tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6839563023674621950..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Three problems with the change to the Catechism (Updated) Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger173125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68375604041339908182021-03-12T08:22:51.069-08:002021-03-12T08:22:51.069-08:00The ‘Harmonizers’ remind me of Police Squad’s Fran...The ‘Harmonizers’ remind me of Police Squad’s Frank Drebin who, after watching a fugitive ride a ballistic missile into the Feldman Fireworks Co., pushes his way to the front of the crowd rubbernecking the now blazing ruin of exploding ordnance and roman candles to announce officiously, “There is nothing to see here. Please disperse.”خرید دستبند چرمیhttps://toranjstore.net/product-category/bracelet-gallery/leather-bracelet/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79994194964763571332018-08-16T23:19:17.520-07:002018-08-16T23:19:17.520-07:00Open Borders isn't Marxism neither is LGBT.Open Borders isn't Marxism neither is LGBT. <br />Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37356978550803118702018-08-16T13:24:14.594-07:002018-08-16T13:24:14.594-07:00As far as the point about Marxism is concerned, th...As far as the point about Marxism is concerned, the elevation of praxis above doctrine, just is a Marxist doctrine. <br /><br />Also, that The Church has always, taught precisely, the opposite, is also not disputed. <br /><br />Anyone can do good deeds, but no matter how many good deeds you perform, and even if you are a Saint, numerous Popes and councils taught, that you cannot receive salvation, if you reject The Catholic Faith. <br /><br />The good thief, for example, professed The Faith, but obviously, didn’t have time to do much more than die well, but we know, that he went to Heaven. This proves that professing the faith, by itself, can save, and as I said, numerous Popes and councils, have taught that works, by themselves, cannot.<br /><br />The difference this makes, is immense. For a start, as every Pope before the Council taught, the Catholic Faith, must be believed, whole and entire, in the same sense, and according to the same interpretation, and that applies to everyone, including the Pope. <br /><br />Secondly, if a line is drawn, even at the slightest possible degree from the horizontal, it will eventually, be very clear, that it is drawn at an angle, and is headed to a different place. Likewise, just a small error in doctrine or principle, can lead us straight to Hell, and not to Heaven. So, I agree, precision is a Catholic virtue, and one, we really, have a right to expect from a Pope. Hence, the practice of presenting Dubia. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71457119158069396772018-08-16T06:49:51.992-07:002018-08-16T06:49:51.992-07:00Couldn’t agree with you more about the doctrine of...Couldn’t agree with you more about the doctrine of the papacy. There is no higher authority, in The Church, than the Pope, and the idea, that some people have, that they can second guess him, is absurd. As Pope Leo XIII says (Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua):<br /><br />“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.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33676691264668791052018-08-15T18:42:28.983-07:002018-08-15T18:42:28.983-07:00@R.C. If so, what the heck is this capricious utte...@R.C. If so, what the heck is this capricious utterance of his ending up as an article in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Which other articles in the CCC are such, and which are more serious, so as to be binding? Is there a ready-reckoner so the faithful can tell? If not, what's the point of a Catechism?Hughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14542174219024027419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29525644708363122942018-08-15T15:16:38.348-07:002018-08-15T15:16:38.348-07:00Son of Ya'Kov,
Very clear was probably a bit ...Son of Ya'Kov,<br /><br />Very clear was probably a bit of a stretch. It was late when I wrote that.<br /><br />The rest of what you say rings true. Thank you again. I am,<br /><br />DidymusDidymushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02339106708590191194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80354583141018888382018-08-15T09:33:26.317-07:002018-08-15T09:33:26.317-07:00>My objection is that I think Prof. Feser and h...>My objection is that I think Prof. Feser and his colleague have done a fine job, compiling, articulating, and defending the Catholic teaching on the death penalty, and instead of being lauded and praised for the faithfulness and the rigour and perspicacity of their efforts, they have been undermined, because of the personal opinion of Francis,<br /><br />I reply: Yeh nobody here is more of a Feser Fanboyz then moi. But he is not the Pope. That upon reflection might be tragic in that he might make a good one (in spite of the wife and Kids but that wasn't a problem for Pope Adrian II...kind of...bad example). But by virtue of his office Pope Francis is ahead of him and deserves more deference. <br /><br /> >and this undermining, however you describe it, is going to make that declaration of the faith you speak of, extremely difficult, because we live in a swallow sound bite driven culture, that isn’t interested in the truth. A tweet by Francis will suffice.<br /><br />I don't disagree here.<br /><br />> I just pointed out, that the elevation of praxis above doctrine, is a Marxist doctrine,<br /><br />I don't know about that? As the recent petition Dr. Feser has signed states we don't have to have a death penalty. We just can't have the Church "appear" to teach the death penalty is intrinsically evil.<br /><br />I like the careful language. That is how it's done.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52655461660596512752018-08-15T09:27:19.807-07:002018-08-15T09:27:19.807-07:00The extreme errorists remind me of Muslim fundamen...The extreme errorists remind me of Muslim fundamentalists who protest by holding signs that say "Behead those who call Islam intolerant".<br /><br />Of course I am not saying the errorists are violent or prone to violence here but that like the Jihadist they aren't self aware.<br /><br />Perhaps a better example is the Antifa clown who holds a sign saying "Protect freedom of speech! Silence all right wingers!".<br /><br />If you are going to criticize the Pope you have to remember your criticism can be criticized.<br /><br />Of course this latest petition is doing it right.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71057995250977796422018-08-15T07:02:31.087-07:002018-08-15T07:02:31.087-07:00>Suppose I am an executioner. Pope Francis clea...>Suppose I am an executioner. Pope Francis clearly teaches that in carrying out my duty I attack the inviolability and dignity of the condemned.<br /><br />Such a "judgement" is a mere prudential one not an absolute moral one. Didymus the state executioner is not morally the same as let us say, God forbid, Didymus the Abortionist.<br /><br />Is Pope Francis going to alter Canon Law allowing a Bishop to ban you from Communion for your job as a State Executioner like Canon Law in theory would ban an Abortionist? <br /><br />If not then it is not an issue.<br /><br />>But in all seriousness, I now think Pope Francis is being very clear.<br /><br />Yeh with all due respect (& I do respect you so forgive the sarcasim I am about to type) I don't see how anyone can type that with a straight face.<br /><br />>Pope Francis clearly teaches that in carrying out my duty I attack the inviolability and dignity of the condemned. <br /><br />At best his teaching means in this day and age in an advanced society one could find a better ways to deal with criminals. But that is subjective and prudential not a moral norm. No matter how strict Pope Francis language the DP is not intrinsically evil but Abortion always is.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37259010008345349772018-08-15T04:51:36.885-07:002018-08-15T04:51:36.885-07:00Yes, I expressed myself poorly. Perils of typing o...Yes, I expressed myself poorly. Perils of typing on on mobile phone and not editing my posts, but my point stands, ambiguity, was condemned by numerous Popes, not just as it was used by Modernists, but as it was used by its various precursors. <br /><br />I didn’t mean to propose a Conspiracy Theory. I just pointed out, that the elevation of praxis above doctrine, is a Marxist doctrine, and orientates the human organisation towards that alien, bankrupt, and evil ideology. <br /><br />As far as the death penalty is concerned, I was against it, before I became a Catholic, but because the Church teaches that the death penalty, is legitimate, I changed what I believe. <br /><br />My objection is that I think Prof. Feser and his colleague have done a fine job, compiling, articulating, and defending the Catholic teaching on the death penalty, and instead of being lauded and praised for the faithfulness and the rigour and perspicacity of their efforts, they have been undermined, because of the personal opinion of Francis, and this undermining, however you describe it, is going to make that declaration of the faith you speak of, extremely difficult, because we live in a swallow sound bite driven culture, that isn’t interested in the truth. A tweet by Francis will suffice. <br /><br />And thus, the damage to souls this will do is unimaginable, because as others have pointed out, this sets a precedent, that effectively, allows them to rewrite the entire Catechism if they wish, and whether or not, there is an actual contradiction, in this instance, or in future rescripts, isn’t the point, the fact is, that is how it is perceived, and nothing is ever done to correct that perception. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8158476177352470392018-08-15T03:42:45.698-07:002018-08-15T03:42:45.698-07:00The ‘Harmonizers’ remind me of Police Squad’s Fran...The ‘Harmonizers’ remind me of Police Squad’s Frank Drebin who, after watching a fugitive ride a ballistic missile into the Feldman Fireworks Co., pushes his way to the front of the crowd rubbernecking the now blazing ruin of exploding ordnance and roman candles to announce officiously, “There is nothing to see here. Please disperse.”<br /><br />Righteous intentions for the most part, but given the scene, what they’re saying is laughable.<br /><br /><i>Some people can't separate their politics from the Faith. The Faith is more important.</i><br /><br />You should know these beliefs also motivate the respectful papal critics. David Ezembahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09989971303822363417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90967802649512683292018-08-15T00:18:30.606-07:002018-08-15T00:18:30.606-07:00Not all post Kant is ridiculous. There is the Scho...Not all post Kant is ridiculous. There is the School of thought of Leonard Nelson [Kant/ Friesian] that I think has some important points.Avraham https://www.blogger.com/profile/07822433921393627746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91813575868640417302018-08-14T22:02:52.710-07:002018-08-14T22:02:52.710-07:00Son of Ya'Kov,
Thank you again for your respo...Son of Ya'Kov,<br /><br />Thank you again for your response.<br /><br />You are right. “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” is not, in and of itself, a moral judgement. But the judgement is suggested and assumed. Any attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person is wrong. That is taught elsewhere; it need not be repeated at every section of the Catechism. Stated differently, it's the second part of the Greatest Commandment.<br /><br />Suppose I am an executioner. Pope Francis clearly teaches that in carrying out my duty I attack the inviolability and dignity of the condemned. But because he hasn't said, at least not right here, that such at attack is wrong am I to safely assume he's okay with it? If I mentioned it in confession, would he tell me not to waste his time with morally acceptable attacks on persons' inviolabilities and dignities? Whilst simultaneously working, determinedly at that, for it's abolition worldwide and my unemployment?<br /><br />But in all seriousness, I now think Pope Francis is being very clear. I don't think he's got to write like St. Thomas Aquinas to get his point across. The footnote was ambiguous. This is not, especially not in light of everything else. He's saying the death penalty is wrong.<br /><br />That is his prudential judgement, but it is still erroneous, and it is more than practical advice. He is not stating the merits of democracy, or the demerits of absolute monarchy, or the result of its abuses. Pope Francis is not teaching that absolute monarchy COULD LEAD TO attacks on the inviolability and dignity of the person, but that the very act of coronation is one. Putting a crown to the king's head is no different from putting an axe to his neck or mudering him in cold blood.<br /><br />The Errorist would say, “Pope Francis is a heretic, God save the King!” The Harmonist would say, “God save the King, it's just the Pope's opinion and he shares it with his immediate predecessor.” Some people might talk about living in community. But I would say, “God save the King-in-Parliament, and the Pope's opinion is wrong.” And I'd add that Pope Saint Leo III wasn't attacking Charlemagne's inviolability or dignity when he coronated him. Nor Samuel David's.<br /><br />So while Pope Francis is not ex cathedra, etc. teaching error, he is teaching error, and it is a greater kind of error than error about merely practical matters, and therefore a greater kind of error than Pope Saint John Paul II's. And I guess I'm coming to the conclusion that it is an error about morals... which I previously thought the Pope was protected from. So back to the drawing board? I am,<br /><br />DidymusDidymushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02339106708590191194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36939974418269764082018-08-14T19:56:34.700-07:002018-08-14T19:56:34.700-07:00I think you fellows are making the mistake of thin...I think you fellows are making the mistake of thinking that Francis uses words for their meanings.<br /><br />I do not think he does.<br /><br />I think he uses words for their emotional impact and the actions they will provoke among hearers.<br /><br />Lots of people use words that way. Donald Trump, for example, is famous for saying things which should be "taken seriously, but not literally." That is to say: He seems sometimes to assert things which, read literally as uses of words for conveying precise meanings, are dubious. But as conveyors of general feelings (e.g. of felt-determination to reduce illegal immigration or of camaraderie with Average Joes) they work quite well. Separately, as ways to provoke certain kinds of reactions from friends and foes, Presidential Tweets seem rather effective. If one protests, "But it isn't literally true," the guys charged with writing those tweets might say, "Who ever thought it was? When did we say it was? We're trying to rally the troops, provoke reactions, and make deals. Anyone who reads a Tweet as if they thought it was a History Textbook isn't doing critical thinking; he's just confusing two genres and missing the point."<br /><br />I think Pope Francis is very much like Trump (assuming I have correctly characterized Trump). I think Francis habitually uses words to provoke emotions and reactions. He is the utter opposite of Thomas Aquinas in this regard.<br /><br />So when Pope Francis says, "The death penalty is inadmissible BECAUSE it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" the correct translation of this, from Franciscan to English, is, "Everybody go vote against the death penalty."<br /><br />I really don't think it's any more than that. I don't think Francis thinks it's more than that...EXCEPT that he's probably aware that IF Catholics insensitive to his style misconstrue it as a statement to be taken literally, then only the tiny logical/analytical "INTJ" minority will take the time to think it through, draw fine distinctions, and express disagreement.<br /><br />The majority are sloppy "ENFP" thinkers, so they'll think something like, "it's not THAT different from JPII and BXVI, and the pope said it, so I should play along." And that's probably fine with Francis, even though it's based on a misconstrual.<br /><br />Sigh.<br /><br />It could be worse: We could be Israelites living during the priesthoods of Eli's sons.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03679435933685771007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31893238934716289762018-08-14T19:34:54.143-07:002018-08-14T19:34:54.143-07:00In reply to Simon Kissane, re: "I think, if t...In reply to Simon Kissane, re: "I think, if there is an apparent conflict between the teachings of the current Pope and the teachings of his predecessors, then a Catholic ought to try as hard as they possibly can to find some way to harmonise these two teachings, before resorting to the last resort of rejecting one in favour of the other."<br /><br />Ah, yes. In theory I agree with you.<br /><br />In practice, there is an obstacle; namely, the idea that Words Have Meanings..but not everyone uses words for their meanings.<br /><br />(Related to this: The idea that one should Believe Things Because They Are True, not because they make one feel a certain way or lead to certain desirable behaviors.)<br /><br />The words of all the preceding popes, bishops, saints, doctors, and fathers collectively narrow what a Catholic may believe about the death penalty and still believe that Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from definitively ruling erroneously on matters of faith and morals.<br /><br />All those words (along with the words of Scripture) can sometimes be interpreted in varying ways; but only certain interpretations allow them to be compatible with one another and to show continuity from then to now. By the light of those interpretations, we inescapably find that capital punishment is NOT intrinsically evil.<br /><br />But, we also find that it IS intrinsically evil to intentionally attack the fundamental dignity of a human being.<br /><br />So when Francis claims that capital punishment intrinsically IS an attack on the fundamental dignity of a human being, we see that the Meaning Of His Words is in flat contradiction to the teaching of the Church.<br /><br />BUT...!<br /><br />Francis doesn't seem to reliably use words to convey what those words <i>mean</i>. On the contrary, he seems more often to use them either to provoke a <i>feeling</i> or to provoke a <i>behavior</i> in the listener. (He's very much like Donald Trump's Twitter Feed in that way.)<br /><br />If we construe Francis in <i>that</i> way -- that is to say, if we interpret Francis' statements like they were coming from Jorge Bergoglio and not like they were coming from Josef Ratzinger or Thomas Aquinas -- then I think we have to conclude that Francis isn't even concerned with whether it's <i>literally</i> true that capital punishment is "intrinsically evil." Even figuring out what that means is probably not of interest to him. (Maybe it hurts his head to think about such questions. Who knows?)<br /><br />No, I think he's just trying to say whatever words will <i>make people feel bad</i> for not opposing capital punishment, so as to provoke them into <i>voting against it</i>. His words aren't vehicles of meaning, but levers of power. The comment that "the death penalty attacks the inviolable dignity of the offender" correctly translates as, "Go vote against the death penalty!"<br /><br />Thus translated, we find that it is not the kind of comment which can plausibly be Magisterially Infallible. Indeed, it is kind which Catholics may answer with a respectful "no."<br /><br />(They can also pray that, next time, God sends them a pope who believes that words have meanings.)R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03679435933685771007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73716117912029543742018-08-14T19:32:48.328-07:002018-08-14T19:32:48.328-07:00To James C. re: Whether the Holy Spirit led Luther...To James C. re: Whether the Holy Spirit led Luther: That's very much a debated point. As a person whose familiarity with Luther and Calvin (plus other factors) led him ultimately to become Catholic (at some personal cost), I find the notion very dubious. I'm not the man's judge, but him being in hell seems plausible to me. (It's also plausible he's not. If God has mercy on <i>me</i> he can certainly have mercy on arrogant bipolar obsessive-compulsives.)<br /><br />But down that road lies a very serious thread-jacking...!<br /><br />Re: "How is it legitimate for a Pope to teach that a doctrine can evolve into its contrary?" It isn't! The teaching is always required to be interpreted according to the Hermeneutic of Continuity, not the Hermeneutic of Rupture, because the latter is an implicit rejection of Magisterial Infallibility, and thus of Catholicism.<br /><br />Magisterial Infallibility doesn't apply to Francis' recent death-penalty moves.<br /><br />BUT, (and here's the rub) to the average trusting layperson, it sure <i>feels</i> like it ought to. The average trusting layperson isn't <i>supposed</i> to be required to get a Theology Degree just so they can tease out the authority-difference between an instructional paragraph in a Catechism and a dogmatic definition in a Papal Bull. They just know that people they trust habitually reference the Catechism, and its introduction describes it as "a sure norm." (Normally it is.)<br /><br />So, Francis seems to be very good at doing precisely the kinds of things which will confuse and discourage the faithful WITHOUT triggering any of the circumstances wherein God has promised to protect the Church by preventing him from acting in error. It seems paranoid to suggest, but it's almost as if he <i>knows</i> precisely the circumstances which would <i>prevent</i> him from substituting his own opinion for Church teaching, and deftly avoids them so that he can go on stating his own opinion in place of Church teaching: Dodging his charism, Jonah-style, instead of exercising it. Could that be it?<br /><br />Naaaah. Surely not.<br /><br />I hope not.R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03679435933685771007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12459754957080139492018-08-14T16:53:09.779-07:002018-08-14T16:53:09.779-07:00The doctrine of the Church do not require the DP o...<i>The doctrine of the Church do not require the DP only that is not instrinsically evil to have one or for the public authority to use it under the right just circumstances.</i> <br /><br />I am not saying that the teaching of the Church is that using the DP is "necessary" (and, of course, neither is Prof. Feser). The teaching of the Church <i>includes</i> that it is right to use DP for the many purposes of punishment in pursuit of the common good, and it is incompatible with that teaching to elevate "safety of persons" over all of the other purposes of punishment (including the <b>primary</b> purpose) so that <i>only</i> safety of persons is the deciding condition. If the <b>common good</b> is served by redress of justice and deterrence and teaching the inviolability of innocent life through the use of DP more than it is served in a given case by the mercy of a lighter sentence than death, then in that case it is better to use DP than not. <br /><br />When you can show me a Father or Doctor of the Church, or a papal document like an encyclical or bull, that uses the Mishnah and the teaching of the rabbis as an authority, I will give your argument relying on them some credence. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34312783405614754462018-08-14T15:53:58.958-07:002018-08-14T15:53:58.958-07:00I am pro-death penalty so in that vain I don't...I am pro-death penalty so in that vain I don't care about Pope St John Paul's thought on this matter much less Pope Francis. I am an ex-Molinist these days so I don't care about Molina's thought anymore either. I respect their differing opinions and would invite practical criticism but as long as such criticism does not devolve into a charge of heresy.<br /><br />If you are merely criticizing the reasonings for the Pope's prudential judgments here then I say have at it. I could give you an ear full about what I thought Pope St Victor got wrong in the Second Century. <br /><br />The thing I am arguing here is wither or not this is a clear doctrinal error or not in the CCC (& by extension past changes made by StJP2 & B16) .<br /><br />>The problem with propositions 1 through 4 in my extended syllogism is that they entail, and RELY ON, important equivocations in leading to the conclusions; as used, they require assumptions contrary to the prior doctrine of the Church.<br /><br />The doctrine of the Church do not require the DP only that is not instrinsically evil to have one or for the public authority to use it under the right just circumstances.<br /><br />Back when the Papal States allowed "Drawing and Quartering" as a legitimate method of execution. I don't see how that can be moral & I am pro-death penalty remember?<br />So Pope Francis' is not off the mark in criticizing the actions of the past.<br /><br /> >In particular, #4 entails a flat out denial of the proposition that the death penalty can be necessary for ANY of the standard ends of punishment,<br /><br />Or it can merely mean that it can be done but it shouldn't be done. If you do it fairly and lawfully no sin is committed. But one can argue other tangent evils are present so that is may be prudent not to do it at all?.<br /><br />This is not a new teaching is it Pre-Catholic. The Rabbis in the Mishnah and the Talmud taught it is lawful to have the DP but that you shouldn't ever do it if you can avoid it.<br /><br />I tend to include the OT Catholic Church with the New. But that is just me.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39226784075288582192018-08-14T15:35:38.175-07:002018-08-14T15:35:38.175-07:00First some nitpicking.
>As the 19th century Po...First some nitpicking.<br /><br />>As the 19th century Popes, particularly, Saint Pope Pius X pointed out, <br /><br />Did you mean Pius IX & the 19th century or St Pius X and the 20th century because there was no Pius X in the 19th century.<br /><br />Now your Communist conspiracy theory (which I've seen floated since St John Paul II time & it is getting old) aside the past Pope's warning of the dangers of ambiguous teaching are valid. But of course we have no protection against it from the Holy Spirit. Only protection from clear error under certain circumstances.<br /><br />>The reason The Dubia provoked such a fierce reaction, was that they were so cleverly written, that there was no way, to answer them, without making a clear statement of orthodoxy, on the one hand, or a clear statement of heresy, on the other. <br /><br />That might be true. Which is why the only defense we have in these times is to clearly and loudly teach the Faith.<br /><br />Of course in the face of this change to the CCC. I am not attached to defending the death penalty. I am pro-death penalty but I would consent to see it abolished world wide rather then allows the appearance the Church has changed dogma. Some people can't separate their politics from the Faith. The Faith is more important. Politics is second or third.<br />In short I have no patence whose main and sole objection here is the last three Popes where against the Death Penalty. <br />Catholic doctrine tells us it's not intrinsically evil. It doesn't mandate we must have a DP. <br />I am waiting for the usual suspects to show up here spouting that neo-Kantan nonsense.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28050655022224228322018-08-14T15:25:22.877-07:002018-08-14T15:25:22.877-07:00>And how is Joe Bloggs, who may be a Catholic, ...>And how is Joe Bloggs, who may be a Catholic, but is not a theologian, seminarian, priest, bishop, canonist, Church historian, Thomist or other philosopher, or graduate in any kind of theology, to tell the wrong bits of the CCC from the accurate and orthodox bits ?<br /><br />That problem existed before the change in the CCC & I submit is centuries old. Do know how many ex-Catholics turned Atheist (or Protestant) I've met who read the Bible wrongly because of the same reason or the Roman Catechism? The Bible is God's Word & it a bit more in essence then the mere CCC. Do you know how hard it is to argue the Trinity and why it's not a contradiction with the profoundly stupid? One ex-Catholic Atheist wag appealed to the opinions of other non-theologian Catholic laymen on a message board when he and I butted heads to back up his claim the Trinity was contradictory. <br /><br />>No-one has a right to complain of the spread of error, heresy, schism & apostasy, when such a poor job of work is foisted on the Church as a “sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion”.<br /><br />No if you are looking for clear books & writtings alone that completely explain the Faith to the ignorant and unwashed I submit that is a remnant Protestant mentality. The Catholic Faith is a living thing and requires living teachers who teach.<br /><br />Even clear Popes like St. John Paul II or Benedict XVI need to be explained by good teachers. Theology of the Body anybody?<br /><br />The problem is we need better religious instruction by the local church. We don't always get it and that is an old problem.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29856208466735032222018-08-14T15:14:36.852-07:002018-08-14T15:14:36.852-07:00@Didymus
Yours in an interesting third position b...@Didymus<br /><br />Yours in an interesting third position but the phrase "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." is not a clear moral judgement.<br /><br />I can say two things here. One, an autocratic system of governance is not intrinsically evil. Which is obvious. There was an autocratic Monarchy in ancient Israel and the Papacy itself in both it's religious and political offices is autocratic. Many an extremist fringe trads believes we should get rid of democracy and go back to Catholic absolute Monarchies. None of these political philosophies are against the faith or intrinsically evil. However we can say as a matter of prudent judgement that dictatorships and or autocracies are inadmissible since we have no protection against their abuse and we could say in that sense their implementation is an " an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" given their dodgy history.<br /><br />So this is not an error it is prudent council. Francis has just made it stronger but we have no means by which to conclude I am a heretic now or rebel because I am still pro-death penalty. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34649236469258293722018-08-14T15:06:23.085-07:002018-08-14T15:06:23.085-07:00No my auto spell check sometimes fails me.
The Po...No my auto spell check sometimes fails me.<br /><br />The Pope is not perspicuous. That should work.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42548279903436899072018-08-14T11:24:36.805-07:002018-08-14T11:24:36.805-07:00I largely agree with this. If shoddy logic stays o...I largely agree with this. If shoddy logic stays on the books long enough it can do its job. We can argue and point out the silly logic, but if it stays on the books, shallow priests and prelates, RCIA instructors, left wing Catholics, and the general public can all visit the paragraph and say “see the Catholic Church is 100% opposed to capital punishment; it’s immoral” to prove their point. Hell, they already do that. Then Feser (and myself) and the other defenders of the Faith are increasingly seen as driven by bloodlust.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10274379804816627022018-08-14T05:55:07.086-07:002018-08-14T05:55:07.086-07:00Doesn't all this implicitly assume the last th...<i>Doesn't all this implicitly assume the last three Popes aren't giving a mere prudent council but a doctrinal exposition on moral norms? </i> <br /><br />SoY, let me revise my comment: My extended syllogism is quite explicitly based on a prudential judgment, #5 is exactly that. You can't get the conclusion without it. <br /><br />However, the prior statements are moral norms (if true). You can't get away from that even in <i>practical</i> judgments of prudence that X is good to do, or Y is bad to do, because the major premise is a principle and the minor premise is a concrete empirical fact - or estimate. So, if the pope's reasoning is dependent on an estimate of empirical fact, an estimate about which he does not have human expertise and about which the Church <i>has never</i> claimed definitive divine protection from error, we are not obliged to conform our minds to his mind and assent to the proposition. That's the nature of category #4 magisterial pronouncements (see Prof. Feser's account, here: <br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html<br /><br /><i>Statements of a prudential sort which require external obedience but not interior assent. </i> <br /><br />The problem with propositions 1 through 4 in my extended syllogism is that they entail, and RELY ON, important equivocations in leading to the conclusions; as used, they require assumptions contrary to the prior doctrine of the Church. In particular, #4 entails a flat out denial of the proposition that the death penalty can be necessary for ANY of the standard ends of punishment, including (a) the redress of the specific disorder that was the crime; (b) a general manifestation of moral order; (c) deterrence; (d) reform of the criminal; (e) safety of persons; and (f) teaching about the inviolability of innocent human life. A teaching common throughout the Fathers and Doctors and Popes and catechisms, and upheld by the Apostles Peter and Paul. <br /><br />I remain interested in the question: do you believe that my (extended) syllogism mis-represents Francis's thought in any important way?Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46730953163536807012018-08-14T04:49:25.564-07:002018-08-14T04:49:25.564-07:00As Dr. Joseph Shaw has pointed out, the reason tha...As Dr. Joseph Shaw has pointed out, the reason that the writers of the CCC don’t show as much respect as a Youtuber or a newspaper that prints a retraction, is that the errors and ambiguity, are intended. <br /><br />As the 19th century Popes, particularly, Saint Pope Pius X pointed out, they want to get their ideas into the heads of Catholics, and they have no shame in being ambiguous or even in contradicting themselves in other places, to give them plausible deniability, should anyone attempt to denounce them as heretics, knowing exactly, what to say, to make that denoucuation as difficult as possible. <br /><br />The reason The Dubia provoked such a fierce reaction, was that they were so cleverly written, that there was no way, to answer them, without making a clear statement of orthodoxy, on the one hand, or a clear statement of heresy, on the other. <br /><br />What has changed with Bergoglio, is that he no longer believes it is necessary, to be coy, and to play that game. And he realizes that you ‘can run on for a long time’, but sooner or later, the Truth catches up to you, and he would rather set the agenda himself, than be caught out trying to pretend that what he is saying, is not heretical, when to anyone, who is even moderately informed, it clearly, is. <br /><br />He has reason to believe that about 80% of self-identified Catholics, broadly, support his views, and either don’t care about or don’t understand, what Catholicism is, and so he thinks, that he can ride rough shod over the Magisterium, and the only reason, he is probably, not even more brutal, is that he wants to give the Jimmy Atkins of this world, a little opening to crawl through, to keep them onboard, because he still thinks there is some value in including them in ‘new church’, but I think, that things are going to get much worse from here, and that even before the end of his reign, Francis will cease to bother to leave that opening for Conservative Catholics. <br /><br />His vision is of a Saul Alinsky ‘church’ and I think that he really doesn’t want anyone who takes doctrine seriously, unless they accept that vision, which entails placing doctrine at the service of practice. Basically, Marxism and dialectic materialism, which was officially, denounced by Pope Pius XII, but as I said, team Bergoglio no longer cares about that. <br /><br />The question all Catholics have to ask is whether or not they do? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com