Pope Francis has made news with his
recent remarks about capital punishment and the catechism. They are seriously problematic. In an
article at Catholic Herald, I provide
an analysis.
In our book By
Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment
(at pp. 183-96), Joseph Bessette and I analyze in detail Pope Francis’s
previous statements on this subject. They
too are problematic, but less so than the pope’s most recent remarks.
The ineptitude (deliberate or not) is too much.
ReplyDeleteWell done sir.
ReplyDeletePope Benedict said in his writing and in interviews he does not believe in Limbo & seems to believe all un-baptized children are in fact saved by extra-ordinary means and graces. While he was Pope he seemed to be looking into ditching the doctrine of Limbo and at the time a host of people where kvetching about it. But in the end he came up with something that stated the Traditional view of the Church that doesn't mandate Limbo but doesn't condemn belief in it either. So I refuse to worry here. Vatican One is All.
ReplyDeleteThere is no official Church "doctrine" of Limbo. Limbo has always been a non-dogmatic theological concept, and has never been part of the Deposit of Faith.
DeleteLimbo was never a dogmatic doctrine, but always a theological hypothesis. Even the official Cathechism in regard of the faith of unbaptized babies says the Church "leaves it to the grace of God" and the CCC was written under John Paul II's papacy.
DeleteBTW if Joe D'Hippolito is reading this no sir it is I who told you so..........
ReplyDeleteI don't understand Francis. He keeps saying things like this, and resists clarifying. He almost seems to enjoy spreading confusion and demoralizing a large part of the Church. I don't doubt his authority, but I do doubt his intelligence. And temperament.
ReplyDeleteI often refer to him as Liberius II; maybe I should be more modern and say Honorius 1.1.
Distressing, especially after the pair who preceded him.
I don't doubt his authority,
ReplyDeleteWhat I worry about is the fact that there are papal documents (Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio), that indicate that if he really is advocating something heretical then he really does cease to be pope. And Doctors of the Church who explain it and consider it certain. I don't say this because I think that Francis has done this. I say it because it is thinkable, and there may come a time when the Church MUST consider whether he has, and must come to a decision. It does us no good to say it is impossible when those far higher in authority have said it is.
> (Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio), that indicate that if he really is advocating something heretical then he really does cease to be pope.
DeleteNo, Paul IV had a reform minded Cardinal who he erroneously suspected was a secret Lutheran in mind when he drafted that & wanted too bogart his chances of being elected Pope(& he succeeded).
Cum ex Apostolatus Officio could ONLY remove Pope Francis from office if he woke up today ran down to the local Eastern Orthodox Church, Lutheran, Mosque, Jewish Temple or the Moonies and formally joined their religion & by that act he would effectively be resigning.
The other example provided for would entail someone has video tape or credible evidence he secretly did one of the above before the his election. It entails a formal act of joining another religion.
It cannot refer to a Pope who personally or privately holds false heretical doctrinal views and errors. Otherwise Pope John XXII would have ceased to be Pope and he did not. Also you would be in the precarious position of not knowing any particular Pope was really the Pope since you cannot know any Pope doesn't subjectively hold false beliefs.
It practically renders Vatican One meaningless.
Under this loose erroneous view of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio which is often held by SSPV and other Sede groups St John Paul II could have been a secret heretic.
John Paul II being a Saint would have nothing to do with it since well St. Hippolytus is unique in that he was and is the ONLY anti-Pope (a rival of the legitimate Pope Callistus) to be considered a Saint.
Anyway it unravels the whole papacy. No Pope Francis is not going to be re-baptized in a Baptist Church anytime soon. So Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is not a factor.
Son of Ya'Kov, thank you for helpful suggestions. While I completely agree that the Bull by Paul IV would unravel the whole papacy if it were interpreted too loosely, I think it necessary to pay attention to the actual words in it: " or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy".
DeleteSt. Robert Bellarmine's comment on it refers to "manifest" heresy:
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=333437&language=en
"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself (per se) to be Pope and head",
no doubt for the very concerns you mention, which are indeed extremely important. Never should we allow that some secret (or worse, merely material) heresy would instigate the result indicated. I have always rejected the SSPX and sede groups' ridiculous claims about JPII and Benedict, just as you say.
Yet your examples are those of apostasy, whereas the Bull and Bellarmine mention heresy, a different kind of offense against the Faith.
What I find interesting is that Bellarmine's analysis would apply the same result whether the putative 'pope's' heresy were before or after elevation, but Paul IV's Bull only states the result if the heresy pre-dates his elevation - at least, that's how I read it. It seems to be silent about heresy after elevation.
The problem is far from simple. I wish it were as simple as you say, indeed I do. Let me ask a question: do you agree with Bellarmine's explanation, which would have it that the pope in question would lose his office (though validly elected originally) per se, by the very nature of the case, and not merely because of the Bull enacted by Paul IV? Would this not equally apply to a heresy embraced after elevation as before?
The other interesting thing is that Paul IV seems to explicitly recognize the concept of a 'pope' who is elected by the college of cardinals even though he is actually ineligible by reason of heresy (let us assume the necessarily manifest heresy), and the censure he states thus can only be understood to apply after he APPEARS to have been elevated to the papacy. This is interesting because although there is a formal procedure for the Church to declare the heretical status of a public heretic - an ecclesiastical court - it is in the nature of the case impossible for such a procedure to apply to the putative pope. Hence according to Paul IV's mind, it can only be a case heretical statements that publicly manifest heresy formally held but NOT declared by a Church court as "this person is formally declared a heretic." The position of the Bull cannot but be understood to apply in spite of the lack of a formal declaration by the Church of the man's status as heretic.
And this is exactly what St. Bellarmine said.
Let me qualify that "formal declaration" as the kind usually elicited in a Church court. Arguably, it could happen by, say, the cardinals issuing a statement (after the appropriate interplay between them and the pope in question) that the manifest heresy that the pope has espoused publicly, and obstinately holds to, has caused the pope to remove himself from office.
DeleteApostasy is a loose term & related to heresy. I would call Rod Dreher an Apostate for leaving the Catholic Church for the Eastern Orthodox over the Priestly sex scandal. But he isn't an Apostate in that he has renounced Christianity. He is certainly a heretic and a schismatic now. I'll let God judge his soul because I can't do otherwise. Joining another religion is a heretical act since all other religions are heresy. Some to greater degrees then others. Also I don't see practically how one could be an apostate without being a heretic?
DeleteI don't know if I would agree or maybe I might with qualifications agree with Bellarmine and I would like to see how his views line up with Vatican One.
Ironically Paul IV's Bull is like Amoris in some ways(thought in essence a Bull is one thing and an Apostolic Exhortation is another). Both contain a great deal of ambiguity.:D
There is no formal process by which a Pope can be "impeached" for heresy. The Pope judges and is judged by nobody save God Alone. Some pre-Vatican One theologians theorized a Council could remove a heterodox Pope but I don't know how that can be true in light of Vatican One?
I guess we will have to ask the Pope.:D If Pope Francis won't help then we wait for Pope John Paul III or Paul VII or Pius XIII or Leo XIV or John XXIV or even Francis II.
It is a mess but I am sure it will clean up someday.
All is as God Wills it.
"Also I don't see practically how one could be an apostate without being a heretic?"
DeleteNot commonly, but it is possible. Take a non-theologically minded Greek in the late 11th C, or an Englishman under Henry VIII (before hearing of the Pope's denunciation.) Such a person would not have changed his beliefs, but would surely be in a state of apostasy, given the schisms involved. This could also be applied to a follower of an anti-pope.
I am not the subject does lend itself to proper "heresy". It's rather a lack of continuity regarding a moral teaching on a particular punishment, but not a reversal of doctrne (like claiming Jesus is not God or something like that).
DeleteMoreover the Pope is not implying that the death penalty is an intrinsic evil, but rather that it is not not a viable option anymore since we have much better ways to contain and reform criminals than in the past.
Also I agree with him, that the death penalty was often used in contradiction with Christian values, unfortunately.
Hence I would not say at all that he is "heretic". Whether is view on the death penalty is correct or not...
Ed, I regret not having taken my copy By Man to Rome and playing hide and seek with Vatican security until I could get the book to into Pope Francis' hands.
ReplyDeleteGeez, I really need to re-read these posts for basic errors before I make them…
DeleteI'm Evangelical Protestant.
ReplyDeleteIf the pope says its inhumane then thats a reflection on those who advocate. including God.
Its not inhumane. its a punishment for a inhumane act that destroys a souls existence on earth. A big deal.
In fact, save for the soul, its the biggest deal.
Without authority it denies God and man to make the moral decision on the important of a humans life.
To make a conclusion that life is so important that a intention killing of it by a human demands justice. Justice only can be done by the murderer's death.
any other punishment of the murderer is a great mockery of the value of the one murdered.
Dismissing the death penalty this way is not only wrong but incredibly m,orally demanding of a exclusive conclusion.
humans killi9ng humans is not the moral problem.
Its the motives behind it.
otherwise self defence would be something less then moral even if allowed.
This is poorly reasoned and unreasonable.
What does the bible teach?
Have there been any critical reviews of By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed, or have the folks at America et al basically just ignored it?
ReplyDeleteSerious question for Catholics: what happens when (not if) you-know-which-group-of-people hijacks the college of cardinals and elects a pope who issues ex cathedra declarations that gay marriage is marriage, that homosexuality is honorable and not sinful, and that it is a mortal sin to label someone a gender said person does not identify as? Would you then say to yourself, "well, the Pope is speaking as the voice of God, so I better give him my mindless obedience."
ReplyDeleteI am not sure exactly what protocol is in cases like this. I would note that sedevacantism is not an incoherent position; I believe that sedevacantists are wrong that the last however-many "popes" were illegitimate, but that's not because it's impossible for an apparent pope not to be a pope. If something like that happened, the first thing would be to check the fact of the case.
DeleteAs a Catholic, I don't concede "when" or if, though. Catholicism is falsifiable in the sense that it is easy to imagine the occurrence of events that are incompatible with the truth of Catholicism. One could imagine every member of the hierarchy dying tomorrow; one could imagine the pope stating that as solemnly as you like that Jesus was not divine; one could imagine that historical evidence of an arbitrarily convincing nature becomes available that the Resurrection did not occur and Christianity was an elaborate hoax. (As the latter case shows, Catholics are not the only Christians for whom this is true.)
The Catholic simply believes that however imaginable these occurrences are, they are not really possible, because God protects his Church.
Minor technical disagreement.
DeleteNo sedevacantism is a 100% incoherent position since if it is true then Vatican One has no teeth & we don't even know if we should trust St. Pius V or Trent.
I submit it is a more erroneous view then Modernism or Liberalism.
But for purposes of argument I can, like you, imagine the absurd to be true as a thought experiment.
>The Catholic simply believes that however imaginable these occurrences are, they are not really possible, because God protects his Church.
Amen! No greater Truth. Vatican One is All!
As Greg notes, this 'serious question' basically boils down to asking Catholics what they will do when ('when, not if') they discover Catholicism to be false.
DeleteYou seem, however, to have a notion of ex cathedra declarations as something that can be issued arbitrarily and at whim; but such declarations by definition are on behalf of the Church, and thus must be, at least in principle and understood with relevant context, consistent with the notes of the Church. Further, while the authority of an ex cathedra declaration doesn't depend on any further ratification by the consent of the Church, it's a different question whether a declaration can be ex cathedra if done without any regard for the consent of the Church -- consultation of other bishops, consideration of the actual practice of the Church, relation of decision to prior declarations of popes and ecumenical councils, etc.
@ Son of Yakov
DeleteNo sedevacantism is a 100% incoherent position since if it is true then Vatican One has no teeth & we don't even know if we should trust St. Pius V or Trent.
I'm happy to be corrected on this point as I haven't studied the matter. My thought was just that the Seat of Peter is, as a matter of fact, vacant whenever a pope dies. The legitimacy of the next pope depends on a process being followed. It doesn't seem to me to be absolutely ruled out that it should appear that that process has been followed when in fact it hadn't been.
I don't believe this is the case, but it is not obvious to me that it should necessarily be a falsification of the Catholic faith if it were to occur (which is not to say that it necessarily would not be a falsification of the Catholic faith if it were to occur, as may be the case with the views of contemporary sedevacantists). But perhaps I am wrong here.
Wait, so what exactly would be the protocol if a Pope decided he would declare ex cathedra a heresy?
DeleteOne answer to this from the above comments seems to be that there is no protocol because papal infallibility means that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from such a thing ever happening.
However, one other answer that I've seen is that such a Pope would cease being the Pope the instant he voices such a declaration (or before he does it) and so papal infallibility would remain intact despite such an action of trying to declare heresy.
Such an option also seems plausible when we consider that most of the infallibly declared doctrines of the Church have already been declared and so no change would ever actually be legitimate.
So which is it exactly?
As Greg notes, this 'serious question' basically boils down to asking Catholics what they will do when ('when, not if') they discover Catholicism to be false.
DeleteThere's nothing stopping a Catholic in any urban city in America (Los Angeles, New York, Houston, take your pick) from just saying that God changed his mind and then going on board the convergence.
And do you think the inevitable papal declaration would be proof? Just look around you. The convergence is almost complete: gay marriage is accepted by 60% of America, Christians have been cow'd by Big Red into cowardly submission, everyone begins their statements with "I feel that..." instead of "I think that...." The converged pope would just be the metaphorical Alaric the Great.
Tomislav Ostojich,
DeleteIn other words, you were lying when you said it was a 'serious question', as seemed pretty obvious at the time.
@Brandon It is a serious question, because I want to know whether Catholics fall under:
Delete1. Submit and become a full-blown queer SJW.
2. Resist and rebel.
The idea that "oh, that'll never happen" seems extremely bizarre given Catholic history. How many Catholics are unaware of saeculum obscurum? How about when Pope Benedict IX sold the papacy? The idea that "this could never happen/let's just hope for the best" is completely delusional and unsupported by evidence.
JoeD, let's separate your question into 2 cases. In the first case, the pope in question has never uttered anything that might be taken as heretical before elevation to the papacy, and decides to issue an ex cathedra statement that directly contradicts formally declared doctrine. It is my impression that Catholicism's stance is that regardless of whether he decides to do so, he NEVER WILL succeed in issuing such a statement. He will fail, or he will die first, or whatever - the Holy Spirit will prevent him. The "ceases to be pope at that point" is a terrible mudge, because his internal decision is not yet manifest by his outward acts, yet his external action trying to issue an ex cathedra heresy is exactly what is supposed to be protected from error. And because it demands that the decision-makers (the cardinals?) be faced with a determination, on their own steam, that in spite of the outward form of his act (as ex cathedra) that it fails to be true to doctrine and THAT's why he ceases to be pope. That's a very problematic formulation. Better to just say that God will never allow such a thing to happen.
DeleteSecond case is where the man "elected" pope has spouted public, manifest heresy before elected. According to the papal Bull issued by Paul IV, his elevation would be null, and nobody would owe him obedience. (see my comments above). This case would in fact require a difficult discernment by those with the authority to act, but NOT of his acts that should appear to fall under the ex cathedra infallibility protection.
That, I think, is critical: as long as the acts by which the heresy is made manifest are not in form and appearance those that ought to be protected by the extraordinary guarantee of infallibility accorded to ex cathedra statements, they can be weighed and evaluated by those who have the position to speak on it (such as the cardinals) if they manifestly defy the already stated (and protected) apostolic teaching of the Church.
1: So it's problematic to say that a Pope who declared an ex cathedra heresy stops being a valid pope the moment he does that?
DeleteWell then, couldn't we say that the Pope would cease to be a valid one the moment he decides privately to make a heretical ex cathedra statement, before he makes a formal ex cathedra declaration?
That way, the cardinals would have more chronological space to issue an actual condemnation.
And I don't really see how problematic it would be for people in authority to collectively anathemise that heretical ex cathedra statement and declare the Pope no longer valid and point out that he ceased to be a pope before he even formalised it. If it's manifestly contrary to prior teaching, it should be obviously easy to point such a thing out.
2: So if the Pope already spouted heretical beliefs in public before becoming one, this would automatically invalidate him, right? Understood then.
What about if such a pope only held heretical beliefs only in private before the became elected, and then decided to formally declare an ex cathedra heresy?
JoeD, it seems pretty a well settled conclusion that a privately held heresy does nothing to affect the pope's holding office. See the link below from Deus Primus Est (which article, although maybe not perfect, is clear on this point).
DeleteThe problem with the cardinals collectively anathematizing a supposedly ex cathedra statement that contradicts prior doctrine is that it requires pitting one form of "protected teaching" against another form of "protected teaching". And no matter how manifest it is, you always have some nay-sayers who say that it's ambiguous, it doesn't mean what you say it means, etc. (Just look at the current state of affairs for examples of that). So it ends up being a judgment call, EVEN THOUGH the outward form is an ex cathedra statement. Which (as Ya'Kov suggested above) kind of undermines the whole point of the extraordinary charism of infallibility of the pope.
The Catholic Church has one ready-made answer to this dilemma: mindless obedience to the new Church. Just listen and believe
DeleteDear Mr. Tomislav Ostojich,
DeleteEx Cathedra isn't a magic spell. If a Pope said something like that, he would merely be a heretic and a fool.
He can't change the teaching of Christ by saying a few words, only interpret what the Apostles have already given us.
Christi pax.
If this happens, then we must investigate if the Orthodox Church was correct all along about papal supremacy,filioque,ect.
Delete-Doubter
@Lucretius thanks for an honest response.
DeleteTomislav, the trouble is that the most obvious solution - a council - won't work. When I gave up Anglicanism, I looked at Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism. I'm still very favorably disposed. But I can't get past the latrocinium of Ephesus.
Delete(And you'll never get a former Anglican to buy into the consensus o bishops.)
1- Are you really being serious? If you post Anita Sarkeesian as an example of how Catholic believe then I would say you are a troll... or worse.
DeleteAlso it's not like Catholics have not dissented in the past or now.
In fact many Catholics now are against Pope Francis and his views on many things.
2- We had to deal with "anti-popes" before, so it would be nothing new.
3- You are ignorant in thinking Catholics owe mindless obedience to the Pope
4- Declarations Ex Cathedra do not work as you think. Not every statement from the Pope is dogmatic and would a Pope claim to proclaim a new dogma in contradiction with other dogmas, then he would be heretic and he would forfeit his power to proclaim anything Ex Cathedra in the first place.
https://legiochristi.com/sedevacantism/
ReplyDeleteA detailed critique of sedevacantism, for those interested.
Prayers needed for the Holy Father and the Church at all times.
Does Francis understand that if he is right on the death penalty that none of us have any reason to trust his authority under his concept of development of Doctrine? Why should I take his word over the word of any other pope? We don't believe in papal positivism as far as I know. Is he more pope than all the other popes before him?
ReplyDeleteGarrigou-Lagrange saw modernists as hegelians who denied the principle of non contradiction and it is evident that he was correct about this. For Francis, as someone shaped by modernist theology, it is possible that adultery is at the same time forbidden and allowed by God, based in arbitrary judgement and that the Church teaches something which is inherently immoral, while also being preserved from error in matters of faith and morals.
We aren't praying enough rosaries.
" Does Francis understand that if he is right on the death penalty that none of us have any reason to trust his authority under his concept of development of Doctrine? Why should I take his word over the word of any other pope ..."
DeleteBecause stare decisis doesn't count until I say it does. Starting right now ... just as soon as I am done changing the unchangeable law. Whereupon, it will once again become unchangeable and categorically binding"
He's an Argentian Jesuit fruit-loop and a complete day-dreamer. I think you are ascribing a level of rationality and logic that Pope Frank has never possessed. You might as well go to your local New-Age centre and ask the woman behind the counter to explain in scientific terms how crystals or homeopathic medicines work. She would make about as much sense as he does.
Delete"Does Francis understand" is the key question. Frankly (no pun intended) he often sounds to me like the stoners I knew in college in the 70s.
DeleteAnd as with them, he seems inclined to a kind of arbitrariness which ends up being both voluntaristic and tyrannical. His predecessor was right; but I don't think Francis gets just how much Nietzsche (and Hegel, as you say) is in him.
Become a sedevacantist, and nothing this guy says will ever surprise you again.
ReplyDeleteExcept Sedes are just High Church Protestants with Latin and Rosary beads. They do not belong to the One True Church.
DeleteAlso the moral difference between a Sede vs a Protestant is at least the Protestant is consistent and has integrity.
No Sede is my Catholic Brother. He is a separated Brother like your average Protestant.
No, they are not Protestants. They are apostates, but Protestantism isn't the only road to that. They reject the Reformation as much as they do Vatican II. What I don't get is why they don't become Orthodox. Or Nestorian, if that rocks their boat. Or Coptic. There are many options.
DeleteOne comment I don't think has been sufficiently addressed is this:
ReplyDelete"One has to strongly affirm that condemnation to the death penalty is an inhuman measure that humiliates personal dignity, in whatever form it is carried out."
If the Pope teaches it's one's duty to affirm something, what else could be required, short of an ex cathedra definition, before a Catholic actually has to affirm it?
Nothing else is required. If a pope declares something to be "per se contrary to the Gospels," that's it. It's over. Rome has spoken, case closed. If Bergoglio were really the Vicar of Christ, then Ed would be obliged, as a loyal son of the Church, to withdraw his book. Of course, he's not going to do that, because Bergoglio's position is demonstrably false and anti-Catholic. There is absolutely no reason to assent to such nonsense. On the other hand, there is also absolutely no good reason to reject a declaration made by a pope on faith or morals. Therefore, it seems we are on the horns of a dilemma. Is there any way out of it? Of course there is.
DeleteYou've got any primary sources on why pope saying something outside of any form (meaning only binding in as far as it is a strong argument) in a speech is automatically ex cathedra and any time during history when that was seen as ex cathedra?
DeleteIt seems to me that according to your position we've been having antipopes since the change of the view on usury.
I have to respectfully disagree with George R's response. Canon law (see canon 749.3) is quite clear on the subject: "No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident."
DeleteWriting a line on into the Catechism saying that the the death penalty is "an inhuman measure that humiliates personal dignity" doesn't count as an infallible definition. Not by a long shot.
All the same, I am worried about the Pope's "long game." See this article in the Catholic Herald:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/october-13th-2017/climate-of-fear-the-new-crackdown-on-catholic-theologians/
"Bishop René Henry Gracida, a retired American bishop, believes that the dismissals of Cardinal Müller and of Cardinal Raymond Burke – both of whom had proclaimed the traditional teaching – have made other prelates too scared to say anything. 'Why are they silent?' he asks. 'There seems to be no other explanation than that they do not want to suffer the humiliation experienced by Cardinals Burke, Müller, et al. And those bishops who aspire to the scarlet zucchetto do not want to jeopardise their chances.'"
Popes make cardinals. Pope Francis has created a total of 61 cardinals.
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/francis-stacks-college-cardinals
What if we have a future pope who is even more liberal than the present one?
Vincent we agree the Pope's statement IS NOT an infallible one by a long shot. Also the Pope contradicts himself & is ambiguous so it would be a mistake to take what he says literally.
DeleteIvan,
DeleteI didn't say it was ex cathedra. I said that when a pope defines something on faith and morals, the case is closed, and all must assent to it. This is the perennial teaching of the Church, formerly understood by all theologians. As the saying goes, Roma locuta est, causa finita. Rome has spoken, case closed.
The death penalty has been defined by the (supposed) Vicar of Christ as "per se contrary to the Gospels." If you're with Bergoglio, you have to assent to it. If you refuse to assent to it, you're not with Bergoglio. It's that simple.
Lastly, the usury case is not applicable. The popes have never defined it to be other than evil.
VJ,
DeleteI seem to recall that the canon says rather, "No doctrine is understood as dogmatically defined unless this is manifestly evident." I'll have to look it up.
Anyway, the point I'm making is not that Bergoglio's declaration was a dogmatic definition. It was not. But that it was a definition on faith or morals, and therefore, commands the assent of the faithful.
But that it was a definition on faith or morals,
DeleteNo, George, it was not a "definition" on faith and morals. It was a statement. Statements are not "definitions" just because the Pope says them. For one thing (among several), the Pope was addressing a specific group, not the universal Church, and while the Church has usually paid attention to such addresses as indicating the mind of the pope, she has never accorded them the honor and respect of instances of magisterial "definition" just because he says it when it is addressed to a private group. And however forcefully he stated his thought in that address, he did nothing to indicate that he was projecting it as definitive AND as applicable to the whole Church.
More generally, unless the Pope manifests his intent by specifically invoking phrasing that speaks to the whole Church, he is not taken as speaking definitively. (That it be to the whole Church is just one facet, there are others.) It is perfectly possible for the pope to teach a truth without defining it, and this is what they usually do.
George R.
Delete>The death penalty has been defined by the (supposed) Vicar of Christ as "per se contrary to the Gospels.
So if the President of the USA writes a letter or gives a speech on letting gays in the Military that makes it legal as opposed to actually issuing an executive order as Commander and Chief changing that policy?
So Obamacare is repealed by virtue of the republicans in congress including McCain saying it should be repealed? As opposed to actually voting and passing a Bill?
Sorry buddy but Aquinas said not everything a King says is a law but only when he formally acts as a King and Supreme Legislator to enact a law.
The Pope as to speak formally with the intention of defining a doctrine. Saying the CCC should be revised is not the same as formally using his authority to revise it and publish an actual revised text.
Dude your Sede beliefs are laughable. You are proof why the Church forbids private interpretation.
Return to the Catholic Church outside of which there is no Salvation.
Sede nonsense is of the Devil.
Tony,
DeleteI didn't say that it was ex cathedra or a solemn definition. Nor did I say that one had to assent to it with Divine and Catholic Faith, as the theologians phrase it. I simply said that it was a definition on faith or morals, which, if made by a true pope (which it wasn't), would require the assent of all Catholics. For to say something is "per se contrary to the Gospel" is the form of a definition; for that which is contrary to the Gospel can be neither true nor held by Catholics, and this is what Bergoglio has said by implication.
What you're suggesting, Tony, is that the pope only has the authority to define doctrine accidentally, i.e, only when he promulgates it with sufficient solemnity. Such a view is contrary to tradition and denigrates the power and awe of the papacy, and opens the door to infinite captious arguments and quibbles, imho.
>What you're suggesting, Tony, is that the pope only has the authority to define doctrine accidentally, i.e, only when he promulgates it with sufficient solemnity.
DeleteNo you are the one who is claiming the Pope has the Power to define doctrine accidentally. If he wakes up in the morning. Doesn't have his coffee and says something erroneous near a hot mike THEN BOOM he just accidentally defined a dogma. What blithering nonsense!
The Pope only has the power to define doctrine formally and official when using his Petrine Authority to do so.
>Such a view is contrary to tradition and denigrates the power and awe of the papacy, and opens the door to infinite captious arguments and quibbles, imho.
No your weird view is a total ad hoc novelty and has NO prescient in Tradition. It opens to the door to Protestantism as no Pope who makes a mistake or says anything erroneous can suddenly be questioned as to the legitimacy of his office by the rabble.
Which is why your kind cannot be Catholic Brothers in Christ. You are Separated Brothers.
Pope Francis' speech on this subject is either erroneous or Pope Francis is using extreme rhetoric and should not be taken literally. Also as Feser points out Pope Francis appears to contradict himself so we can dismiss taking him literally here. He may be calling for revisions to the CCC. But till one shows up it is all theory. Also what might show up may not in fact be erroneous.
Pope Benedict has made no secret in his writings and interviews that he does not believe in Limbo for un-baptized infants. At one point he drafted a commission to study Limbo possibly to formally deep six it as a doctrine. The usual suspects kvetched about it and fretted. But in the end Benedict just re-stated the traditional Catholic position which allows belief in Limbo but doesn't mandate it.
Francis won't disappoint either because unlike you Sedes we Catholic really believe Our Lord in what he said in Matt 16:18.
Why should Matt 16:18 matter? Unless you interpret it to mean the share of Saint Peter can never be vacant (as it is whenever the Pope dies) or that the true Church must always be the numerically largest one. Why can't you interpret his words to mean a remnant?
Delete*chair
DeleteBecome a sedevacantist, and nothing this guy says will ever surprise you again.
ReplyDeleteI am a Protestant, so I have no dog in this fight, but it seems to me your real problem here is that the Pope is a cerebrevacantist.
No joke, Mike, that's actually a position held by some Catholics! These people believe that the post-conciliar popes have been so mentally debilitated by modern philosophy that they cannot really be held responsible for all the heterodox flapdoodle they spew. That being the case, they are not formal heretics, and, therefore, remain true popes. A sedevacantist priest, Fr. Cekada, has refered to this as the mentevacantist position, rather similar to your neologism.
DeleteGeorge if you are right Catholicism was false from the beginning and why Trust even Vatican One or Trent or Lateran V etc?
DeleteSedes are Protestants with Rosary beads not Catholics.
At best they are pseudo-Eastern Orthodox.
Somewhat on topic question here, Dr Feser: Will "By Man Shall his Blood be Shed" be released in audio book form?
ReplyDeleteHi everyone,
ReplyDeleteThe following article in The Guardian makes for interesting reading:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/16/pope-francis-church-death-penalty-divisive-pontiff-catholics
Is the Pope going to try and topple the just war theory next?
It reminds me of some article I read back in the 90's that claimed Pope St John Paul II allowing Altar Girls signals he is going to give us women Priests. Then later on he issues a decree that strongly resembles an Ex Cathedra decree saying the Church has no power to give the Ministerial Priesthood to women.
DeleteThe Pope isn't going to succeed. The Holy Spirit has got this Vince. Also St. John Paul II & Pope Benedict stacked the Cardinals and we still got Pope Francis. The Holy Father can stack away it doesn't mean we might not get a Pius XIII or Benedict XVII or John Paul III?
You worry too much.
Just war theory is redundant in the age of nuclear weapons. The current North Korea situation is prove of that. If you applied just war theory you'd have to surrender to the terms of every small despotic state that developed nukes. Even if they nuke 10 of your cities you cannot "justly" nuke them back as revenge attacks on civilian populations are not allowed. Follow just war theory in a nuclear age and you are enslaved by your own moral code.
Deleteggreg, it simply doesn't follow. If you accept the loss of those 10 cities, and follow up with conventional warfare against N Korea and mop the floor with them, THEIR having nukes does not stop you from carrying out just warfare against them.
DeleteBesides, in the 70 years since the first A-bombs were used, no nation that has them has used them in war. Yet there have been scads of wars, including with nuclear-capable states. There is no metaphysical necessity that a nuclear state will actually use their nukes in a war if they get in a war.
Tony, I agree except for the last sentence. What in the world does metaphysical necessity have to do with this?
DeleteYou can be against the Death Penalty and Pope Francis has the right to take the Church in that direction. The Ancient Rabbis upheld the death penalty but said any court that executes more then one person every 70 years is murderous.
ReplyDeleteWhat Pope Francis cannot do is declare the death penalty intrinsically evil as that would contradict dogma. His statements come close to that(with some wiggle room). That is his true problem.
I am for the death penalty btw but I could care less about Francis taking the Church in a stronger anti-death penalty direction then promote this error.
I would rather see the death penalty banned worldwide rather then see Pope Francis attempt to teach that it is intrinsically evil.
Tell us how ancient your cited rabbis are and give us cite to the book involved. I'm guessing they were post Christ.
Delete"A Sanhedrin which executes once in seven years is called a murderous one. R. Eleazar ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'"
DeleteMishnah Makkot 1:10
That's the first century of the common era.
DeleteNot only that, but the whole exchange takes place in a context in which the Jews were constrained by outside forces, and had perforce changed their practices. Hence it does not even purport to represent Judaism as such, or original Judaism:
DeleteMuch more pertinent, however, is a passage of the Talmud which explicitly compares the study of, and the discussion on the various death penalties with that on the sacrifices. The halakhah was established in the case of the death penalty for an adulterous woman. R. Joseph asked, "Is there need to establish a halakhah for the messianic age (the Sanhedrin no longer having jurisdiction in capital offenses)?" Abaye answered, "If so, we should not study the laws of sacrifices, as they also apply to the messianic age. But we say 'Study and receive reward'" (Sanh. 51b). Similarly, the passage in Mishnah Makkot 1:10: "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called a murderous one. R. Eleazar ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'" Instructive though this is, it is merely an academic discussion, the right of imposing capital punishment having been taken from the Sanhedrin by the Romans a century before, "40 years before the Destruction of the Temple" (Sanh. 41a; TJ, Sanh. 1:18a). The rabbis agreed that with the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin was precluded from inflicting capital punishment (see above).
More instructive is the fact that stoning manifestly was practiced earlier (cf Luke 4:29, which was a form of stoning). Nor need we understand that all capital cases throughout Israel referable to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin to try. The passage just does not clarify what was Jewish teaching or practice in the 1000 years from David to Jesus.
From the catechism explained,published 1899, 1923:"The officers of justice, in as far as they stand in the place of God, have the right to sentence evil-doers to capital punishment. St. Paul says the higher powers bear not the sword in vain, but as avengers to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil (Rom. xiii. 4). The authority of the magistrate is God’s authority; when he condemns a criminal, it is not he who condemns him, but God, just as the sword is not answerable for the blow it strikes, but the hand is that wields the sword. Yet the judge must not act arbitrarily; he must only sentence the criminal to death when the welfare of society demands it. Human society is a body of which each individual is a member; and as a diseased limb has to be amputated in order to save the body, so criminals must be executed to save society. As a matter of course the culprit’s guilt must be proved; better let the guilty go free than condemn the innocent. It is an error to suppose that the Church advocates capital punishment on the principle of retaliation; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This is a principle of Judaism, not of Christianity. The Church does not like to see blood shed, she desires that every sinner should have time to amend. She permits, but does not approve capital punishment."
ReplyDeleteI think Catholics ought to try to interpret Papal statements in a harmonizing way. In other words, if there are two ways to interpret the Pope's statements, and one way implies a contradiction between the current Pope's statements and those of former Popes, and the other way avoids a contradiction, then Catholics ought to prefer the harmonious interpretation.
ReplyDeleteSo, is it possible to interpret Pope Francis statements in a "harmonizing" way? I think yes. I think we need to understand there to be a "hidden clause", which Pope Francis did not say, but nonetheless did mean. And I think that hidden clause is something like "in the circumstances of the 21st century". When Pope Francis says the death penalty is "contrary to the Gospel", he is not trying to pass judgement on his predecessors; he is trying to pass judgement on the contemporary world. So if we mentally amend all his statements to include that qualifying clause, I think we remove a lot of the potential for contradiction. And, I think it likely he actually intended something like that, but forgot to say it (Pope Francis would himself admit he is not a very precise thinker, and so overly literal readings of his statements may not match his intentions.)
This way of reading Francis is in the spirit of the current Catechism text, 2267, which already refers to circumstances "Today" as being morally relevant, implying the contemporary circumstances it refers to were not true in the past.
Some people are going to call this "moral relativism", but I don't think it really is. Absolute and objective moral principles can have different applications in different circumstances. (Nor is it "situation ethics", since "situation ethics" presumes every situation is different such than moral generalizations become impossible; this is just talking about morally relevant situations being different in different historical periods, but nonetheless being common or even universal within their respective periods.)
Pope Francis lacks precision in his statements, but he has tasked a committee to draft Catechism amendments, so I expect the committee members will supply the precision that Francis himself lacks. The current Catechism contains the suggestion that "Today" the death penalty is either not an "absolute necessity", or at least very rarely so. I think the amended text will strengthen that language into a condemnation, but keep the reference to "Today", so it will not be passing judgement on past generations of church leadership.
You can ask what possible moral principles could permit the death penalty in the past but not the present. One can attempt to sketch an answer, but ultimately that is a problem for moral theologians to solve. If the Catechism were amended to say that, then I think your average Catholic would be justified in accepting that as Church teaching (even though some who disagree with it would inevitably dispute its binding status.)
I'm all for trying to interpret Pope Francis coherently with the tradition, but these proposals do not seem to work.
DeleteI think we need to understand there to be a "hidden clause", which Pope Francis did not say, but nonetheless did mean. And I think that hidden clause is something like "in the circumstances of the 21st century". When Pope Francis says the death penalty is "contrary to the Gospel", he is not trying to pass judgement on his predecessors; he is trying to pass judgement on the contemporary world.
The problem is that, on this reading, Pope Francis is not altering the teaching presently in the Catechism, so it makes no sense that he would recommend revising it.
He also--apparently--goes out of his way to claim that no such restrictions apply. He did not merely say that the death penalty is contrary to the Gospel. He said that it is "per se" contrary to the Gospel. The remark is deliberately unqualified.
Much of the rest of his comments are similarly unqualified, sprinkled with nevers and no ones, etc.
The Catechism also claims that the death penalty could be applied in the past but not now. Pope Francis seems to want to repudiate that claim specifically, saying that in the past "recourse to the death penalty appeared to be the logical consequence of the correct application of justice." The emphasis is mine, but the implicature is Pope Francis': recourse to the death penalty was not in fact the logical consequence of the correct application of justice.
We should try to read Pope Francis charitably, despite his tendency to make it ever so hard to do so. As far as I can tell, the most charitable reading of this speech is that Pope Francis is badly confused. He thinks he can teach what he wants to teach without abandoning the "sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers," but he is wrong.
I observe further that this is not an ambiguous or imprecise speech. In that respect, it does not read like much of what Pope Francis says or writes, and I rather doubt that he wrote it.
DeleteBut he is an adult, and he is responsible for what he stands in front of the world to read.
The problem is that, on this reading, Pope Francis is not altering the teaching presently in the Catechism, so it makes no sense that he would recommend revising it.
DeleteI am not sure "altering" is entirely the right word here. John Paul II and Benedict XVI both taught that the death penalty was wrong in contemporary circumstances, but they tried to leave a certain degree of "wiggle-room" for those Catholics who disagreed with their view on this. Generally speaking, they used stronger language against the death penalty in less definitive contexts (such as speeches), but I think they intentionally toned down their opposition in definitive Church documents (such as the Catechism). This is why the current language in the Catechism is against the contemporary application of the death penalty, but somewhat weakly so, to preserve some scope of permissible disagreement. Pope Francis plans to reduce that "wiggle room", and part of that plan is Catechism amendment (the project of which was already reported on in the middle of last year). One of the major purposes of this speech is to announce the progress on that plan, and I expect we will soon see the text of the amendments released. So, one could view it as the substance of the teaching not changing from John Paul II to Francis, but the degree of formal authority attached to it is increasing, and hence the scope of legitimate disagreement from that teaching is shrinking.
I readily admit that it is difficult to give a completely coherent reading of this speech. As you correctly point out, at some points he appears to be implying an overruling of past teaching, but on the other hand he explicitly says Here we are not in any way contradicting past teaching. So, what does one do with a possibly somewhat self-contradictory papal speech? Does one ignore it completely? Or does one try to extract as much coherent sense as possible from it? I think extracting the conclusion that "the death penalty is definitively immoral in contemporary circumstances"–which is stronger than what the Catechism currently says, and is not necessarily contrary to past teachings in favour of the death penalty–and putting aside the proposition that "the death penalty was immoral in past historical circumstances" (which on its face does contradict past teaching)–is the best way to salvage this speech. And I think Pope Francis would be happy for his listeners to draw from it the first conclusion, however he may feel about their acceptance or rejection of the second.
I think in the long-run, what really matters is the text of the Catechism amendment, not this papal speech. Papal speeches are relatively low in the hierarchy of magisterial authority–the Catechism is a deliberate exercise of the magisterium in a way in which a papal speech is not. We'll have to see what the actual text is, but I suspect it will focus on condemning the death penalty in contemporary circumstances, and avoid passing judgement on the past (I would not be surprised if it was ambiguous or equivocal on that point).
I am not sure "altering" is entirely the right word here.
DeleteFine. Nothing rode on using "altering" rather than, say, "amending."
John Paul II and Benedict XVI both taught that the death penalty was wrong in contemporary circumstances, but they tried to leave a certain degree of "wiggle-room" for those Catholics who disagreed with their view on this. Generally speaking, they used stronger language against the death penalty in less definitive contexts (such as speeches), but I think they intentionally toned down their opposition in definitive Church documents (such as the Catechism). This is why the current language in the Catechism is against the contemporary application of the death penalty, but somewhat weakly so, to preserve some scope of permissible disagreement.
The scope of permissible disagreement is determined by the nature of the claims they make. Their claim is that the circumstances for capital punishment are "practically nonexistent" today; this is and can only be an empirical judgment, beyond the special competence of theologians, so it permits disagreement. Ratzinger confirmed this explicitly.
Pope Francis plans to reduce that "wiggle room" . . . . So, one could view it as the substance of the teaching not changing from John Paul II to Francis, but the degree of formal authority attached to it is increasing, and hence the scope of legitimate disagreement from that teaching is shrinking.
The wiggle room comes from the nature of the teaching of JPII, that it is a judgment about concrete circumstances. A pope cannot strengthen the authority of such a claim.
And adding the claim to the Catechism cannot increase it's authority... because it's already there, and because the authority of the Catechism derives from the authority of the documents it cites, and JPII presented his view in an encyclical, which is more authoritative than anything Pope Francis has ever said or written on the topic anyway.
So, what does one do with a possibly somewhat self-contradictory papal speech? Does one ignore it completely? Or does one try to extract as much coherent sense as possible from it?
Now, again, the sense in which Pope Francis' teaching "amends" what has been said before is specifically in removing the qualifications that JPII and BXVI made. Where JPII and BXVI wanted to leave open the possibility that the death penalty could be applied justly in the past, Francis wants to close it. The charitable reading of Pope Francis' speech can hardly be adding the qualification that he deliberately identified as irrelevant back in.
Trying to extract a coherent thesis from an apparently self-contradictory speech is one way of reading it charitably. There's no guarantee that extracting just any thesis is possible, though. In this case, I don't see that the claim you want to extract plays any role in the speech; it is hard to see why, if the speech is inconsistent, we should develop the teaching in the direction of inconsistency rather than just leave it as it is.
Papal speeches aren't infallible. It is actually possible that they can be self-contradictory. So that is not an option that we can just leave out in interpretation.
Their claim is that the circumstances for capital punishment are "practically nonexistent" today; this is and can only be an empirical judgment, beyond the special competence of theologians, so it permits disagreement. Evangelium Vitae 56 says the death penalty should not be used "except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society". Now, is the disagreement an empirical disagreement about whether that standard is met, or a principled disagreement about whether that is the correct standard to apply? I think that in wealthy, peaceful countries, there can be no real doubt that the standard is met–so many such countries (e.g. most European countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) manage to survive and flourish without the death penalty, it is very implausible that those which still practice it (such as the US or Japan or South Korea) would fail to so survive and flourish were they to abolish it. So the real dispute here is not empirical, it is a dispute about whether St John Paul the Great has enunciated the correct moral standard or not.
DeleteRatzinger confirmed this explicitly. You are referring to his "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion" memorandum? From what I've read, that was a confidential letter which then Cardinal Ratzinger sent to Cardinal McCarrick, in order to advise the US Bishops Conference; parts of the letter were then leaked to the media (as far as we know, without Cardinal Ratzinger's consent), and the document which circulates is those leaked portions (apparently not the whole of the letter). I understand CDF staff confirmed to journalists that it was authentic; but, I don't think a lot of weight should be given to a leaked private communication by a prefect of the CDF (even a future Pope). If Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to convey the same points in a public way, he had ample means of doing so – he could have had those points published by the CDF as a formal letter or decree. Once he became Pope, there were numerous means available to him by which he could have made those same points with the authority of the Papal office. And yet, to my knowledge, he never did. I think a plausible explanation of the fact that he never made those points in a public or binding way (despite having ample opportunity to do so) is he felt they had a provisional character, and didn't want to commit his successors to the same position. Given their non-public and likely provisional nature, I am not convinced we should use them as the "lens" through which to view all of St John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI's teaching on this topic. (We can't presume that JP2 would have endorsed the contents of this letter since there is no evidence it was ever presented to him for approval.) Using the leak of a future Pope's private communications as a guide to interpreting his public statements as Pope (and those of his immediate predecessor) seems rather back-to-front.
I was referring to this line from the Catechism:
DeleteToday, 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."
That is an empirical judgment, but it's right to say that whether it's true depends not just on social science but on how "absolute necessity" is to be understood and what the authority of that claim from EV is.
Feser's reading in BMSHBBS is that even the claim in EV is a prudential judgment about the present circumstances. You'll recall that it is important to read a pope's words charitably, that is, consistently with tradition when that is possible. But the tradition has held that retribution is a legitimate (indeed, the principal) end of punishment and that, as a matter of principle, capital punishment can be applied even outside of cases of absolute necessity. So the way to read EV consistently with the tradition is to take even that to be a prudential decision, on top of which one also needs to judge that, in the present circumstances, the death penalty is "absolutely necessary."
Which brings us to the question of what that means. You've taken it to mean that the death penalty must be necessary for a country to "survive and flourish," but these are presenting two very distinct standards. The cases in which civilization literally hangs in the balance unless we use the death penalty are likely rare (and, it should be noted, not a singularly modern phenomenon). Moreover, if that's the standard, then it's clear that we do not have a judgment of principle on hand but a prudential judgment, since it is just far from clear why something that is not intrinsically evil should only be permitted in such extreme circumstances.
But if we're talking about flourishing, then it is less obvious that today, conditions of absolute necessity are "practically nonexistent." This depends on what the consequences of the death penalty are. I think Feser and Bessette's argument that the death penalty very likely saves some lives is persuasive.
I don't mind granting that the Ratzinger memorandum has no independent magisterial authority. My point is that it corroborates (a) the view of the Catholic tradition that the death penalty is permissible in principle and its application is a matter of prudential judgment and (b) the explicit reference to circumstances "today" in the Catechism. I'm happy to consider the view that somehow it doesn't express JPII and BXVI's view, but prima facie that view is wrong, and I don't see anything to recommend it.
DeleteThe current Catechism contains the suggestion that "Today" the death penalty is either not an "absolute necessity", or at least very rarely so. I think the amended text will strengthen that language into a condemnation, but keep the reference to "Today", so it will not be passing judgement on past generations of church leadership.
ReplyDeleteIt would not bother me so much to see something like a "Today, ..." statement in the Catechism, if (a) it were to be rationally based, rather than a pure emotional puffball, or worse, based on a characteristic MIS-reading of today's culture, and if (b) it were not idiotically stated in terms that obviously run roughshod over the incredibly wide variation in today's world, everything from countries not quite keeping pirates and terrorists at bay, to drug cartels in cahoots with government, etc. But the fact of the matter is that at best, JPII's statement was a bit out of place in a Catechism, which is supposed to be focused on principles and for the long haul, nearly timeless. It isn't supposed to need updating a few years later. I find it a little off-putting to think that Francis, a theological relative high-schooler, feels free to mess with JPII's Catechism when JPII was the adult in the room, but I guess when you put the guy in that chair he is going to mess with stuff.
Here's a little commentary on Ed's Catholic Herald article courtesy of Novus Ordo Watch:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/NovusOrdoWatch/status/920047454086721536
NovusOrdowatch? You might as well cite the Baptist Herald or Chick Comics.
DeleteBut their comment is meaningless. I only pay attention to Catholic Publications not the drivel of High Church Protestant heretics who deny Matt 16:18.
And you can read about Novus Ordo Watch on Sedevacantist Watch. :)
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't put much stock in the "Refuse and Resist" crowd and believe they have their own errors they at least confess Francis is the true Pope and make an interesting case against the Sede's.
DeleteSo I can appreciate their left handed polemics without agreeing with their desire to refuse and resist.
It's usually referred to as "Recognize and Resist" akin to when St. Paul resisted St. Peter "to his face" when the latter would not eat with the Gentiles for fear of the Jews (cf. Gal. 2:11).
DeleteI understand where you are coming from Ya'Kov, but in my estimation, the principle of resistance is justified in the face of wayward prelates including the pope when they are endangering the Faith. Aside from Scripture, there is a strong basis for this in the writings of doctors like Sts. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Robert Bellarmine, as well as various schoolmen like Suarez, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas. Salza and Siscoe lay that out in detail in their book and various articles available online. I do not have the time or interest to debate the topic here, though.
Regardless, it is a confusing time to be a Catholic. I agree that sedevacantism as a theory leads to chaos in the Church and is similar to the protestant principle of private judgment. For the good of the Church and souls, I hope Cardinal Burke (and other cardinals) issue a formal correction soon and begin a process similar to the one generally outlined by various schoolmen because if nothing is done, the situation is only going to continue to get worse.
China which has .74 murders per 100,000 people obtains a right even in the eyes of God to silence Catholicism only in this area of jurassic softness toward murderers. She is unwittingly obeying Romans 13:4 and three Popes in a row have placed themselves above it despite Vat.II's Dei Verbum (2:10) asserting that the teaching Church " is not above the word of God but serves it".
ReplyDeleteCheck homicide by country at wiki...the UN world murder rates. Catholic northern Latin America, non death penalty, is the worst murderous region of the world...from Brazil to Mexico. Two things stop murder rates from soaring...affluence dominating as in Europe....or the death penalty where poor people are in the millions. ccc2267 stealthily regigered deterrence to mean....deterring those you caught only. The rest of civilization and SCOTUS see it as deterring future murderers
Church doctrine allow for Capital Punishment. It doesn't mandate it so you cannot say three Pope have put themselves above Romans 13:4.
DeleteAll three sought worldwide abolition in addresses in contradiction to the defective catechism two of them were responsible for. The ccc allows for rare use...they campaigned for total abolition which makes rare use impossible. Why didn't you mention that? bA non death penalty Catholic region nominally from Brazil to Mexico has the highest murder rates by UN figures. No Pope even noticed that problem. ccc 2267 redefines deterrence as deterring murderers you caught only whereas the rest of the world notices that deterrence is about deterring the murderers out in the region who are in the potential mode and need to be dissuaded.
DeleteWe have become so eager to be politically correct in the non sexual areas of culture so that we can win over liberals eventually on sexual matters. We have gone nutty in this area of dp. Two things inhibit high murder rates...low percent of disaffected poor ( Europe/ Canada/ Australia/ Vermont et al)...or the dp wherein the poor are in the millions ...China, Muslim countries.
Where you find poor dominant and disaffected...Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico,
Quatemala...but no dp operating...you have the highest murder rates by UN numbers for recent years. You are about 30 to 90 times safer in non Christian China and Japan than in many non death penalty Catholic cultures.
Externally perhaps the position of the Catholic Church on capital punishment, may not have changed, but internally, as applied to our own heritage, of course it has. Corporal punishment of intra-ecclesiastical dissent is at an all-time ebb. The Thomistic defense of capital punishment was with regard to whether heretics should be tolerated.
ReplyDeleteHere is Robert Fastiggi's response to an article that defends Feser's position here (http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/10/15/pope-francis-the-lerinian-legacy-of-vatican-ii-and-capital-punishment/#comment-18711)
ReplyDelete"This is a very thoughtful article on the question of development vs. change in doctrine. I think, however, the focus of Pope Francis is on the deeper development of our understanding of the Gospel teaching concerning the dignity, sacredness, and inviolability of all human life. This development in doctrine leads us to reassess prior teaching on the death penalty.
Regarding prior teaching on capital punishment, much depends on whether it is definitive or subject to change and development. Not everyone agrees with Feser, Bessette, and Cardinal Dulles that the liceity of the death penalty is settled doctrine. Some believe that the historic recognition of the penalty’s legitimacy is more like a “sententia communis” rather than a definitive teaching. It’s also questionable whether Popes like St. Nicholas I (d. 867) and St. John Paul II (d. 2005) opposed executing criminals on merely prudential grounds. St. Nicholas offers this instruction:
“….without hesitation and in every possible circumstance, save the life of the body and soul of each individual. You should save from death not only the innocent but also criminals, because Christ has saved you from the death of the soul.” (Epistula 97, cap. 25).
As can be seen, Pope Nicholas is not appealing to prudential considerations but the Gospel recognition that Christ died for us, which argues against killing even the guilty. The same is true for St. John Paul II’s recognition that non-lethal means of punishment are “more in conformity with the dignity of the human person” (cf. EV, 56 and CCC, 2267). John Paul II speaks of this as a “principle” (principium) not a prudential judgment in Evangelium vitae, 56.
Some, though, argue that the legitimacy of the death penalty is taught by Sacred Scripture and is, therefore, definitive and infallible. The Old Testament passages that support capital punishment, however, must be studied carefully to determine whether they are permanent teachings or examples of the judicial law, which is subject to change (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas I-II qq. 99–100, 103–105). It’s also important to keep in mind what Pius XII observes in his 1943 encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 47:
“Let [the sons of the Church] bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books—legislative, historical, sapiential, and prophetical—there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church; nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.”
Even the much cited Gen 9:6 is a two-edged sword with regard to the death penalty. If taken literally it would mean that those who execute the guilty also need to be executed. We should consider how Pope Benedict XVI cites Gen 9:6 in his 2012 Post-Synodal Exhortation, Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, n. 26:
“God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13).”
The meaning of particular Scripture texts is, of course, subject to interpretation. Those, however, who claim that Pope Francis is contradicting Sacred Scripture on the death penalty must keep in mind what Vatican II teaches in Dei Verbum, 12:
“For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.”"
I think it's relevant since Fastiggi calls our Feser by name and so interacts with his position and questions it.
Delete"The Old Testament passages that support capital punishment, however, must be studied carefully to determine whether they are permanent teachings or examples of the judicial law, which is subject to change"
DeleteIf the death penalty is wrong per se, how can it be legitimately held even as a "judicial law, which is subject to change" in Scripture?
Good point. I think what Fastiggi (or others) might say is that it can be judicial law in the same way that Moses allowed divorce for their "hardness of hearts" and in the way that God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanites children (even though the women and children may not have been complicit in the evil).
DeleteThey call it "development" but all they do is contradiction. Well, contradiction ain't development.
DeleteDevelopment is when you have two different threads of teaching, both present from the beginning, yet with some seeming difficulty between them, some sort of tension in accepting both fully...and then RESOLVING that seeming difficulty or tension. That's development. CF: Christ is God. Christ is man.
For 1960 years we had no serious tension about the position "the state may justly put to death certain malefactors for the common good". None. The tension comes from a new - novel - revolutionary position that posits suggested reasons to dispute the settled position. The suggestion revolves around a new - novel - revolutionary notion of "dignity of the person" that has yet to be articulated in any clear sense with reference to those who are guilty of grave crimes.
Please, those who want Francis' position to be a development: explain (don't just mention) Genesis 9:6, and its explicit positioning of the death penalty BASED ON human dignity. You will not find, in all of the thousands of bishops comments against the death penalty, one single argument about why Gen. 9:6, basing the death penalty on human dignity, is now to be understood 180 degrees in the opposite direction - or even how to do so.
It ain't development.
JohnD cites Benedict, saying
DeleteEven the much cited Gen 9:6 is a two-edged sword with regard to the death penalty. If taken literally it would mean that those who execute the guilty also need to be executed. We should consider how Pope Benedict XVI cites Gen 9:6 in his 2012 Post-Synodal Exhortation, Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, n. 26:
“God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13).”
But if you read the whole passage, it's entire thrust is about religious liberty, and not using the death penalty (such as for heretics) in stifling religious liberty:
26. Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public.[21] It must be possible to profess and freely manifest one’s religion and its symbols without endangering one’s life and personal freedom. Religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the person; it safeguards moral freedom and fosters mutual respect. Jews, with their long experience of often deadly assaults, know full well the benefits of religious freedom. For their part, Muslims share with Christians the conviction that no constraint in religious matters, much less the use of force, is permitted. Such constraint, which can take multiple and insidious forms on the personal and social, cultural, administrative and political levels, is contrary to God’s will. It gives rise to political and religious exploitation, discrimination and violence leading to death. God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13).
It is not intended to be a general and absolute norm against the death penalty.
As Prof. Feser shows in the book, even the staunchest promoters of the idea that the death penalty is always wrong admit that Gen. 9:6 is not easily set aside. The best they can offer at this time seems to be "we'll get back to you on that."
If Francis is the true pope, you are required to assent to his teachings. You want proof? Here is what Pope Leo XIII had to say about it in his Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua:
ReplyDelete“To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.
“…it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.”
In other words, if Francis is the true pope, then Mark Shea is the perfect Catholic.
That actually only applies to formal teaching not stuff he says off the cuff or even in speeches or sermons otherwise Pope John XXII was not the true Pope. You Sede heretics have to keep pushing back or moving forward who the last True Pope was thus you might as well just profess Protestantism and be done with it.
DeleteAlso even in terms of binding non-infallible teaching there is some wiggle room in terms of interpretation.
Mark Shea's malfunction is to excommunicate any Catholic who does not hold to his interpretation of the Pope's non-infallible binding teaching. That as to mix his "I hate Trump" meme into everything & assume all who disagree with him do so to prop up the homos in the Republican Party.
"Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor."
DeleteWhat does "assent" mean here?
It seems to me that it cannot mean "believe what they say," or we'd then have an obligation to believe even a non-infallible teaching, whose truth is not guaranteed. That cannot be right.
Vincent, we are required to be submissive in mind and will to the teaching authority of the Church even in matters that are not infallibly stated, this is called "religious assent". Prof. Feser explains it so:
Delete3. Statements which in a non-definitive but obligatory way clarify revealed truths. Dulles suggests that “the teaching of Vatican II, which abstained from new doctrinal definitions, falls predominantly into this category” (The Craft of Theology, p. 110). According to Donum Veritatis, statements in this category must be accepted by Catholics with “religious submission of will and intellect.” Given their non-definitive character, however, the assent due to such statements is not of the absolute kind owed to statements of categories 1 and 2. The default position is to assent to them, but it is in principle possible that the very strong presumption in their favor can be overridden. Donum Veritatis says:
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions.
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html#more
I would offer that it implies a habit of assent, a readiness and interior presumption that these authorities will teach aright, and that what they teach is right. It requires an openness of mind and heart to hear what they say in the best light, and to give it every effort to conform yourself to it short of the asset of faith.
It remains possible, though, that for one who does all these things, who is trained in doctrine, will find himself unable to conform himself to the proposition set forth, because it seems incompatible with other truths that have a claim to a higher assent. In this case, he is permitted to take a qualified position, which still entails respect for the teaching, but does not entail full unqualified assent (which must be given to the articles of faith).
The obligation is still an obligation, and it is still toward assent, but it is not an obligation for an assent as definitive as for the assent of faith.
Vincent,
DeleteAs Leo XIII says above, it is the command of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that all the faithful submit mind and heart to their own lawful pastors. And since He, desiring only our good, wills this for the sake of our own salvation, it necessarily follows that this submission is the means by which the faithful soul shall arrive at all truth, sanctity, and ultimate salvation. It also follows by implication that those who refuse this commanded submission and, instead, follow their own will and their own reason, will inevitably fall into the darkness of error, mortal sin, and eternal damnation. Therefore, this being undoubtedly the mind of the Church, it is foolish to quibble about the fallibility and infallibility of given statements by these lawful pastors, knowing of faith that the path of submission infallibly leads to life, and the other path just as infallibly leads to eternal destruction.
It follows from all this, therefore, that if Bergoglio and the rest of the novus ordo hierachy are indeed the lawful pastors of the Holy Catholic Church, there remains no excuse whatsoever not to follow their instructions and teachings implicitly, and submit yourselves to their direction with your whole hearts and minds.
On the other hand, it is also manifest to all who have eyes to see that to submit oneself unreservedly to the instructions and teachings of this same supposed pope and hierarchy inevitably lead to modernist errors, religious indifference, and eventually either apostasy or sentimental pietism…in other words, stumbling along the path to hell.
These things being admitted, there is only one valid conclusion to draw:
Bergoglio and the rest of the novus ordo hierarchy are not true pastors of the Catholic Church.
Faithful, non-sede Catholics: You have to (firstly) assent unqualifiedly to those teachings of the Church’s teaching authority given as definitive or infallible; and you (secondly) have to assent (but qualifiedly) to those teachings of the Church’s teaching authority – not given in a definitive way and not divinely revealed – in order to explain and support and protect what is divinely revealed…yet the second obligation to submit and assent is qualified and can be superceded when the pastors teach these latter in a way that cannot be conformed to the first sort of teachings. The moral status of having recognition of the latter sort of teaching being so “not in conformity” is capable of a sort of variation, depending on the individual capacity of the person receiving the instruction – a theologian has more ability and duty to recognize it, an untrained layman has less or none.
DeleteGeorge R and the sedes: you have to assent to everything that the pastors teach on faith and morals; however, if they teach heresy then they cease to be pastors of the Church and you have no further obligation to assent to what they teach. The individual capacity to recognize it as heresy is irrelevant: if they have (ever) taught any single heresy, one is obligated not to accept their claim to authority, and if not one is obligated to assent it even if it is proposed tentatively, prudentially, or with only a tangential (or even debatable) connection to matters of faith and morals.
George, I have one question for you: Suppose a faithful, true Catholic is untrained in matters theological, and he listens to one expert A (who is a bishop) say that X is “taught by the Church”, and another expert B (and a bishop) say that X is “heresy”. He is (1) forbidden to assent to X under pain of the mortal sin of heresy if he goes with B and B is right, but is (2) forbidden to refuse assent to X under pain of mortal sin if he goes with A and A is right – WHAT IS HE TO DO? He commits a mortal sin if he guesses wrong, but he has no ability to decide other than by a sheer guess.
George, I have one question for you: Suppose a faithful, true Catholic is untrained in matters theological, and he listens to one expert A (who is a bishop) say that X is “taught by the Church”, and another expert B (and a bishop) say that X is “heresy”. He is (1) forbidden to assent to X under pain of the mortal sin of heresy if he goes with B and B is right, but is (2) forbidden to refuse assent to X under pain of mortal sin if he goes with A and A is right – WHAT IS HE TO DO? He commits a mortal sin if he guesses wrong, but he has no ability to decide other than by a sheer guess.
DeleteHow is it a sheer guess? If he is indeed faithful, then he knows the faith. And if he knows the faith, he will, by logical implication, also know what is contrary to it. Now, if the pastor speaks contrary to what he knows to be the faith, the faithful Catholic is in no way bound to submit to him. However, if, as may possibly happen, the pastor teaches a heresy so subtle that the common faithful are not able to perceive the lie, then the faithful will actually be bound to assent to the error; for if they were not so bound, the command of the Church for the faithful to submit mind and heart to their pastors would be rendered meaningless, and all the blessings and graces received by the faithful on account of this submission would be taken away from them. Moreover, no sin would be incurred by them for holding this error, and they could in no way be called heretics; but they will have merely been innocently misled by a heretic through no fault of their own. However, as soon as lawful authority condemns their heretical pastor, the faithful, of course, will be bound to submit to this authority and repudiate him.
Finally, there might be a rare occasion wherein the pastor himself is innocently unaware of the heresy he is teaching. In this case, neither the pastor nor the flock are to be considered heretics. But again, as soon as authority will have condemned the error, or as soon as it becomes known by them to be contrary to faith, then both pastor and flock will be bound to reject it.
How is it a sheer guess? If he is indeed faithful, then he knows the faith.
DeleteBwahahahahaha! Have you never heard of any of the saints who were, for short or long periods, material heretics, believing error (and teaching it) though unaware that it was error?
However, if, as may possibly happen, the pastor teaches a heresy so subtle that the common faithful are not able to perceive the lie,
Ah, so the obligation then DOES rest on whether the faithful person is capable of perceiving the error, and if they can see that it is error, then their obligation to obey ceases.
But of course, other faithful, less able, will be unable to see it, and then remain obliged to obey.
And then we have Protestantism, every man deciding for himself what is doctrinally sound and what is not, at least for every statement by the pastors of the Church that is other than mere verbatim repetition of the words of the Bible or the express dogmatic formulations of solemn definitions.
But again, as soon as authority will have condemned the error,
But since nobody below the Pope can judge the Pope, who can condemn his error without defying their own definitive obligation to submit to him? Nobody. Unless, that is, they have the right to take what he says, compare it to prior teaching, and decide whether it is conformable? Which is just what you rejected above. You contradict yourself.
George R holds too his Sede heresy with the pride Martin Luther held to Sola Fide.
DeleteThe only moral difference between them is George is more High Church then the modern American Lutheran.
He needs to return & give up the Sede nonsense. Jesus didn't lie to us in Matt 16:18 as his view implicitly teaches.
George R. writes:
Delete"However, if, as may possibly happen, the pastor teaches a heresy so subtle that the common faithful are not able to perceive the lie, then the faithful will actually be bound to assent to the error; for if they were not so bound, the command of the Church for the faithful to submit mind and heart to their pastors would be rendered meaningless, and all the blessings and graces received by the faithful on account of this submission would be taken away from them."
I have to say that this is ridiculous. No-one can have a moral obligation to believe that which is in fact false - especially if it's a religious opinion. It's one thing to ask the faithful to hold their tongues, for fear of giving scandal to non-believers. It's quite another thing to ask them to believe whatever a Pope teaches, even if he teaches non-infallibly, and does not claim to be merely re-asserting the teaching of the Church's ordinary infallible magisterium (which requires a unanimous agreement of bishops that the Catholic Church not only teaches a certain opinion, but also teaches that Catholics are obliged to accept this teaching.
When fifteenth-century Popes authorized the African slave trade (albeit under restricted circumstances), were the faithful obliged to believe that this was fine? I could go on, but you get my point.
Why should Matt 16:18 matter? Unless you interpret it to mean the chair of Saint Peter can never be vacant (as it is whenever the Pope dies) or that the true Church must always be the numerically largest one. Why can't you interpret his words to mean a remnant?
DeleteIf Mark Shea said we should use BCE and CE his followers would give him high 5s
ReplyDeletemr. anon
Francis: a perfect heretic, essentially a freemason. Amazing how blind are so many Catholic intellectuals. The idea of "obedience" has got them by the throat.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Feser,
ReplyDeleteI am currently reading The Last Superstition and frankly it makes my head hurt. It is definitely not an easy topic. My question would be: did anyone ever put the whole thing in a more digestible literary form? The ideal would be A-T science fiction since I tend to like that genre, but I'd settle for anything. I have heard that Chesterton's Pater Brown stories are roughly in this spirit. I don't like early 20th century British crime novels (Agatha Christie type stuff bores me) but if you or people here say it is okay I give it a go.
The Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe
DeleteWolfe is definitely Catholic and may be A-T for all I know, but it's the opposite of an easy read.
DeleteYou should by all means try a couple of Father Brown stories (they're short; it's easy to dip in), but specifically A-T points in them are few and far between.
Some of Michael Flynn's SF stories do make A-T points -- he occasionally shows up in these comment boxes (the OFloinn), or you can go ask him at TOF Spot. He may also have other people to recommend.
John C. Wright is also a Catholic SF writer. And he clearly brings at least some of an A-T background to his writing. But you would have to work at it to actually pull the A-T concepts out of it explicitly (which is, frankly, what you would want of good writing, not moralizing or philosophy class). You could try The Golden Transcendance, for example. He also has a book of short stories, although IIRC they are mostly fantasy.
DeleteI know Michael Flynn's short story Nexus gets into it, but I can't find anywhere online.
DeleteThis article mentions Dr. Feser and a critic:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/scholars-debate-impact-of-pope-francis-statement-on-death-penalty
-Neil P.
That is a good article. I thank God for reasonable critics. I don't have to agree with them but they move the discussion forward.
Delete