalized as it is today in the 19th century.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Pope Innocent III (?-1216) wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."

Early in the 13th century, Pope Innocent III stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty. Pope Gregory XIV revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he said happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

----------------

Authority means government to me in that context.

The government is the actor in the whole scenario, just as the pregnant woman is the actor when we discuss abortion.

The Vatican is saying the Government can never choose to resort to the death penalty if there are other means to keep people safe from the aggressors.

I'm not being snide: More?

No need, unless the mood strikes you (I presume that you, too, have way too much work to do advising paying clients today).  Thanks  

tiniest knowledge of or interest in Catholic theology I'd be inclined to entertain your "gotchas." But as you don't understand the issues underlying either of your points its a waste of time.

So let's make this easy. You caught us. After 2000 years someone has finally figured out that we're hypocrites.

You have to define murder as 'intentional killing of a human being' and then define a fetus as a human being for that to apply, of course, and the church has changed its position on that from time to time.

Means not dogmatically defined. I may, in a prudential setting, weigh and make an informed decision. Doctrine does not allow in its formation for discretion.

Your citation to euthanasia is either mistaken or misleading:

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons.

It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.

The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment.

Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted.

The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted.

The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable.

Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity.

As such it should be encouraged.

There is no discretion there. The closest it comes is if death is unavoidably near, you need not torture yourself against it. Bit of a leap to where you are.

it's just not in the catholic encyclopedia, for obvious reasons.

you are welcome to it.

knowledge of the doctrine of papal infallibility is a little fuzzy and I may have overstepped on that point, but let's stick with my central point shall we.

Just because you claim that the absolute most important tenet of the Catholic faith is opposition to abortion, does not make it so, nor does it give you the right to pick and choose from the rest of the tenets of the faith that do not align with your political philosophy and claim that other Catholics are bad Catholics because they are not opposed to laws permitting abortion (e.g., John Kerry).

I am not Catholic (raised Episcopalean and now Presbyterian) but I know a little bit about Catholic theology.  And to imply that there is one litmus test to being a "good" Catholic (opposition to abortion) that allows you to pass on all other doctrines--even those that are part of the Pope's "culture of life" is disigenuous.

A ruling does not a doctrine make.

A Papal statement does not a doctrine make.

I read the Summa Theologica in the original Latin. I assure you: Aquinas used the words animus and anima other than how you think he meant them.

The "quickening test" is probative, not doctrinal.

Given that I gave (secondhand) citations to original texts, you're gonna have to pardon me if I don't get all worked up about the undoubtedly deep thoughts of "religioustolerance.org."

It would appear that your upbringing didn't stick. Kinda sad, the state of catechesis these days.

I'm not discussing Catholic theology with someone doesn't understand the basics. It's a waste of your time, and more importantly a waste of mine.

Be sure to take the hat off at least overnight.

Sort of like it changed its position on the resurrection.

Heresies and the odd papal misstatement do not a change make.

help me out here.

Streiff you don't have any idea who I am.  I take offense at you assuming my religous feelings exclusively from my posts on RedState.org.  

If you don't want to entertain my gotchas then don't.  If you want to walk away from the argument by attacking the integrity of my religious beliefs instead of my argument that says more about you than it does about me.

Dragging the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, the Rosicrucians, Masons, Lizard People, or PNAC in. They've had a busy day already.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

1. I didn't address your religious beliefs. I don't care about them. You on the other hand felt fairly comfortable playing games with those of other people.
   
2. Sorry if you're offended but tough. Somehow your alleged religious beliefs are important enough to be offended over but someone else's are fair game for playing silly games. You might want to think through the logic of that for a moment or two.

And doesn't answer the question posed.

I'm not interested in starting a debate on abortion, particularly since I'm largely on your side.  But I would be interested in the Biblical support for the position that an abortion at any stage is (or is the equivalent to) the killing of a human being -- if only so that I can understand the theological support for your position.  Does it all come down to the "knew ye in the womb" passages?

that murders don't occur in prison.

Interesting. I'm sure the inmates and staff feel much safer now.

what the Vatican believes, and you and Thomas seem to think the Vatican makes a distinction about how wrong abortion is and how wrong the death penalty is.  

As a Catholic myself and as someone who can read English I am convinced that you and he are wrong.  

If a fellow Catholic is offended by me referencing the Vatican webpage and quoting Its Catechism when I am trying to argue about the position of the Vatican they should think that through a moment or two.

its pretty obvious that you are either an extraordinarily poorly catechised Catholic or you simply can't or won't divine the difference between activities which are proscribed and those which are left to the conscience.

So I can't help you out until your reading comprehension improves markedly.

I don't have time for a lengthier discussion than I've already given, but this should suffice:

Nowhere in Catholic teaching these last two thousand years has anyone bothered to rule out almost universally and as an infallible doctrine the death penalty. Put differently: Abortions were never licit. The death penalty, no matter its current status in a given situation, was, and even now, even on the strictest (and just short of heretical) reading, can be.

Put yet another way: You are not excommunicate by nature of the act itself by taking part in the administration of the death penalty.

Just because you can't defend your ridiculous position that the Pope was wrong on the Iraq war and the death penalty in this country and you have the right to disagree with your Church's pronouncements on these issues, but right about the things you like, you decide to attack my knowledge of Catholicism.  That's fine.  

But if you really believe that Catholic theology on war and the death penalty allows you to endorse the Iraq War and the death penalty as it carried out in this country because the Church would allow them in some limited circumstances, I think you need to brush up on your Catholic theology, especially the concept of "just war".

On those subjects of which you have no comprehension.

Nothing in your comment suggests to me that you even understand what a prudential teaching is.

Off with you, now. James Carroll undoubtedly has a column to write. You'd make an excellent chorus.

not mine. Based on your posts you are hardly the person to give anyone, much less me, any advice on Catholic theology. Perhaps there are other non-Catholics you can more profitably advise on what Catholics believe.

At first I didn't want to question your conclusions in this diary because I thought it would be more appropriate to do it another day.  Then someone questioned the same thing I was going to and I got involved in the discussion.  

I regret joining the disussion and if I have offended you in any way I apologize for that.

I am not going to participate in this thread anymore because I am not going to have streiff challenge my Catholisism further.

Thanks again for answering my questions.  

Fr/Fr --

I'm not a Catholic either, but I think you're getting hung up on the Pope's exercise of prudence in the application of doctrine, and the doctrine itself.  One can disagree with the Pope on matters of interpretation of the doctrine (although this may not be the smartest thing to do); however, one cannot disagree with the doctrine itself, which (as I understand it), is infallible.  The confusion comes in because the doctrine can be stated by the Pope.  That is, the Pope is capable of wearing one of two "hats" when he speaks:  he can speak as a wise and learned human being of compassion or, much more rarely, he can speak for the Church as the infallible spokesperson for Christ on Earth.  

If I understand Catholic dogma correctly, Thomas and Streiff are trying tomake the point that the Pope's statements on the death penalty and the Iraq war fall into the former category (wise person applying infallible doctrine, but who is capable of being in error), but his teachings on abortion fall into the latter category (i.e., they are statements of infallibe doctrine, and incapable of being in error).

(My apologies if I've misunderstood.)

I was taking you at face value. It strikes me that your catechesis was terrible, but it sounds like your heart is more or less in the right place.

The Pope doesn't issue doctrine on things like abortion. When he repeats that doctrine, it is infallible, not for his speaking it, but for its weight as infallible (which precedes him, and outlasts him).

There are only a handful of times when the Pope announces something ex cathedra. This can be easily Googled.

With those enormous caveats, the thrust of your comment is right.

response.  Please don't bother responding to me next time if you don't have one.  Thanks

Appalling Hypocrisy: The Pope, The Catholic Church, and Decency

by lightiris

Sat Apr 2nd, 2005 at 14:35:46 PDT

The teachings on the subjects of euthanasia and abortion are absolute and without exception. They are not topics for discussion if you are a Catholic. As an aside they clearly are not Pope John Paul's teachings nor would they fall into the category of an infallible teaching, there have only been two of those.

Other teachings from the Pope or through the Magesterium carry "great weight" but are a matter of each person's conscience. The belief is that through a "fully formed" conscience you will conform with the teaching.

War may or may not be justified. The Pope's position on the war has been repeatedly misrepresented on this thread. He was against the war, no doubt but I would hope every Pope would be against war.

The Pope and the US bishops are firmly against the death penalty and I may be creeping closer to their view but right now I have the right to not go along with it and still be in complete harmony with the teaching of the Church.

I read this site mostly for the laughs at work. Anytime someone offers a fact, it's "tinfoil hat territory". Awesome. Keep up the good work my righties!!!

You learned to click through! And proved my point! (Hence, click on the second lefty link.) Good luck, although it's probably nap time for you now.

Or any other belligerent lefty offers a "fact" (see below), we'll let you know.

Your kindergarten teacher is probably wondering why you're at the computer instead of your nap mat. Hurry back before she catches you.

held beliefs are germane to Catholic theology at all, or is it all about how the church has traditionally viewd things

It's usually best to critique Catholic belief based on first principles. For example, I might question the Church's teaching on abortion based on a different assumption about when human life begins.

Searching for internal inconsistencies in a vast theology is, in my opinion, not very helpful, and in the case of Catholic theology, largely a fool's errand. Not that Catholic theology is flawlessly argued, but I think that you'll find that great minds over 2000 years have developed an extremely cogent, consistent, and well presented case.

The argument might not be compelling, but I assure you, it is well made.

To be Catholic I have to believe certain things: the Nicene Creed, for instance, the doctrine in the Catechism. Those are not a matter of choice if one is to describe oneself as a Catholic and to remain in communion with the Church.

Then there are other things which we are encouraged to believe but which do not affect our standing with the Church. The death penalty is a prime example where Catholics of good conscience have a right to differ with each other over abolition despite the Church's unambiguous bias against its application.

I know enough to thank you and Thomas for expressly clearly that which I expressed not so well, and for enlightening me regarding matters about about which I didn't know.

If you would indulge me a bit further:  For some reason, I've got it in my mind that the Church cannot elevate its opposition to the death penalty to the level of its teachings on abortion and euthanasea.  For instance, the Church can strongly discourage use of the death penalty, or proclaim that the death penalty is morally wrong in place X or country Y, but it cannot categorically prohibit the death penalty in all circumstances, as it categorically prohibits (for instance) abortion.  Am I right I thinking that?  And, if so, why the heck am I right in thinking that?

I don't mean to get into an exciting debate re: the morality of the death penalty, etc.; my question is in fact as boring as, "why does Catholic dogma allow that?

von

You obviously don't understand the role of the Pope in your own Church.

The Catholic Church is a Hierarchical System.  The Pope is the head of the Church.  The Pope is not just some guy sitting in Rome pontificating (notice the root of that word) about whatever comes into his head.  When he makes a prudential teaching it is meant to inform the Church as to his interpretation of Catholic doctrine.  As a member of the Church you should give that pronouncement the utmost of respect and it should be dispositive in informing your own faith and your understanding of Catholicism.

You shouldn't be looking for loopholes or engaging in "what if's" like, "well what if the murderer escapes or kills a guard or another inmate--I bet the Pope didn't think of that--so it's alright to support the death penalty".  If you want to engage in theological debates with church leadership become a protestant.  Thats what we do and we are damn proud of it.  We believe that the Bible says exactly what we want it to say, nothing more and nothing less, and if our pastor disagrees with us we vote him out.  If the church has a position we don't like we vote on it and change it, tradition be damned.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

Your second paragraph is almost slanderous in its idiocy. The fourth sentence is wrong on so many levels, I have to wonder if you're not just on a moral short bus, but actually typing from a real short bus. The last sentence is correct until "utmost of(sic) respect," then degenerates again.

The third paragraph nicely manages to misunderstand this thread beginning with the first sentence. The second sentence actually manages to be a caricature of an ultramontane. The third sentence is merely stupid. The last two sentences remind me that it is important to trust in God's mercy, even for the perpetually benighted. I will accordingly pray, or vote, as you prefer, for you.

sometimes attributed to Samuel Johnson? Something about good intentions maybe? ;-)

Nice one that--shows a lot of tolerance implying I am retarded.

Anyway, the third paragraph paraphrased the argument your compatriot streif used above.

How do you prevent them from killing other inmates or prison staff?

"[A]lmost slanderous in its idiocy".  What an interesting turn of a phrase that makes almost no sense considering that the paragraph is a series of facts.  Is the Pope not the head of the Church?  Aren't the prudential teachings more than random musings?  And isn't his role as Pope more central and carry more authority than any other Christian denomination or major religion, and as a Roman Catholic aren't you are required to be more deferential to the pronouncements of one living human being than almost any other mainstream religion?

And yes I was a little flippant about protestantism in the final paragraph, but by being flippant I was trying to make a point.  One of the reasons we (and by we I mean reform protestantism in general) broke from the Catholic church was over the issues of the authority of the Pope and the idea of intecessory nature of the priesthood.    Your obvious discomfort with some of the Catholic Church's more socially liberal pronouncements seems to indicate to me that you would be more comfortable in a denomination that allows more theological flexibility.  

Being a Catholic in modern America is very hard.  Politically you have to be both a liberal democrat (against the war in Iraq, anti-death penalty, pro-welfare and social programs, pro-union, pro-living wage) and a conservative Republic (against abortion, for abstinence only sex education, against condom distribution for AIDS prevention, against removing feeding tubes, pro-family, against gay marriage).

That you don't know what you're talking about, and have moved smoothly into the land of blank incomprehension.

(1) streiff can handle himself -- and has, quite well.

(2) "[A]lmost slanderous in its idiocy".  What an interesting turn of a phrase that makes almost no sense considering that the paragraph is a series of facts.  Is the Pope not the head of the Church?  Aren't the prudential teachings more than random musings?  And isn't his role as Pope more central and carry more authority than any other Christian denomination or major religion, and as a Roman Catholic aren't you are required to be more deferential to the pronouncements of one living human being than almost any other mainstream religion?

Your statement is proof that a little knowledge truly is a dangerous thing.

(3) And yes I was a little flippant about protestantism in the final paragraph, but by being flippant I was trying to make a point.  One of the reasons we (and by we I mean reform protestantism in general) broke from the Catholic church was over the issues of the authority of the Pope and the idea of intecessory nature of the priesthood.    Your obvious discomfort with some of the Catholic Church's more socially liberal pronouncements seems to indicate to me that you would be more comfortable in a denomination that allows more theological flexibility.

I have no discomfort. If the disagreement were on matters of infallible teaching, I would bend or leave. They're not, so I'm fine.

I don't think I'd handle being Protestant well. Maybe old-school Anglican or Lutheran. Your version seems a bit ... spontaneous to me. Voting my pastor out every week, while definitely better for weekly bingo gossip, would be a needless source of stress.

(3) Being a Catholic in modern America is very hard.  Politically you have to be both a liberal democrat (against the war in Iraq, anti-death penalty, pro-welfare and social programs, pro-union, pro-living wage) and a conservative Republic (against abortion, for abstinence only sex education, against condom distribution for AIDS prevention, against removing feeding tubes, pro-family, against gay marriage).

Being (incorrectly) lectured on the requirements of my Faith by a deluded Protestant. My thimble runneth over.

(I was saying you're morally retarded, but beginning to make me think you're literally retarded.)

of discussing a serious subject with an unserious person.

we owe the short bus crowd an apology.

But the real short bus crowd, absolutely.

The most famous passage is Psalm 139:

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Also Isaiah 44: "This is what the LORD says--he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you . . ."

And 46 of the same:

Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you.

I don't pretend to be a biblical scholar.  But the arguments I found here support much of what I anecdotally understood about jewish law regarding abortion.

Is this article completely full of it?  Why?

was Jewish this would be earth shattering.

here I think I know what is going on.  You fancy yourself, (and may very well be, I don't know your biography) fairly learned in Catholic thought and teaching.  When someone tries to discuss an issue with you you say that that's not how it's framed in the catholic context, and when they try to discuss it in the catholic context you tell them they don't understand catholicism and they better learn before discussing it.  An ingenious way to avoid all actual debate or thought

that is, discussing this with someone who had even the vaguest clue as to Catholic context, hasn't been encountered today it is a little premature for you to make this judgment.

Except you've completely misrepresented not only what I think of myself, but also what I communicate to those who engage in a good faith series of questions. (Hit "Ctrl+F" then type "von.")

I take issue with being lectured by those who know nothing, or who know only a tee tiny bit and run with it.

That's all.

... if you were basing your argument on the old testiment.  Which is exactly what the person I was replying to had done.

From what I understand about the old testament, it was written by Jews, about Jews, in accordance with Jewish law.  

Am I yet again wrong here?  Or do you admit that any claim that the old testament forbids all abortions is a fallacy?

I had meant to reply to Paul J. Cella above.  

Darned tabbed browsing!

Sorry for the mix up.  If you look at Paul's comment above, he relies on Psalms to support the biblical support of the pro-life movement.

that Mr. Cella was trying to explain Catholic teaching on abortion, although I'm sure he'd do a great job.

I think he was merely citing applicable Scripture.

was written by Jews too. How about that?

I adduced those passages because someone asked about where the Bible addresses the issues surrounding abortion.

I do not admit that the Old Testament can, as it were, testify against the New, or against the great tradition of Christian doctrine which derives from both.

I asked you (actually it was someone else, but you were my initial target) to admit that the old testament does not expressly forbid abortions.  I think you can manage that.  (it really doesn't)

Additionally, under the law of the people who wrote it, the concept of treating a fetus as a person (with all the same rights and expectations*) would have been alien, if not laughable.  I am not arguing modern Christian dogma or even the New Testament.  

As for who wrote the New Testament, I would call them Christians.  Sure, they thought of themselves as Jews, albeit Jews who's messiah had come (and died, and returned, and vanished).  But if that was how you wanted to refer to them, you should probably refer to yourself that way as well.  Seems like mere semantics (semitic semantics?).

Certainly you are not claiming once a jew always a jew.  Are you?

Stating the solid fact that, say, St. Paul was a Jew means -- if I follow you correctly -- that I should regard myself as a Jew? Ridiculous.

I am not arguing modern Christian dogma or even the New Testament.

I am arguing Christian dogma, for the admittedly strange reason that it is the only dogma I feel competent arguing, so pretty much we're talking past one another.

How is St. Paul a jew?

I admit to being VERY ignorant to most of this stuff, as I put ZERO stock in it.  But it is my impression that Paul, while born a jew, became a Christian, (some might say THE Christian) and was a Christian when he wrote his gospel.

Pretty much full of it  

Stop reading political diatribes about religion if you want to know about religion.  Read religious sites if you want to know about religion.

http://www.torah.org/

Jewish folks who get abortions are acting against their religion with the only exception being for protection of the life of the mother.

I admit to being VERY ignorant to most of this stuff....

Indeed.

But the link you gave me led to a small statment that contained not one quote, cite, or even reference to any passage in any ancient text, including the Torah and Bible.

At least the "political diatribe" I linked to contaied quotes and the location of these quotes so you can check the context and accuracy yourself.  

I don't really care about affiliation or bias (after all we all have them).  Transparancy is the most important thing.  You can have an opinion, just show me how you got there.  

...is extensively rooted in the Mishnah (oral tradition) and associated commentary, which forms the Talmud, as well as the Torah. The divergences between traditional, mainstream Judaism, which includes the Mishnah and Talmud, and those who rely only on the Torah (Karaites) is quite significant. The citations on Torah.org are largely to references in the Talmud.

The rabbinical synthesis and exegesis of Torah and Mishnah often results in conclusions we might think contradictory to the "plain meaning" of the Old Testament; hence, presumably, the comment upthread about the relevance of "Jewish law" to the Pope.

St. Paul identifies himself as a Jew to the tribune in Jerusalem in Acts 21:39. Basically, he saw no contradiction between keeping Jewish law, as a Jew ("a Pharisee and the son of Pharisees", Acts 23:6) while at the same time believing in the divinity and mission of Christ.

The rapid growth of Christianity among largely Gentile population, the development of exclusively Christian religious laws and tradition, and the extinction of most of the Jewish sects of the 1st century AD, creating a more monolithic Judaism have all contributed to the supposed irreconcilability of the two religions in the present day.

is due to the fact that the ancients had only a gauzy idea of how conception and gestation worked. Most thought that the semen contained literal seeds, that is pre-formed human embryos which were planted in the womb and were nourished there by blood to grow into a fetus, and at some subsequent time (usually 40 days) would receive a soul. When one reads Church Fathers on abortion it is good to keep in mind that they were not quite sure at what point abortion became not just the killing of a living thing but also the outright murder of a human being. However they were unanimous that aborting a fetus is indeed an act of murder. It is at the earlier stage, especially before fertilzation (of which they knew nothing) that they were less certain. Hence the split between East and West on the issue of contraception, with Eastern Christendom having a limited tolerance of the practice (among married couples only) while in the West this too was condemned as a form of abortion. However any notion that ancient Christianity ever accepted as moral what we now call abortion is ludicrous, the earliest non-Scriptural Christian document on morality we have (the 2nd century AD Diadache) specifically portrays the act as belonging to the Way of Death,

Are you arguing this as a matter of history, or of theology?

If the latter, ask yourself: Does the Old Testament prohibit murder?

The answer is assuredly yes, on multiple occasions, in multiple passages.  There are allowances made in the Torah for both self-defense and the ethics of the battlefield, but there is no Judaic justification for murder.  Surely you will concede that.

The debate then becomes: morally, is abortion murder?

Since an abortion consists of the destruction of a human life, one that is unborn and innocent of any crime, I would argue that it is.  At that point, it doesn't matter that the issue is not called by name, any more than euthanasia or genocide or any other form of murder, state-sanctioned or not.

...the Old Testament also does not explicitly condemn pistol whipping or insurance fraud or check kiting.

How 'bout that?  

Your argument about the NT writers not being Jewish is just plain silly, with due respect.  Read NT Wright's The Resurrection and the Son of God.  You will note with interest that it was precisely the Judiaism of the early believers that informed their belief about the resurrection.  They had a decidedly Jewish framework through which they understood Jesus (not that one needs NT Wright to know this, a cursory reading of Matthew could furnish that opinion with a good deal of adequacy).

And, by the by, this is in addition to the fact that (A) almost all of the early believers were Jewish and (B) it was a big decision (one which had to be defended) to evangelize to Gentiles (and  there was actually a debate among early believers about whether Gentile believers had to first convert to Judiaism).

"the concept of treating a fetus as a person...would have been alien, if not laughable"

Putting aside the issue of rights that you reference, for "rights" is a decidedly modern/Western invention, I'll address this point.

Check out Psalm 139:13: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."  It seems to me that the "inmost being" is, in this verse, created while one is still a fetus.

Here's another good one.  Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."  Seems here that God himself is saying that "fetal" development is God-driven.  

Another good one.  Psam 51:5: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."  If anything would have been laughable to the Jews, it would have been the (again, Western/modern) distinction between fetus and person.  

OK...one more.  Genesis 25:21-23: "Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was barren.  The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant.  The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, 'Why is this happening to me?'  So she went to inquire of the Lord.  The Lord said to her, 'Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger."  From this perspective, it is difficult to conceive of how the Jews would ever have been agreeable to abortion.  An abortion in this instance would have been tantamount to genocide, eh?

...would tell you that Paul was a Jew.  That's how.  At least you're honest enough to admit your ignorance.

Around Passover time, we have a song called "Dayenu", which essentially means "enough", or, in the context of the song, "it would have been enough."  The premise is, if G-d had brought us out of Egypt and not fed us manna in the desert, it would have been enough.  If G-d had brought us to Mount Sinai and not given us the Torah, it would have been enough, etc.

My point is, whatever quibbles we have had with John Paul II and the Vatican over the years, and whatever faults and mistakes we could attribute to him, he was instrumental in the downfall of one of the great evils of our time, Soviet communism, certainly a peril to Jews in its midst as much as it was to any of its millions of victims.  And if he had done only that, in spite of a dozen other things that offend or annoy us, that would have been enough.

was NOT about whether the person killed was good or bad or indifferent, but whether you were killing in self-defense or defense of another, or not.

I mean, Jack Ruby murdered Lee Harvey Oswald.

There have been times in history, and places in the world, when the only sure way to make sure a murderer will not murder again is to execute him. But we will NOT often face this choice in America in 2005, when life without parole is an option. Maybe if a prisoner kills a guard or fellow prisoners in a maximum security facility. But only then.

I also thought "prudential" just meant that the church recognized that moral principles would apply differently to different facts & different assessments of the same facts, not a license to just ignore the whole area of doctrine.

A lot of conservatives tend to view legal questions as if the only three options are:

1. definitely yes
   
   
2. definitely no
   
   
3. I don't know, do whatever the hell you want.

The Church's prudential teachings don't fit into any of these categories. The church's teaching on the death penalty and war is neither "always permitted" nor "never permitted", but rather, the idea that you cannot intentionally kill someone unless it is the only way to prevent them from killing you or another innocent person. It will apply differently to different facts. Nevertheless, you cannot just ignore the principle. And the pope determined, after very careful application of the law to the facts about the Iraq War and the death penalty in America, that neither could be justified by Catholic teaching.

But the idea that people who shared moral principles and yet reach different answers based on different facts, or different understandings of the same facts--that is not something that is accepted on this site. Either the Church says  "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not" or you can do whatever the heck you want. Either journalists are purely objective and completely unaffected by their personal views, or they're all equally biased & you can just listen to the one who tells you want to hear. etc. etc.

Justice Scalia can't figure it out either & has based his whole jurisprudential theory on an inability to grasp this. So it's not like Thomas is the only one.

I think the church confused a question of law with a question of fact. Happens to the best of us.

As the process was formed by the fact.

So many errors in so few words.

(1) I'm sure a lot of ObiWi posters have that issue with the law. Conservatives, as a whole, do not.

(2) That's largely because we're smart enough to read the law first.

(3) You have managed to amalgamate the death penalty teaching with the just war teaching, screw them both up in the process, and then neglected to remember who gets to make the decisions in those instances under the very rules the Church has held fast to for centuries. Not bad, for one paragraph.

(4) You've also managed to misunderstand what an "argument" is, given your comments on "this site." Then again, having dipped my pinky toe in your home zone, I recognize the closest you get to an argument over there is "echoooo," when it should be "echoo!" goll darn it. Do try to keep up.

(5) I think Justice Scalia has a very good grasp of the doctrine, from his limited publications on the matter.

(6) It is the height of irony for you to ascribe his jurisprudence to an inability to grasp Catholicism, or the concept of decisionmaking by actors of the law in general. Well, actually, it's more situational irony than anything. Really, no one should be surprised you'd make that mistake.

(7) I'm assuredly neither a theologian, nor certainly a Doctor of the Church. But, I do have one thing going for me: I understand this stuff much better than you do.

I also thought "prudential" just meant that the church recognized that moral principles would apply differently to different facts & different assessments of the same facts, not a license to just ignore the whole area of doctrine.

I'd suggest you try to pick out where in that sentence you began your wrong turn, but I suggest I'd be wasting my time and the little bits of hope I hold out for the perpetually benighted in so doing.