Open Thread: White Smoke
There is a new pope. Don’t know who yet.
UPDATE: Pope Francis, from Argentina. There you have it.
There is a new pope. Don’t know who yet.
UPDATE: Pope Francis, from Argentina. There you have it.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Powered by WordPress.
i declined the honor…
redc1c4 (403dff) — 3/13/2013 @ 12:12 pmNancy Pelosi?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/13/2013 @ 12:25 pmthat is so cool
Argentina is not in Europe plus also it’s being ravaged by a stupid fascist warmongering hoochie
interesting times
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/13/2013 @ 12:34 pmJesuit conspiracy
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/13/2013 @ 12:35 pmWhat is his position on Liberation Theology?
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/13/2013 @ 12:36 pmI thought I had heard mention of someone from Argentina that was well regarded and pretty “Conservative”, i.e., the Bible still means what it did before Marx (Karl).
But I could also be just blowing smoke…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/13/2013 @ 12:39 pmThis is good for the pope on a rope collector.
mg (31009b) — 3/13/2013 @ 1:11 pmMG lol. I had so forgotten that joke.
SarahW (b0e533) — 3/13/2013 @ 1:15 pmIf Pope Francis were a Liberation Theologist, would that oblige the world’s Catholics to adopt the philosophy as well?
Leviticus (17b7a5) — 3/13/2013 @ 1:37 pmHe studied theology in Germany, not a hotbed of liberation theology. Apparently as the Jesuit provincial of Argentina he insisted that the priests stay in their churches not trade traditional theology for political activism.
He adopted some of the “social justice” philosophy, but he never used it to insist on structural economic reforms like land or wealth redistribution like the liberation theologians. Just to insist that the wealthy must be better Christians.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 1:39 pmNo. The Pope can suddenly turn 2,000 years of theology on it’s head and insist everyone adopt a political ideology masquerading as if it were traditional Catholic spirituality. Not when priests were recently getting excommunicated for doing the same thing.
John Paul was personally opposed to the death penalty. But he couldn’t oblige ever Catholic to oppose the death penalty because that’s never been the Church’s position. The death penalty is, under certain circumstances, an act of legitimate self-defense.
In matters of social policy and public safety the decisions don’t belong to the church. The Pope can’t command Catholics to get on board with a particular program. They can teach and advise about Catholic morality, but the prudential judgement of how to apply that teaching belongs to they laity. Not the clergy.
This is where the liberal non-Christian Catholics went wrong trying to smear Paul Ryan as an evil hypocrite for opposing abortion but supporting entitlement reform. Taking innocent life is always an exceptionally grave sin. No Catholic can get one or help procure one in any way without sinning. But they can’t claim that proposing to turn Medicare into a voucher program as opposed to keeping it a defined benefits program is a sin of any sort. Catholic public officials simply need to keep the Church’s social justice teachings in mind when trying to decide what the best way to achieve those goals might be.
So, no, since liberation theology requires people to support socialist programs then, no, a Pope can’t make Catholics adopt liberation theology.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 1:58 pmGoing on a retreat with the Jezzies this weekend. I wonder if any of the Fathers will have some scoop.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/13/2013 @ 2:11 pmI was hoping they would select a pro-condom lesbian atheist, to come into the 21st Century. Maybe Sandra Fluke. How dare thy select someone that believes in Catholic teachings?!
JD (31065f) — 3/13/2013 @ 2:25 pmdaley, keep us informed.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/13/2013 @ 2:27 pmJD, the Vatican has never had a good PR operation, from what I can tell.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/13/2013 @ 2:28 pmTheir public-outreach just sucks.
askeptic – I will confess JD’s sins and if they don’t kick me out after that I will let everybody know if I hear anything.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/13/2013 @ 2:53 pmI would like to know if these popes ever say the words “bless me father for I have sinned, my last confessions was ??? “
mg (31009b) — 3/13/2013 @ 3:06 pmIIR, all priests, no matter what their rank within the church, have to attend confession.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/13/2013 @ 3:24 pmJust like head-shrinkers.
The conservative base of the Catholic Church is in Latin America. He was a logical choice.
nk (53646e) — 3/13/2013 @ 3:28 pmAs Breitbart put it, “The media remain aghast at the fact that Francis I is a Catholic. They should get used to it.”
The Catholic Dana (af9ec3) — 3/13/2013 @ 3:44 pmMr 57 got it wrong:
It most certainly is the Church’s position. While the Catechism states specifically, in §2263:
However, § 2267 states:
It is the Church’s position that if you have a prisoner in custody, and sufficiently helpless that he cannot prevent his own execution, you have already satisfied the condition of “rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm.” Lethal force is allowable if someone is not helpless and is presenting an active threat to society, but a prisoner would never meet that definition.
The Catholic Dana (af9ec3) — 3/13/2013 @ 3:52 pmI just got home from a trip to Tyler, TX and found that I have a new Pope! That was fast. The Holy Spirit rocks!
Good comments, everyone, as usual. Kudos to Steve and Askeptic for the accurate answers. LOL, Dana!
felipe (3243af) — 3/13/2013 @ 4:01 pmDana bears witness to the extremely nuanced position of the Catholic Church on the death penalty. However, It is, nonetheless, incorrect to say that the Catholic church’s position is against the death penalty because of this deep nuance.
I read Steve’s statement to be accurate insofar as it deals with a Pope’s scope of authority. The CCC, itself does not prohibit the licit use of the death penalty.
felipe (3243af) — 3/13/2013 @ 4:23 pmI should offer this correction to Steve’s comment:
No. The Pope canNOT suddenly turn 2,000 years of theology on it’s head and insist everyone adopt a political ideology masquerading as if it were traditional Catholic spirituality. Not when priests were recently getting excommunicated for doing the same thing.
felipe (3243af) — 3/13/2013 @ 4:28 pmNo Dana, I didn’t get it wrong. Reaffirming the traditional moral teachings of the Church is as far as the Pope can go. And he affirmed that the death penalty can be an act of legitimate self-defense.
But it isn’t true that the modern penal system renders prisoners harmless. If that were true, prisoners wouldn’t continue to murder in prison.
It is a matter of prudential judgement to determine who poses a threat to society (and prisoners and guards are part of society), and if bloodless means will or won’t be sufficient to prevent them from causing a threat. The fact is by incarcerating someone as a prisoner you’ve rendered them uniquely incapable of self-defense. So society must accept an additional burden for defending the non-violent prisoners from the more violent.
And no Pope has the expertise to expound on the modern penal system and how it is now capable of rendering prisoners harmless when it lacked that ability in the past. What advancements do when have now that weren’t available in Medieval times when the authorities also had the ability to shackle someone to a wall in a dungeon, lock the door, and throw away the key?
The bottom line is that the Church has no special ability to expound on the quality of the penal system or on what measures need to be taken for public safety. And the Church teaches that it is not a replacement for the civil authorities who are responsible for making those decisions.
Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est:
The Church can’t take on the “political battle ot bring about the most just society possible” because the Church by its own teaching has no more expertise or insight into how to bring that about than anyone else. By the same token it isn’t for any Pope to decide if prisoners do or don’t meet the definition of “threat to society.” Even Pope John Paul would have had to admit that. It is the difference between the eternal and the provisional. The Church’s authority extends only to the former. The eternal moral laws of God. The provisional is beyond its authority. As long as a Catholic has formed his or her conscience in accordance with the Church’s teachings they can vote in good conscience in favor of the death penalty or even impose it as a judge or a member of a jury and no one can call that a sin. Not even Pope John Paul II who opined that conditions that warrant the death penalty are “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 4:29 pmfelipe, that is exactly what I was referring to; the scope of the Pope’s authority.
Abortion is intrinsically evil as is deliberately taking innocent life under any circumstances; it must be opposed in all cases. But no Church authority, not Pope John Paul II nor the USCCCB, has ever claimed capital punishment is intrinsically evil. Like the use of military force it can be necessary as a last resort. And in those cases it isn’t just excusing a necessary evil, but recognizing at an obligation.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 4:43 pm“Not even Pope John Paul II who opined that conditions that warrant the death penalty are ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'”
It should be well noted that a Pope’s opinions are just that: opinions. Opinions impose no obligation on the faithful. Nor do opinions represent the Church Universal’s position on any matter of faith and morals.
Now, let there be peace.
felipe (3243af) — 3/13/2013 @ 4:44 pmAbortion is intrinsically evil as is deliberately taking innocent life under any circumstances; it must be opposed in all cases. But no Church authority, not Pope John Paul II nor the USCCCB, has ever claimed capital punishment is intrinsically evil. Like the use of military force it can be necessary as a last resort. And in those cases it isn’t just excusing a necessary evil, but recognizing at an obligation.
Yes, Steve, that is absolutly correct. Now shake hands with Dana (in all humility)and wish him well!
felipe (3243af) — 3/13/2013 @ 4:48 pmThere’s no strife between Dana and I, felipe. It’s just a friendly theological discussion.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 4:51 pmGlad to hear it. It should still be said aloud for the benefit of the readers.
felipe (3243af) — 3/13/2013 @ 4:54 pmand prisoners never escaped or killed anyone, right?
I suppose if it were possible to turn people to stone, like in the Gargoyles episode “City of Stone”, then perhaps the death penalty will become obsolete. But until then…
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 3/13/2013 @ 5:11 pmWhite smoke + Steve + Felipe + Dana = Capitl punishment thread
felipe (3243af) — 3/13/2013 @ 5:18 pmIt’s an open thread.
And the Church has, traditionally, bowed to the civil authorities on death sentences, including death sentences ecclesiastical courts imposed. Priests prayed at auto da fes, soldiers lit the fires.
nk (53646e) — 3/13/2013 @ 5:28 pmAmazing how that works.
But it began when someone asked about Pope Francis I’s theological views. As I understand it he’s theologically conservative.
Which makes sense for a couple of reasons. First, John Paul II appointed him bishop and later elevated him to Cardinal. JPII opposed liberation theology as a form of secularism, and appointed Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Ratzinger was a fierce opponent of liberation theology. It makes no sense that JPII would have appointed a liberation theologian or even someone sympathetic to it to those positions while at the same time having Cardinal Ratzinger root them out.
Also it’s widely accepted that Cardinal Bergoglio was a leading if not the leading candidate next to Cardinal Ratzinger in 2005. That makes sense only if both were seen as suited to meeting the needs of the church at that time. Two candidates with polar opposite theological views wouldn’t have made the same short list.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 6:07 pmI just can’t believe The Church chose a hohophobic pro life misogynist as the Pope.
JD (b63a52) — 3/13/2013 @ 6:12 pmThat’s not all, JD. Once again the Church discriminated against non-Catholics and atheists when choosing a Pope.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 6:33 pmMore on Pope Francis I from Catholic Online:
NEW POPE: Who is this man named Bergoglio?
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 6:37 pmThe major problem churches face today is one of authority.
The Catholic problem is 1 Pope. The Protestant problem is 1,000,000 pastors.
All of them will tell you authority is rooted in the “Word of God” as long as they get to interpret the “Word of God” authoritatively.
WarEagle82 (2b7355) — 3/13/2013 @ 6:49 pm#38
Interesting discussion on that very point.
Gerald A (c7c56a) — 3/13/2013 @ 7:03 pmAs I understand it he’s theologically conservative.
I should hope so. After all, what good is it being a leftwing Christian since that hews quite closely to being a faithful follower of secular liberalism, and praying at the altar of, say, Al Gore’s Church of Global Warming.
If one chooses to lean left in today’s era, he or she might just as well join the UN, Green Peace, the ACLU, NOW, etc, instead of trying to glom onto a traditional religious organization.
BTW, if members of the Catholic hierarchy aren’t totally disgusted at and appalled by anyone in their church who’s guilty of molesting children, that suggests the corrupting nature of left-leaning sentiment has done to their group what political correctness has done to the US military, vis a vie Nidal Hasan and the Fort Hood massacre.
Mark (6ae95d) — 3/13/2013 @ 7:04 pmSince he’s conservative the left has already begun to attack him:
The Gaurdian: The sins of the Argentinian church
Naturally according to the atheist left the sins of the Argentinian church involve not siding with the leftists when the junta was in power in a civil war in which both sides were committing atrocities.
Just as naturally, when the Church refuses to recognize the superior moral authority of the left commentariat and repent as directed that will just compound the sins of the Church.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 7:37 pmA little context about one of those who relate this story though;
Along with Mario Firmenich and five other Montoneros, he was indicted for allegedly being involved in the planning and execution of the bombing of the Superintendence of Security of the Federal Police, on July 2, 1976 — a few months after the military coup — which caused 21 deaths among intelligence officers. The case was however closed in 2007 because of statute of limitations.[7]
narciso (3fec35) — 3/13/2013 @ 7:39 pmGood point, narciso. There are lots of problems with the story and the allegations against Bergoglio.
For instance O’Shaunnessey at the Guardian writes:
Verbitsky was a leftist guerrilla during that period, a fact the author dishonestly leaves out when identifying him as a “journalist.”
And Bergoglio wasn’t Cardinal when the Junta was in power in the late 70s. He was a priest. He was named provincial of the Jesuit order in Argentina in 1973 and served in that capacity until he became rector of the same seminary he had attended. But he was still just a priest and priests don’t get vacation homes on islands in the Platte river.
Then there’s this via Politico:
These two heretics (and that’s what liberation theology is in the eyes of the church) accused Bergoglio of “effectively” handing them over to the junta because he didn’t endorse their work.
Thereby demonstrating why the Church has declared liberation theology a heresy. It puts leftist politics ahead of the Church’s spiritual mission. No Church leader could have endorsed their work that without betraying their faith.
But Bergoglio did personally intervene with the dictator on their behalf to get them released as an act of mercy.
This is far more plausible than to claim he connived with the Argentine Navy to hide dissidents at a vacation residence his position at the time didn’t permit him.
His sin in the eyes of the atheist left was not subordinating that silly god-bothering nonsense to the leftist cause.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:13 pm– One interesting comment I heard said it was something to note that a Jesuit took the name Francis upon ascending to Pope, rather than Ignatius or something “more Jesuit”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:37 pm– That while a Jesuit he was clearly showing respect to the Franciscans
– I’m not Catholic so I can’t say much, but it sounds like an interesting little point
I think it’s more in keeping with Francis Xavier,
narciso (3fec35) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:39 pmOne interesting comment I heard said it was something to note that a Jesuit took the name Francis upon ascending to Pope, rather than Ignatius or something “more Jesuit.”
It’s also a way to placate the Italian cardinals who apparently wanted to elect one of their own and only turned to Bergoglio (the son of Italian immigrants) only when they saw that no Italian could win enough votes. By taking the name of perhaps the most famous Italian priest in history, Bergoglio is paying respect to his Italian brothers.
JVW (4826a9) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:41 pmSlight correction: Francis of Assisi was never ordained a priest; he is the most famous and probably most important friar in history.
JVW (4826a9) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:43 pm45.I think it’s more in keeping with Francis Xavier,
Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:39 pm
Didn’t he play basketball??
The MD in Philly that knows less than Dana about Catholicism (3d3f72) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:46 pmFrancis Xavier?
GUS (694db4) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:46 pmor
Malcolm Xavier?
I liked reading Aquinas, my father went to a Catholic university (UD Flyers), and I’m quitting before I dig deeper into trouble. G’Night
The MD in Philly that knows less than Dana about Catholicism (3d3f72) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:49 pmActually he probably chose the name Francis because St. Francis of Assissi said his call to the priesthood came when God spoke to him from the crucifix of his local church.
“Francis, Go and rebuild my Church, which you can see has fallen into ruin.”
I think the significance of that should be obvious considering how the Church’s reputation has been marred by scandals.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:50 pmDidn’t he play basketball??
Still do. Though they aren’t particularly good this year.
JVW (4826a9) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:51 pmYes, JVW is right. Francis was never ordained a priest. I should have said he received his call to give up his life of luxury as a young nobleman and follow God with those words.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:52 pmJVW. How silly of you. COLONEL HARLAND SANDERS was the most important FRYER in History.
GUS (694db4) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:55 pmGet real.
I’m getting a lot of the details wrong. Francis’ family was wealthy but his father was a merchant, not a noble. Although a knighthood doesn’t appear to have been out of reach for Francis if his life had gone to his original plan.
Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Francis of Assissi
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:00 pmi haven’t read hardly anything about mr. pope nouveaux it was a busy day
but I was coming back from a meeting and I passed a new Argentinian bakery!
it had to be a Sign of course so I popped a U in front of a Burbank cop and he didn’t do nuffin, which confirmed of course that it was a sign cause you don’t get tickets for following signs and I parked right in front and went in and got tasty pastries – mostly featuring caramel in some way
they were so good I took them back to the office and tried to make sure everybody took some home an they all did except for the smoking hot thin girl
but at the bakery
they also had these sammiches
called “migas”
now migas means something different in texas where I come from
but in the land of New Pope migas basically means a sammich wif the crusts cut off
I asked my friend from Argentina and he said oh yeah in Argentina they still do high tea in places – they can be very fancy and emulative of the British
who effing knew???
I can’t wait to go back for one of the sammiches they’re only like $7 and they look like more than enough foozle for lunch you could probably even share one
and that is the story of the fun day I had when we got the new pope
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:06 pm45. Anyway we protestants are a bit jealous.
First Jesuit after half a milennia. Sure wish some of our sinking, dying mainline churches opted for stasis, in anything.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/13/2013 @ 10:26 pmWhat is liberation theology?
Is it a left-wing Catholic analogue of militant Islamism?
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 3/14/2013 @ 7:22 amNo, it’s the attempt to adapt marxism to Catholic doctrine, the Sandinistas were big on that, as was Chavez, Kirchner, et al
narciso (3fec35) — 3/14/2013 @ 7:25 amJust like militant Islamism adapted Hitlerism into Islamic doctrine.
Here are some more news that neither liberation theologists nor militant Islamists would be pleased to hear.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/new-pope-said-to-have-good-ties-with-argentinian-jews-1.509239
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:05 amA good choice, except for the usual suspects;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/pope_francis_a_disappointment_for_catholics_who_dont_like_being_catholic.html
narciso (3fec35) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:15 amIt’s actually the the Catholic equivalent of the Black liberation theology that so attracted Barack Obama to Rev. Wright’s TUCC. Neither are Christianity; they’re both Christian Heresies designed to yoke the “opiate of the masses” into the service of a socialist agenda. They even speak in similar patterns.
The Latin American liberation theologians abhorred the fact that most Latin American Catholics venerate the Virgin Mary because it’s “non-transformative:”
CatholicCulture.org: The Retreat of Liberation Theology
Only those parts of scripture that serve their political agenda are useful. The rest must be hidden (much like Democrats view the founding documents).
And how is this similar to the way our “transformative” President speaks? Recall this from the 2008 campaign:
His “faith” is a political agenda not too dissimilar to the Latin American agenda. Of course to his “faith” the book of Romans is obscure. He’s probably never heard it in any of the leftist Churches of Transformational Government he’s attended, since it doesn’t serve the cause of radically altering the political, social, and economic structure.
James H. Cone, the inventor of liberation philosophy, only slightly modified liberation philosophy to fit his purposes; to serve a racial agenda and not class. He explains it in his book Black Liberation & Black Power:
In other words, not too different from Latin American liberation philosophy which was simply a way to pervert religion to claim it justified any means the poor found necessary (and by “poor” they didn’t mean “poor” but died-in-the-wool marxists who claimed to know what was best for the poor better than the poor so shut up, poor people) to destroy the “oppressors.” Just not necessarily on the basis of race, although anti-white hatred was a central feature of Chavismo since light skinned Venezuelans are seen as the ones who “didn’t build that” and owe the poorer darker skinned Venezuelans.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/14/2013 @ 11:58 amIn case it’s not obvious, if you actually belong to a Christian denomination that remains a Christian faith and not a political cause then there’s nothing obscure about Romans 1:24-28. The passage of the Bible Obama thinks should be ignored.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/14/2013 @ 12:02 pmIt’s a deflection right out of Aaron Sorkin’s the West Wing, like that line about shellfish in Deuteronomy,
narciso (3fec35) — 3/14/2013 @ 12:11 pm63. I heard a Buenos Aires ‘Woman on the Street’ quote this AM following Argentinian Ok of SSM and yesterday’s election.
She was hopeful that the new Pope’s “opinion” on the matter would be opposed.
Seems good Catholics the world over are fuzzy on the ‘church authority’ issue, along with the emancipated.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/14/2013 @ 12:52 pm“… died-in-the-wool marxists who claimed to know what was best…”
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/14/2013 @ 12:55 pmaka, The Vanguard of the Proletariat!
Precisely askeptic.
From the article I linked to earlier, “The Retreat of Liberation Theology:”
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/14/2013 @ 1:29 pmSoime background to the election explained:
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/342964
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/14/2013 @ 2:53 pmBergoglio was a 30-1 longshot. Somehow, all the predictions assumed it would be somebody younger, although that should never have been more than a 50-50 proposition.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/14/2013 @ 2:55 pmThe left is going to just love this guy:
Pope Francis I promises to be strong pro-life world leader
As Cardinal, Pope Francis strongly condemned abortion, including in rape cases
I wonder if Pope Francis will deny abortion-supporting, HHS mandate-loving Sheriff Joe communion when he heads the US delegation to the Vatican for his installation?
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/14/2013 @ 3:04 pmComment by Steve57 (60a887) — 3/14/2013 @ 1:29 pm
“I will listen to the people when their voice sounds like mine!”
or…..
“The People have spoken, Damn Them!”
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/14/2013 @ 3:45 pmMr Ejercito wrote:
Sorry, but this would never pass as a reasonable argument, at least not by the Church. You are suggesting that capital punishment would be legitimate even though a prisoner is helpless, just because the authorities might fail in their jobs of keeping him incarcerated.
The theologian Dana (3e4784) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:05 amDana, the theologian, I fear you are missing the point.
Is it within the authority of the Pope to determine that capital punishment, which might otherwise be justifiable and is therefore not intrinsically evil per the catechism, no longer necessary because of modern advancements in the penal system?
Even the Church teaches that isn’t a question it can decide. It’s up to the laity.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:21 amIt should not surprise me, but it does nonetheless, how many people are shocked that The Church selects someone as Pope that follows and believes in their teachings. So many friends think The Church should change their views to come into the 21st century.
JD (4bb5d1) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:25 amfelipe wrote:
The passages I cited were not from Pope John Paul II, but from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, on the authority of the Catechism:
Emphases mine. The teachings of the Catholic Church on capital punishment are not just the opinions of John Paul II, though he certainly agreed with the statements made in the Catechism, but the official teaching of the Church.
The catechumen Dana (3e4784) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:29 amLeaving Michael Ejercito aside for the second, what “new measures” has society developed since the dark ages to render prisoners harmless?
I’m not suggesting the death penalty is justified if you could render a prisoner truly helpless. I’m just wondering how that’s possible one.
Inmate kills guard at Pennsylvania prison, officials say Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/26/inmate-kills-guard-at-pennsylvania-prison-officials-say/#ixzz2NcDiQaZQ
This individual who killed the guard wasn’t a danger to society? Assuming a grand theft auto conviction or accepting a job as a prison guard doesn’t place you outside society.
I suppose it’s more or less admirable for the Catholic Church to opine on such things, but exactly what advancements have been made to prevent really violent inmates from turning a five year prison stretch into a death sentence? Or the job of prison guard? And why do prisoners who weren’t sentenced to death and prison guards keep turning up dead? Given these “new measures” society can supposedly protect itself by?
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:46 amMr 57 wrote:
Actually, yes, it is. The Church may lack the civil authority to put that into law, but she certainly has the moral authority to state that the taking of a human life is unnecessary, and wrong, under such conditions.
The arguments I have seen above remind me very much of the arguments expressed by the pro-abortion forces, who state, quite accurately, that nowhere in the Bible is Jesus quoted as saying that abortion is wrong, nor is such explicitly mentioned in the New Testament epistles, nor in the Old Testament laws. Exodus 21:22-25 describes an accidentally-caused miscarriage, but does not impose the same penalty as in the case of taking a life. We know and accept the Church’s position that abortion is intrinsically evil, yet that is a position which has developed over time, not something for which you can cite chapter and verse from the Bible.
The Bible explicitly does provide for capital punishment, and does so for a number of crimes for which we would never impose it today, but it must be remembered, those laws were given to a nomadic people, wandering in the desert for forty years; the Israelites couldn’t exactly keep people securely jailed in tents.
The Catechism addresses whether capital punishment is necessary, and it almost never is. Most of the people whom we sentence to death do die in prison, but of something other than execution, and most of the people convicted of murder in our country are not sentenced to death; it is clear, from those facts alone, that capital punishment is not necessary as a form of societal defense, because we have obviously survived without imposing it for every murder, or anywhere close to every murder. Not being necessary, the Church holds it to be the unjustifiable taking of a human life.
The very Catholic Dana (3e4784) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:48 amSo why was it not obvious either in the time of Moses or the time of Jesus?
In any event, the Church would be overstepping its authority if it declared something intrinsically evil that God Himself never did. However…
God saw fit to impose a penalty for that.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:58 amMr 57 cites the case of a prison guard slain by an inmate. However, the inmate who is going to be charged with the slaying was not in federal prison for murder, and thus was not eligible for capital punishment; suggesting that execution would have saved the slain officer had the inmate been executed is a non-starter because capital; punishment for him was never on the table.
He was to be returned to the Arizona state prison system after he served his sentence in federal prison, to complete a life sentence for murder; Arizona, where Jessie Con-ui was tried and convicted of murder, did not see fit to sentence him to death.
The extremely Catholic Dana (3e4784) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:02 amBut the Church teaches it isn’t up to itself to decide when it is necessary.
It’s up to the laity; civil authority which, hopefully, has a properly formed conscience to decide.
“Almost never” means sometimes, sometimes, the death penalty is necessary.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:04 amDana @79, how does the fact a prisoner at a maximum security prison who wasn’t convicted of murder invalidate my point that the modern penal system can’t render prisoners harmless?
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:08 am*who wasn’t convicted of murder found a way to kill a guard*
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:09 amMr Ejercito wrote:
One could argue that it was, but was not written down as part of the law. The words we have recorded from Jesus are remarkably few. All that we can say that we know is that such was not recorded in the Bible.
God did state that murder was intrinsically evil; the Church has stated, in effect, that the unborn are still living human beings, and thus the deliberate killing of the unborn falls under the Commandments.
The Church has not stated that the execution of the unambiguously guilty for a capital crime is an intrinsic evil; the Church has stated that, under modern conditions, it is unnecessary and should not be done.
The seminarian Dana (3e4784) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:10 amMr 57 wrote:
They are harmless to outside society, and, quite frankly, the prison system fouled up by allowing a condition to exist in which Mr Con-ui was able to assault a guard. I do note, however, that despite the murder, the prisoner was never able to get out of the prison and put the public in jeopardy.
However, if I am to take your point at face value, then I must hold that every felon in any prison must be executed, regardless of for which crime he was imprisoned, because he might somehow kill a guard.
The Dana making the obvious point (3e4784) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:15 amWhat are these modern conditions?
And please explain how the Church has become the authority on penology.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:18 amMr 57 wrote:
Modern conditions are those in which we have static prisons, capable of permanent incarceration. And the Church does not claim expertise in penology; it claims authority on moral questions.
This discussion has gotten skewed; the question has never been whether the Church has expertise on criminology, on penal conditions, or whether some prisoner, somewhere, just might escape. The point was, as you raised it originally, that the Church’s position on capital punishment was somehow just John Paul’s opinion, and in that, you were incorrect.
It’s obvious that you believe the Church’s position is the wrong one, or impractical, or something, and it’s clear I’ll never persuade you otherwise. But your opinion that the Church’s stated position is the wrong one does not change the fact that it is the Church’s teaching on doctrine and morals. That teaching is very unlikely to change at any time soon, and certainly not under Pope Francis.
The theologian Dana (3e4784) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:29 amNo Dana. A prison is still part of society. It contains husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters. Most of whom are going to re-enter the mainstream of society. I believe the Catholic
Church has had occasion to say a thing or two about prisoners in the past.
To point out that it’s a matter of prudential judgement for the laity to determine who might pose so much of a danger to society, even on the edge of society that is a prison, that the mechanism of self defense (the death penalty) might be imposed is not the same thing as license to kill.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:33 amBut the Church’s position hasn’t really changed. That’s the point. Bloodness means if possible was always the rule. It isn’t as if I ever deluded myself I could be a good Catholic and advocate the indiscriminate application of the death penalty even for murderers.
Catholic catechism always taught that some murderers are so dangerous that the death penalty can be necassary. Nothing JPII ever wrote changed that. I’m merely pointing that out. He might have opined that the necessity of applying the death penalty was in most cases was “rare if practically nonexistent.” But that never actually changed anything as it already should have been rare if practically non-existent.
But rare if practically non-existent means by any definition “sometimes.”
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:42 amDana, if a 25 year old inmate who was served up a life term for murder and has already tacked on an additional life term or two for killing other prisoners and oh by the way has threatened guards and their families, are we bound by our catechism to conclude only bloodless means are allowed?
“Nothing left to lose” takes on real meaning in such circumstances.
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:56 am89. Christopher Scarver, Great American.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:27 pmThere are passages in Jeremiah and Psalms, and perhaps in other places that I am unaware of, that clearly acknowledges the personhood of the child in the womb. If the child in the womb is indeed a person, it seems to me that any prohibition against premeditated murder would include abortion. David and Jeremiah, or perhaps rather God the Holy Spirit in inspiring the text, did not think it was above their pay grade to state whether or not the child in utero was a person (as opposed to…?), even though Jeremiah for one did not get paid much.
As a non-Roman Catholic Christian, I have always believed the arguement can be made from Scripture that governmental execution of a murderer could be justified, at least in some aggravated circumstances, as consistent with the general idea of the dignity of life, consistent with a pro-Life stance. It is a societal statement on the value of life that those who take life wantonly have forfeited their own right to life. As said above, there is nothing in Scripture that I know of that says the official execution of a murderer is an intrinsic evil.
But all of that is in reference to my understanding of scripture, not Roman Catholic teaching and the nuances of it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:19 pmI found this story, through a Gawker link, ‘that den of scum and villainy’ but it helps explain some things;
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/full-statement-from-jesuit-kidnapped-by-argentine-junta-on-new-pope/?smid=tw-thelede&seid=auto
narciso (3fec35) — 3/15/2013 @ 8:21 pmOf course it is wrong.
By saying so, they are in direct opposition to God, who imposed the death penalty for various crimes like buggery and idolatry.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 3/15/2013 @ 8:24 pmIn this space I asked about Pope Francis’ position on “Liberation Theology“, since many Jesuits had embraced it.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/19/2013 @ 10:11 amMary Anastasia O’Grady ably answers that question in her Monday WSJ column “Behind the Campaign to Smear the Pope“.
Thank You, Mary!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578362701947035938.html