How to Wage Peace
Surrounded as we are with Cornell liberals who are long on slogans and short on reflection, Iosephus, Iacobus and I are often wont to take some favored liberal phrase -- such as speak truth to power -- and alternatively mock and analyze it. What makes it so popular? What is its meaning and content? And so, naturally, the constant cry that we should Wage Peace has not escaped our consideration. What we were never able to determine, however, is what it could possibly mean.Thanks to the Lily Foundation (qui lucem ad homines perducit), though, we need no longer ask: they provided a $13.8 million grant for the Waging of Peace (roughly the cost equivalent of waging war with 8 cruise missiles) three years ago wherein what it means to Wage Peace is detailed as follows:
Plowshares plans to bring famous speakers to Indianapolis to discuss peace topics, build a world-class peace-studies online library, and establish a Peace House in a low-income Indianapolis neighborhood by fall 2004. There undergraduate students will study for a semester and live out their peace convictions by working with victims of violence, perhaps at a women's shelter or in an impoverished school.
I for one am relieved finally to know what Waging Peace entails!
by Ambrosius @ 3/07/2006 12:49:00 PM
97 comments
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort, ora pro nobis
St. Joseph, ora pro nobis
St. Ambrose of Milan, ora pro nobis
St. Dominic, ora pro nobis
St. Francis (and St. Clare), orate pro nobis
St. Catherine of Siena, ora pro nobis
St. Alphonsus Ligouri, ora pro nobis
St. John Chrysostom, ora pro nobis
97 Comments:
Ambrosius, you wrote that Latin motto for them?? It's exquisite! I couldn't find it anywhere online - it's so pretentious, their motto, but your composition of it is excellent.
Pacem gerere!
Organizations like this one and also these
http://www.paxchristiusa.org
http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/
don't make a peep on their websites about the 100 million deaths from chemical and surgical abortions since Roe v Wade. They are liars and fools.
To say all killing is wrong is a lie.
To say that the Death Penalty is wrong or evil is a lie and is itself evil.
To say that a Catholic can either support or be against the Death Penalty is a lie. To be against the Death Penalty is an error. John Paul II never attempted to make an ex cathedra statement against the Death Penalty because he couldn't. The Church has already spoken on this. JP II errored as a private theologian when he expounded his personal views on capital punishment. The Death Penalty needed no clarification. The Church has been clear on the proper role and circumstances for the death penalty.
Catholic tradition for 2000 years (and it's consistent for 2000 years so that makes it infallible) is that the Death Penalty is a just and required punishment for capital offenses.
I highly recommend listening to Fr. John Hardon, SJ's tape sets on these issues of war, peace, and the death penalty.
A Catholic *can* either support or be against capital punishment. The Holy See has not given a definite ruling on this question, so either view is licit at the present time.
To say that the death penalty is wrong is not evil. As I just said, there is no clear ruling, so that view is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic. You are in essence accusing John Paul II of being a heretic, since he opposed a doctrine that you say is "infallible." This ought to worry you.
There's really no reason to get worked up about this. The Church, including John Paul II, has always granted that capital punishment might be allowable in some cases. But prudential considerations can also factor into the decision of whether or not it is just in particular places and times. Our late Pontiff judged that in the present time, in most modern nations, it is not just. You may disagree if you wish, but you may not claim that the matter has been clearly decided by the Church.
Clara,
This notion that anything the Church has not "given a definite ruling on" is sort of up for grabs, Catholics can take it or leave it, is a pernicious error.
If the Church was consistent on a particular teaching for 2000 years, than that must be treated as infallible. Certainly the pope in these matters has wider latitude than the rest of us, but JP II did not address 2000 years of Catholic teaching. He made a decision as a private theologian based on his own humanist view.
(As is so typical with post-Vatican II statements, it's as if 2000 years of Catholic theology and scholarship never happened.)
The elimination of capital punishment is a sign of a sick and diabolically disoriented society.
The pope cannot err acting as the pope, while making a universal declaration on matters of faith or morals. As a private theologian the pope can err. The popes have erred as private theologians.
John XXII held to the belief that the souls in heaven do NOT partake in the beatific vision. He wrote extensively on this and he believed that the Beatific Vision would be inaccessible until after the 2nd Coming of Christ.
Now, the Church never made a "definitive" statement on this. Yet for 1000 some odd years prior to John XXII it held consistently to the opposite position.
John XXII erred as a private theologian.
A later council denounced his views as heretical.
All of this, including JP II's own missteps, fits in perfectly well with the teachings of the Church of papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church.
We need to all read about John XXII. He erred in other matters too (especially with regard to his dealings with the Franciscan Order) The point being that if we don't come to understand thoroughly the nature of papal infallibility and the nature of Sacred Tradition, many souls are going to be loss when a future pope makes a really crazy statement like supporting contraception among married couples or women priests. This may happen. I pray it doesn't, but it may. If it does, what will the neo-Catholic ulra-montanists do then?
JSP,
Lest others more prudentially inimical to the death penalty than I beat me to the punch, I have to respond.
When you make statements bound to be controversial, especially when they are seemingly unrelated to the topic at hand, you need to be much more precise.
Furthermore, you really should not make unsubstantiated or even false claims, such as:
Catholic tradition for 2000 years (and it's consistent for 2000 years so that makes it infallible) is that the Death Penalty is a just and required punishment for capital offenses.
The majority of Catholic states have employed capital punishment, this is true - but all 2000 years? And what is exactly infallible? - That the use of the death penalty is not objectively sinful? That it can be justified? That is often very useful? These I entirely agree with. But to say that it is infallible teaching that in all places and in all times states must use the death penalty for certain crimes, a list of which I assume was written down in 1 AD, is completely absurd. This was sort of the case for the Jews before Christ, but not for us.
Do a large number of opponents of the death penalty have a serious misunderstanding of traditional Catholic social teaching? Of course!
Do they usually rely on humanist reasoning in their fight against the death penalty? Yes!
Is John Paul's teaching on the death penalty new, and without precedent? This cannot be denied.
But if there be heresy in all of this, we need to very clearly point it out, if and when it arises. Pointing the finger at those who happen to agree with the Supreme Pontiff, even in what I think is a prudential mistake (and I assure you that the death penalty opponents in our august Society make no claims against the death penalty stronger than his) does not get us anywhere.
We need to explain ourselves, not just continually insist that Popes are capable of teaching error, with the implication that John Paul II was heretic.
Joe,
First of all, you are not exonerated from calling John Paul II a heretic. John XXII may have made many mistakes, which we can call "errors" because they were only addressed by the Magisterium AFTER he wrote them. That would only mean that he was a material heretic, which is not a sin and would in fact put him in good company with a lot of other good popes and theologians (for all we know, practically all of them, since it's hard for anybody to get EVERYTHING right.)
But that's completely different. You're claiming that JPII declared capital punishment to be wrong AFTER it had achieved the status of an infallible doctrine. That would make him a formal heretic, which is a serious sin. Your only option would be to make an argument that the Pontiff was saved by invincible ignorance, but I have to say, your case is looking quite fishy to me at this point.
Look, if you read about this in the (new) Catechism, you'll find that capital punishment is not declared to be always wrong "if this is the only possible way of effeectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor.(2267)" They merely suspect that these conditions rarely or never obtain in modern society.
So, on one interpretation, nothing has been actually "changed" except the prudential considerations that factor into the decision over whether or not the death penalty should be used. You need to present a much stronger case if you want to prove that it is "necessary" (though I'm not certain what exactly you mean that to entail.) What, exactly, was agreed upon for 2000 years?
I see Iacobus beat me to the punch, and I apologize for any redundancy in my post.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
First, I again urge you to get hold of anything by Fr. John Hardon, SJ. He has a series of tape sets available, one of which is on contemporary moral issues. He gives an entire lecture on Capital Punishment.
Certain crimes call for certain punishments. To give a lesser punishment is morally sinful. It's a sin against justice and charity. (believe it or not, it's a sin against the criminal to not give him his just punishment. His punishment is part of his means of expiating his sins and also, particularly in the case of capital punishment, repentance and conversions occur specifically because of the punishment and its effects on the person)
Secondly, if the Church holds to a position consistently and throughout history, then that is a form of infallibility. This is directly from a sermon by Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP. Of course this encompasses a wide swath of issues and they’re not all listed and indexed in a book somewhere. They are part of what is called the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Hang with me here, I know this is scary ground for some of you neo-Catholics. I'm not suggesting that the pope or councils cannot examine these issues, but certainly if a new concept should emerge from a pope or council, they need to address 2000 years of Church teaching. It cannot simply be that "we understand things better today" or "we've developed or grown-up in someway." And then not even mention your predecessor of 20 years, never mind 2000 years of predecessors!!
I never called JP II a heretic, material or otherwise. That is a matter for his successors or for future councils to deal with. Not for us. He made some mistakes. To point out those mistakes, is only a cardinal sin in the novus ordo church of silence and false-obedience.
"Shut up and move along", says His Eminence.
But all you asked was, "Where are we going"
As we shuffle off to Hell.
I can't do justice on this blog to either the issue of Capital Punishment nor the issue of Infallibility.
Peace and love for all!
Ok, just being a goof......
I'll got on this post later.......
But here's a thought:
People that encourage the death penalty I hear could consider Christ not saying anything after that good thief guy exclaimed "we are receiving our just punishment".
Johnboy,
Exactly.
Capital Punishment was the means by which God brought about the conversion of the Good Thief.
Fr. Hardon speaks of knowing of many prison chaplains who attest to scores and scores of conversions because of Capital Punishment.
It's a great mercy and grace to know one's date and time of death.
Under the neo-catholic regime of anti-death penalty, these criminals would lose this and be forced to live in the immoral perverted cesspool of prison-life, likely either to become an even more hardened fiend and moral deviant, dying an unholy death at late age or dying suddenly at the hands of a fellow inmate.
Of course the neo-Catholic bleeding heart doesn't think about these things. They're consumed in their humanist agenda. And worst, they are cut off from Sacred Tradition, having lost or never had the sensus catholicus - they are literally like blind men in a pitch-black room trying to find the truth.
Fr. Hardon is known as being die-hard orthodox in the Catholic faith. I will have to check out some of his articles maybe later.
I was thinking, too, that the death penalty for various sins outlined in the Old Testament was more as a deterrent to moral infractions then a means to make one have a chance to be repentant or to save the society from some whacko. So referencing Old Testament punishments is not exactly justifying the death penalty as moral and legitimate. Correct me if I am wrong.
No one has suggested the Old Law is the sole basis or even the starting basis for the Catholic position in favor of the Death Penalty.
I can't recall Fr. Hardon mentioning much about the Old Testament in his extensive recorded seminar on the subject of Capital Punishment.
Those who suggest (and I'm not saying that you are doing this Johnboy) that a "religious" support of the Death Penalty will lead to the stoning of adulterers, the execution of disobedient children, and such, are misrepresenting the traditional and perennial teaching of the Catholic Church.
His Holiness Pope Leo X condemned and excommunicated Martin Luther for, among other errors, the following proposition:
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.
If it is not against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics, then it must be morally permissible. If something is immoral, it is against the will of the Holy Ghost. Ergo, capital punishmen CAN be moral in at least one situation -- that of heretics. (Oddly enough, this is probably one category that almost all Catholic, pseudo- or real, defenders of the death penalty would deny being licitly subject to death!)
The citation comes from the Bull "Exsurge Domine" ("Expunge, O Lord!"), from 1520. Along with forty other propositions of the heresiarch, Pope Leo said: "No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience."
Furthermore, Leo stated: "We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church."
So the Magisterium has spoken, at least concerning the burning of heretics. Now prudentially we would not burn heretics today. However, if I am interpreting this encyclical correctly, one may not claim that the incineration of heretics qua heretics by the state is intrinsically unjust or immoral. I take it as pretty much a given that most objectors to the death penalty would say that ALL killing for beliefs is intrinsicallly unjust and immoral. Regardless of ignorance, sincerity, etc., etc., these people are wrong.
Please correct me if I am mis-reading this quite magisterial proclamation.
If you wish to see an English translation of "Exsurge Domine," I refer you to http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo
10/l10exdom.htm .
Oh, and there's more from "Exsurge Domine":
"With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....
"Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places."
From the sounds of it, this bull meets the requirements for an ex cathedra definition. So the proposition "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" has been solemnly condemned by the extraordinary magisterium of the Church. Whether this particular proposition is "heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds," it is "against Catholic truth." Roma locuta est, causa finita est. If I'm missing something, please correct me.
Tobias Petrus,
Good find!
Our modern sensibilities are so out of whack that most of us probably don't realize that spreading heresy is a worse crime than murder.
Gather up the kindling boys! We havin a heretic burnin!
Seriously, the society should request a permit for a burning of Martin Luther in effigy on his birthday November 10 or the date of his Judgment before God Almighty, February 18th.
OK, the university probably wouldn't go for that.
Put in the request as from "Muslim and Gay Student Alliance" and that you're burning an effigy of Pope Benedict holding an American flag. Then on the day of the event, you'll actually have Martin Luther up there holding a Protestant bible. Then before lighting the bundles of twigs, Clara tears off her burkha and Iosephus and the gang take off their fezzes and turbans. Set Fr. Luther ablaze and then take off running with a Sacred Heart Banner flourishing in the air.
Joe Six, I like the imagination! We've thought about having a book burning, but certain of our members our nervous if they should be found to be involved in such an event.
Just to be pedantic: "exsurge" means "rise up" not "expunge." That would be just what it looks like, namely "expunge".
Well, as a Latinist by profession, I am sorely aggrieved at my mistranslation. I do have a fig-leaf for this, though. My first-semester Western Civ. professor at Marquette Univ., a rather nasty anti-Catholic (or so he presented himself), first told me about "Exsurge Domine." To this day I can hear his truly frightening voice intoning "Ex-PPPPUUUUUNNNNNge, O Lord!" I hesitated to translate it that way in my post, but then figured that at some point over the past 5 and 1/2 years I must have verified his translation. I guess not; mea culpa, and thank you, Iosephe.
Incidentally, this jaded history prof. of mine was the only one at Marquette I remember ever having brought up "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" without immediately watering it down. Of course, he did so with a rather hostile look on his face and tone in his voice.
Tobias Petrus --
Your interpretation of the bull seems fair. But as I understand it, few Catholic opponents of capital punishment hold that the death penalty is always and everywhere wrong. The question is of whether it ought to be used in modern societies.
Tobias,
I take the general position that if the Church, particularly the Holy Father, is teaching about certain subjects on faith and/or morals it's more prudential to accept his authority even in matters outside full blown ex cathedra statements (see Canon Law) than to go back and try to disprove his "ideas" based upon older papal statements that appear at least superficially in contradiction.
In other words it appears that your opinion or apparent finding that JPII was a heretic could be disproved based upon the merits of what the Church is teaching today; and thus you're interpretation of the condemnation of Martin Luther is not correct.
Furthermore, it is pretty much regarded that the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and potentially (depending on who you ask, I suppose) some other doctrines are considered "ex cathedra". But this is the very first time I've heard the claim that the "death penalty for heretics" is ex cathedra.
However, to address the general issue you present; I will note that the death penalty should only be considered for the following reasons:
1) Safeguard society from a person who has proven a previous and present threat to society.
Note that I only list this one reason. That's because the other reasons I believe are residual (ie, deterence of crimes, means for conversion, retribution) and thus are to me not effectively powerful reasons to kill someone. I know this is not particularly the best publication to site on this particular blog but I suggest checking out the "Statement on Capital Punishment" by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (1980).
Now, that being said, what constitutes "safeguard[ing] society from a person" appears to be up to some sort of interpretation. Given the state of society in this modern age (with all the killing against the dignity of life) it appears most prudential to not set forth a goal to allow the death penalty. Although, this is not ex cathedra.
Finally, I would note that the dignity of the human soul should always be considered in proposing the death penalty. This means, to me, it may be more appropriate to consider confinement in lieu of capital punishment.
Clara,
No; in fact many Catholics believe that capital punishment per se is not justified...period. This is not heresy, as far as I know.
Hi Clara, thanks for checking my reading. Here's a quick response to your post.
1) "But as I understand it, few Catholic opponents of capital punishment hold that the death penalty is always and everywhere wrong. The question is of whether it ought to be used in modern societies."
They don't hold that it's always and everywhere wrong. If they did, they'd be straying from what even the new Catechism says. However, almost no one says that burning heretics in and of itself MAY be both just and moral, even under the New Testament. They don't just say that such executions would be wrong here and now, but they seem to think that it's automatically, intrinsically wrong. Well, that's one of the errors Martin Luther was excommunicated for.
2.) Many people seem to think that the Magisterium has not spoken on the death penalty with an ex cathedra statement. So they say things to the effect that it's an open question and people may licitly hold, as a theological proposition, that the death penalty is intrinsically unjust. Well, leaving aside the natural law arguments for capital punishment, "Exsurge Domine" proves that the Church has made a dogmatic definition on the intrinsic justice of capital punishment, namely that one must affirm it in the case of heretics.
3.) All this leaves aside prudential considerations. However, who out there (other than traditionalists) ever points out that we may well return to a situation where executing heretics would again be prudent? Say 100 years from now in Africa a country has adopted a truly Catholic code of law and order. Let's say a heresy erupts to the effect that this country should not resist Islamism by force. (Incidentally, "To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them" was the 34th error Luther was condemned for in "Exsurge Domine.") This country, for the greater good, might have to consider executing recalcitrant (I repeat, recalcitrant) heretics for its own good. There, prudence would dictate it and justice would permit it.
Whoops! That wasn't a quick response at all. Clara, John-Boy is of the sort I mentioned in my email -- he thinks it's at least an open question that the death penalty is intrinsically unjust. (Correct me if that's wrong, John-Boy.)
John-Boy, just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean it isn't true. Re-read the bull -- it is quite clearly written with all the force of an ex cathedra definition. I cannot see how a modern (post-1870)definition could be written any more clearly. If you can work out a way to reconcile the papal declaration from 1520 and the proposition (to which I assume you adhere) "The death penalty in the case of heretics is intrinsically unjust," I will return the favor by drawing some square circles for you.
"In other words it appears that your opinion or apparent finding that JPII was a heretic could be disproved based upon the merits of what the Church is teaching today; and thus you're interpretation of the condemnation of Martin Luther is not correct."
I did not say that JPII was a heretic. Where did I say that? I don't remember even mentioning Pope John Paul II (RIP).
Consider:
"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being." (CCC 2258)
"Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death." (CCC 2306).
Johnboy you state:
"However, to address the general issue you present; I will note that the death penalty should only be considered for the following reasons:" and then you go on to list your own private judgments on the use of Capital Punishment.
Sacred Tradition is clear on the proper uses of the Death Penalty. Capital Crimes call for the Death Penalty. Period.
It's for the good of society and for the good of the criminal. Yes, I'll say it again. You deprive the criminal of his means of expiating his capital sins and you rob him of his opportunity to know the specific time of his Particular Judgment and of this motivation to repent.
Tobias,
You stated that it was ex cathedra (or at least implied that) to burn heretics.
JPII did not agree with that as I understand it. The use of capital punishment as in the Catechism is for "defend[ing] human lives".
To continue on the subject of "capital punishment is always wrong" I would note:
"If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person." (CCC 2267).
Thank you, John-Boy. I have considered what you have cited -- the statements are true, powerful, and not in any way contradictory to what I have written.
"no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."
I am clearly referring to guilty human beings -- formal heretics.
As for the second citation, some people refrain completely from all physical force, even when justified, in order the better to live out evangelical counsels. Some people also give up all property, or share all their property in common with others. Some people forsake marriage and family to be closer to God. That is all good.
There's a caveat: "provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies." By this I assume that other men and societies may need to resort to force in order to defend themselves, and the more perfect pursuers of evangelical charity should not stand in their way.
And of course there always risks, grave ones, in any recourse to force. Thank you for sharing these edifying statements from the Catechism. I find no contradiction between what I have said here and what the Catechism has said. If I have missed such a contradiction, please bring it to my attention.
Tobias,
Well consider the Bible's notion that we are all guilty of sin (and yes, heresy falls in this category).
Then when you find someone who believes in something incorrect to your strict interpretation of Catholicism and burn him; then maybe he'll be a bit perturbed that he could've lived a holy life and done great good after his would have been future conversion were you not to kill him...
Tobias,
Did you address CCC 2267, too?
I do claim that the list of condemned errors in "Exsurge Domine" is ex cathedra. It meets all the requirements from Vatican I's declaration on ex catherdra papal proclamations. I cannot see how one can deny that the solemn condemnation of the propositions in question can be regarded otherwise than as ex cathedra. If you see a defect, please point it out.
I do not know of any claim that the present "Catechism of the Catholic Church" is ex cathedra. I do not remember Pope John Paul II ever having addressed "Exsurge Domine," therefore I could only conjecture his response to it. Since Pope Leo, speaking infallibly was quite clear on the intrinsic morality of executing heretics, and Pope John Paul II, whatever he thought about it, never said anything ex cathedra, I shall go with the clear and authoritative over the unclear and un-authoritative.
As for your latest post, "if" is the key word. If non-lethal means are not sufficient for public safety, I presume that the death penalty is legitimate. That seems to be the logical counterpart to what is said in the Catechism. Heresy, as the medievals rightly realized, was a greater assault on the people's safety than murder. So I still don't see any contradiction between this point in the Catechism and "Exsurge Domine," or what I said about the hypothetical Catholic country in Africa. I do not recall claiming that there was such a contradiction.
Folks,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that the "traditional teaching of the Church" is that "preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm." (CCC 2266).
This to me does not imply heresy but physical harm to society. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Furthermore, excommunication is the means with which the Church deals with heretics. This simply means keeping the heretic outside the liturgical community of the faithful; not killing them.
So, John-Boy, should I assume that you hold to the proposition:
"That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."?
If yes, then, I'd say you're running up against a quite explicit magisterial document. So far, I haven't found anything contrary to "Exsurge Domine" in your magisterial citations. I am merely defending "Exsurge Domine" and its teachings. Now I must do some real work, as in "stuff I actually get paid for," so please re-read the magisterial documents on the death penalty in light of "Exsurge Domine." Whatever picture puzzle you're making, you have to make that piece fit. So, to quote the "Waltons," g'night John-Boy!
"Furthermore, excommunication is the means with which the Church deals with heretics. This simply means keeping the heretic outside the liturgical community of the faithful; not killing them."
True. The executions would be handled by the state, to which this job was committed. The technical term the Inquisition used for surrendering a heretic to the state for burning was "re-laxing him to the secular arm."
But this time I mean it, G'night, John-Boy!
Tobias,
Well something's not right considering the Holy Father's request not too long ago that forgiveness and pardon be granted to all those folks who burned heretics back in the day.
Guess he indeed was a heretic; at least to you...
Check it out tomorrow, Tobias:
"MEMORY AND RECONCILIATION:
THE CHURCH AND THE FAULTS OF THE PAST" (JPII, December 1999)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html
I would note that my comment about burning heretics is a bit sensational and seems to not consider other (more euthanasiatic like means) means of killing a heretic.
But JPII asks for forgiveness in the above-mentioned "Memory and Reconciliation..." for:
"all forms of force used in the repression and correction of errors."
g'night. And I am from upstate NY not western Virginia.
Everyone knows that those "apologies" were among the most outrageously ridiculous acts of JPII's pontificate. And if he spoke as you said, he put himself in direct contradiction to Leo X, as Tobias Petrus has amply documented for us.
The marked contradiction between the words of John Paul II and Leo X is yet another sad reminder of the current state of affairs which has led some to speak of a "New Church."
In such situations, we must remember, as Joe Six Pack mentioned, the various levels of authority invoked in various papal pronouncements, statements, press releases, off the cuff remarks, etc.
A document of explicitly condemend propositions, with all the language of an ex cathedra pronouncement, obviously trumps an inane apologize and kiss up to the world session, whether given by the pope or anyone else.
Johnboy,
He may not have been the guest of honor at any world youth days, but another man who wore white has something to say on this issue:
"On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live"; and (Psalm 100:8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land."
Answering, Whether it is lawful to kill sinners?
Johnboy,
I marvel at the interchange between you and Tobias.
In the end, you could not defend the indefensible and your novus ordo understanding of "Church" was incapable of thinking your way through.
Like I said previously, your faith is going to be seriously shaken if and when some future pope makes an even more outlandish remark. You must come to understand the true natures of papal infallibility and Sacred Tradition.
Reading church documents dated prior to Vatican II is a healthy thing.
Also, read only books by anyone whose name starts with "St."
Many of us had your mindset years ago, and by the grace of God we've learned the truth.
You can do it too.
We're here for you.
Consider this forum you support group - Novus Ordo Anonymous.
"I cannot see how one can deny that the solemn condemnation of the propositions in question can be regarded otherwise than as ex cathedra."
What I said came out garbled. I meant, "I cannot see how the solemn condemnation can be . . ." Now my "break" from work is over.
I have another link on the subject of heresy and the death penalty. It is from St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., a Doctor of the Church. St. Robert cites, among others, Sts. Augustine, Leo, Gregory (who with Leo as sole companion rightly deserves the title "the Great"), and Bernard, also Doctors of the Church. And after these saints, plus an ex cathedra pronouncement from a Pope, I'm supposed to bother myself with the notorious "apologies"? Now, John-Boy, please brace yourself, the link comes via St. Benedict Center.
http://www.catholicism.org/de-
laicis21.html
Regarding the apologies, I simply regard them as mistakes -- mind-numbingly colossal mistakes. It is unpleasant even to think about them. I don't remember the Pope announcing any anathemas after the event to condemn those who disagreed with his decision. I know that Leo X issued anathemas after his bull. Do I think Pope John Paul II was in error if/when he said what you wrote? I'll answer that when you tell me how Pope Leo X's bull doesn't mean what it seems to mean, and/or how it isn't ex cathedra. What are YOU saying about the authority of the bull "Exsurge Domine"?
You've got to be kidding me.
Well, Tobias, I guess you must therefore conclude that JPII was indeed a heretic.
In any case, Ambrosius, I mentioned previously that the Old Testament regulations for killing someone who commits certain graves sins is not exactly able to be applied to a concept of morality that is pure and legitimate. I mentioned that the intent, as far as I knew, was to deter sins (and also reflect or prefigure the fact that under the New Covenant this would be actualized by sanctifying grace....in other words one who commits a mortal sin loses this grace and is thus dead in sin). Think also of the Jews hardened hearts whereby Moses "permitted" divorce and remarriage. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I'll git on this laters...
John-Boy, do you think that Leo X was a heretic? Do you think that Exsurge Domine, an ex cathedra bull, was factually incorrect? I ask you again, do you or do you not subscribe to the statement: "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit"? If you do, then you have gone against the solemn definition that this proposition is wrong. Whatever Pope John Paul II thought, he did not (to my knowledge) address this bull. I cannot address his state of mind, as he is deceased. Perhaps he subscribed to the Bull but considered all actual, historical instances of force in the service of Faith as being extrinsically unjust (one possibility). Perhaps he acted like St. Peter when he sat down with the Jewish Christians and ate kosher food, and St. Paul rebuked him. It really isn't my job to speculate. He has gone to his reward, and I pray for the repose of his soul. But, John-Boy, the personal orthodoxy of a given Pope in his non-authoritative statements and actions is not, I repeat not, the touchstone of Catholicism. Maybe it is for functional papolatry, but not for Catholicism. From what I understand, Leo X was in a number of respects a feckless Pope. However, he did condemn the proposition in question as at least erroneous. Now, Pope John Paul II has gone to his reward. I do not have any reason to speculate about his personal orthodoxy -- he was the validly reigning Pope, and so could not have spoken error in such a way as to destroy the Petrine Office. However, I ask you AGAIN (I use caps since you don't seem to respond), do you think that Leo X was incorrect in a statement that actually matters -- i.e. the solemn condemnation of Martin Luther's heresies and errors? And if you hold that Leo and all those Doctors were wrong then, why couldn't John Paul II have been wrong more recently?
I'll git on the "infallibility" on this statement laters...
And I just thought it best to question the legitimacy using other methods at the moment; as I am unprepared right now to address this question...if ever that is attainable for you, Tobias...
John Boy, you can also read the catechism of the Council of Trent (under St. Charles Borromeo), that says about the fith commandment:
Execution Of Criminals
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment? is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
The death penalty is necessary to perfect obedience of this commandment. Of course it belongs to the instituted power and no to private people and and it has to be to a proportional crime. Of course it is worse to kill souls tahn to kill mere bodies. The death penalty is an act of charity: conserves order in society, it is a great opportunity for repetance and the sinner is deprived of the power to sin.
That is what Saint Thomas says (the philopher of the Church), Summa Theologica, II-IIae Q 25 a.6 ad.2 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/302506.htm):
Reply to Objection 2. As the Philosopher observes (Ethic. ix, 3), when our friends fall into sin, we ought not to deny them the amenities of friendship, so long as there is hope of their mending their ways, and we ought to help them more readily to regain virtue than to recover money, had they lost it, for as much as virtue is more akin than money to friendship. When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, and become incurable, we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more.
Saint Homas has sad it.
The albingesians were the ones who stated that capital punishment was an evil. They were wrong like Luther.
If every documment of the Pope was infallible waht would be the purpose of the definition of ex cathedra statement?
Some Saints were inquisitors: Saint Pius V and Saint Peter Arbués, for exemple.
Well, thanks to St. Robert, my new favorite Jesuit, I have another magisterial statement in favor of the death penalty. The following position of the heresiarch John Huss was condemned at Session 15 of the Ecumenical Council of Constance (July 6, 1415):
"14. Doctors who state that anybody subjected to ecclesiastical censure, if he refuses to be corrected, should be handed over to the judgment of the secular authority, are undoubtedly following in this the chief priests, the scribes and the pharisees who handed over to the secular authority Christ Himself, since he was unwilling to obey them in all things, saying, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; these gave him to the civil judge, so that such men are even greater murderers than Pilate."
The point is that John Huss compared contemporary Catholic prelates to Annas, Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin. Why? Because, to Huss' twisted thinking, to hand over incorrigible heretics to the state/stake for execution was similar to condemning Our Lord to death. The Council Fathers rejected any such comparison, thereby rejecting the criticism Huss had made. Granted, this condemnation is not as clear about the intrinsic morality of executing heretics as was the condemnation of Luther. However, it does show the Church defending its Inquisitorial practices via the solemn magisterium.
Not surprisingly, the list of Huss' condemned articles immediately follows the Council's verdict: that he should be handed over to the secular arm and burned at the stake!
I got my translation of the Council decree from what I presume is a more John-Boy-friendly source, namely EWTN:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCIL
S/CONSTANC.HTM
Now, as regrettable as Martin Luther and John Huss' heresies were, we can take solace in the fact that God used them to bring forth from the succssors to the Apostles ever clearer enunciations of the Catholic Faith regarding the death penalty.
Hello, peoples.
PLEASE, check out this marvelous document on Capital Punishment.
In it you will see the Church's real teaching; including the "views" from both "ends" of the issue.
I think Tobias and everyone will at least get some guidance on this very divisive issue.
It's really good...here she is:
http://www.kofc.org/rc/en/publications/cis/publications/veritas/Veritas_CIS302.pdf
John-Boy, your link does not work. In any case, does the publication from the K. of C. present the teachings of Leo X and the Council of Constance on the subject of executing heretics? If not, then the authors are ignoring (intentionally or not) at least some of the teachings of the solemn magisterium on this subject.
JohnBoy's document can be found by typing "death penalty" in the search box on the kofc.org webpage. It is actually pretty good.
It sets forth a distinction that I think is worth contemplating. There is a difference between whether or not the death penalty is a per se perogative of any legitimate government, and whether or not it is appropriate in a given set of circumstances.
The new Catechism and Evangelium Vitae both basically say that capital punishment is per se legitimate, but that modern circumstances (particularly alternate forms of punishment that duly incapacitate someone) probably counsel against its use. I think recognizing this distinction is the key to harmonizing these documents with previous papal documents.
Cardinal Dulles and Justice Scalia had a great exchange on this topic a few years ago in First Things. That's also worth examining, and can be done on-line (for those who don't think Fr. Neuhaus is a heretic for celebrating the Novus Ordo). Justice Scalia makes a very compelling argument that the "new" approach seems to undermine the Church's traditional teaching that legitimate punishment also involves a retributive element. According to Scalia's thought, for some crimes (presumably according to his understanding of Catholic doctrine), that retribution can only obtain through resort to capital punishment.
Cardinal Dulles counters that the new teaching is really just a prudential judgment, and in any event, it can be defended in the sense that "retribution" is only one aspect of punishment that must be balanced against other factors (such as incapacitation, opportunity for repentance, etc). In that vein, it might seem as though the need for such severe retribution is more rare than in times past. That is certainly a plausible reading of the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae.
As a final point, it's also worth mentioning that in his theological writings, St. Augustine always defended the death penalty. However, in private dealings he repeatedly intervened with government authorities for mercy and asked them not to apply it in specific circumstances. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice."
Just food for thought. I honestly see both sides of this argument. As a lover of the Peterine Office, I do think we owe a great deal of consideration to the Holy Father's perspective. Every death is a tragedy, and we must recognize that.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pseudo-Thomas,
"Every death is a tragedy" so you say.
Well herein lies another fundamental difference between Novus Ordarian Catholics and traditional Catholics.
It was a pious practice for about 2000 years to pray for martyrdom. Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ prayed every day for martyrdom.
Death is a tragedy when the soul is unprepared for its Particular Judgment: murder, abortion, or natural death of an unbaptized person or a Catholic in the state of mortal sin. These are all tragic.
Death is a glory when met by a pious soul prepared to meet God Almighty.
A tragic death is more likely to occur for a criminal serving a life term in prison than by an execution.
The most important thing anyone of us will ever do is die.
"The most important thing anyone of us will ever do is die."
Romano Amerio strongly echoes this sentiment. He explains the importance of death at length.
JSP and iosephus,
I do not disagree with either of you about the importance of death. True, the most important thing any of us will ever do is die. A good death ought to be the goal of any good life. Indeed, martrydom is surely a noble and worthy thing for which to pray, so long as one does not "seek out" martyrdom. St. Thomas More, for example, counsels that we ought to flee death at all costs, as an affirmation of the gift God gives us with our very lives. St. More says that martyrdom itself is a gift given by God, and one we can ask for, but that we should not seek by our actions and with an unhealthy pride, as this is presumptuous. It could lead us into our own sin if, at the moment of the very death we have so imprudently sought, we actually flee martyrdom and become apostates. Given that St. More became a martyr himself, I think his counsel is worthy of consideration. We should have a zeal for the faith that gives us the freedom to stare death in the face and not blink. We should be willing to die even to save one, even ONE soul from the eternal fires of hell. But we should be cautious about taking concrete steps to seek out martyrdom simply for the honor of being martyrs. Why? First, as I pointed out, because it is presumptuous. But also because our lives are a gift, and our bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit, and we thus have a duty to preserve them, because they were given us by God himself.
Death itself is a consequence of the sin of Adam; a consequence we have all inhereted. No less than St. Paul points this out. "The wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) In that sense, all death is a tragedy, because the human soul was created by God for the explicit purpose of eternal destiny with Him. It is precisely in that sense that I meant "[e]very death is a tragedy."
JSP, you write: "[d]eath is a glory when met by a pious soul prepared to meet God Almighty." In one sense, yes. In another sense, as I said, all death is a tragedy. Now, after the fall, and after the Resurrection, it is true that we can only attain the perfection for which our lives exist by passing through death. In that sense, all of your sentiments about the worthiness of death are very true and very valid. Yet those sentiments still do not mitigate what I wrote. Death, on its own terms, is a tragedy.
Back to the point at hand, given that the state DOES have the AUTHORITY, given from God, to "wield the sword" and avenge crimes with death, we ought to reflect very seriously on the MEANING of death. This was my point.
As a final point, in order to defend myself, JSP, I fail to see how this sentiment represents a distinction between myself and those who attend the Tridentine Mass. I simply don't understand how anything I have said about death and the death penalty can be disparaged, simply because I am, in your own terms "Novus Ordonese." If you think that my perspective is less trustworthy for that simple fact, I would appreciate it if you would just come out and say it. After all, I visit this blog because I'm in search of a "Good Time."
On the issue of capital punishment, I merely am trying to point out that an honest assessment of the appropriateness of its use in any specific circumstance, at the very least, probably ought to involve some reflection on the meaning of death for the Christian believer. If that sentiment alone makes me less than reliably Catholic, well then, all I can do is apologize.
Novus Ordonarianism has to do with much more that having a preference for the modern liturgical form. Just as Traditionalism has MUCH more to do with believing that the Mass of the Ages is more pleasing to God. Our worldviews are different in many critical aspects.
We are currently discussing one of those aspects: life and death.
Every day in this world is a day that could end in our Particular Judgment. Getting to our Judgment in the state of grace is all the matters. Each day is an opportunity to forfeit our share of supernatural life by committing mortal sin. And God has numbered from the beginning of time how many mortals sins we'll be allotted. He has determined a certain lot for each of us. A certain saint attests to having been shown a number of 7-year olds in Hell for committing each a single mortal sin. Life is no roses, folks.
I believe it was St. Phillip Neri who prayed each morning, "this day hold on to me with both hands good Jesus, or I will most assuredly betray you worse than Judas."
Life is a race to the finish line.
We must not go about seeking our deaths or in anyway shortening our lives.
We must be attentive and watchful to the readiness of our souls and the souls in our charge.
But this life, in the end, is a Vale of Tears.
Each day's times on this earth is a continued testament to the horrible and catastrophic decision made by Father Adam over 4000 years ago.
By the way, it was revealed to St. Alphonsus that we earn 7 years in purgatory for each forgiven mortal sin! One of many reasons martyrdom looks good! (also availing ourselves of indulgences, Divine Mercy Sunday promises, etc.)
All the above is anathema to the modern, novus ordo mind.
The following is a simple reflection
I am honestly enamored by Psuedo Thomas' remarks...not necessarily because they seem very similar to my own but rather because they do not mock the teachings of the Church today. Unfortunately, some traditional Catholics lament of the Church at this point in history. It becomes so overriding that they fail to appreciate the quite amazing documents to counter this nasty age in order to bring to light true Christian living. After all, I would hardly consider Psuedo Thomas someone who simply thinks anything pre-Vatican II is evil; but it is clear the other end of the spectrum does not give due consideration likewise.
If I had the time and girth I'd seriously go through and address every thing that is questioned. However, I am unable to do so without sitting in front of the computer all day (I do anyways at work....).
I think sometime soon the Cornell Society for a Good Time personnel should do a post on infallibility so we could get into that. I think it's still a bit unclear to peoples.
What's the difference between a traditional Catholic and a neo-Catholic?
Fr. Ripperger, FSSP explains:
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2001_SP_Ripperger.html
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_mar01.html
Psuedo Thomas and other people:
The link I actually intended to give was called "Catholics and Capital Punishment" by Father Judd:
http://www.kofc.org/rc/en/pubicatio
ns/cis/publications/veritas/Veritas
_CIS302.pdf
"I think sometime soon the Cornell Society for a Good Time personnel should do a post on infallibility so we could get into that. I think it's still a bit unclear to peoples."
Actually, John-Boy, I tried to get into infallibility, but you so far have not responded. So I think that you should look into the requirements and see if "Exsurge Domine" counts. (No, I am not letting this slip.) As for being more appreciative of more recent Church documents, I do hope that I am not included in your criticism. I was quite pleased when you cited the modern Catechism earlier in this discussion.
Oh, and John-Boy, I finally looked back at your last post on the "Convert your Orthodox neighbor" thread (or discussion, or whatever its called). I have only given it a cursory look, but I still don't get your point. So I am not letting that drop either. I really would appreciate it if you would clearly spell out all the inferences you draw between different statements. For instance, repeating, "I guess you think JPII is a heretic" a whole bunch of times without providing a syllogism to prove how my statements necessarily mean that (especially given the fact that they do not) is both unfair and undignified.
JSP,
Interesting links. I enjoy Fr. Ripperger's discussion of philosophical history and the differnces between "neo-conservatives" and "traditionalists" when it comes to ecclesiastical tradition.
However, I still fail to see how that relates at all to anything I have said about death or the death penalty.
Have I not said that a duly constituted government, by its very nature, retains the authority to use capital punishment? Have I not also pointed out that the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae both state this explicitly?
Have I not also merely pointed out that both of these documents also state that, in the current context, the availability of certain other forms of punishment might satisfy the goals which previously only capital punishment could fill? Given the respect all Catholics are called to have for each and every human life, so these documents say, it would seem we might want to cut back on our executions some.
I honestly do not find this to be either illogical or difficult to reconcile with various documents such as "Exsurge Domine".
You cannot do away with capital punishment without disrupting the natural order, depriving society, victims, and criminals from there due, and sining against justice and charity, among other virtues.
"Capital" crimes call for "capital" punishment.
What about the fact the capital punishment is better for the criminal (in the eternal sense of better, not in the humanistic sense)? I've mentioned it countless times and provided evidence from saints and rock-solid theologians. You seem to not want to deal with that.
Tobias,
Seriously I am at a loss as to your remarks. Evidently, I am not getting through. I will attempt to state one more time:
1) If you believe burning heretics is an infallible and even further "ex cathedra" statement then you must conclude those who fail to accept this "dogma" knowing full well this are guilty of heresy.
2) If Pope John Paul II publically denounced the "burning of heretics" (and all forms of oppression to root out errors) he is formally indicating he thinks it was wrong. Otherwise he would not ask for forgiveness.
Johnboy,
The Successor to Peter is free to be wrong in *everything* he does except when making an ex cathedra statement.
The apologies are not ex cathedra.
This does not mean that everything the pope does short of ex cathedra statements should be disregarded or treated lightly in any way.
It only means that such actions of the Holy Father *can* contradict Sacred Tradition and in that case are highly suspect in the very least.
You and I, nor anyone participating on this blog, are competent to judge a single case of heresy against anyone, least of all the Holy Father.
All we can do (and all we must do) is learn the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church found in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition: Learn our Faith. And live our Faith.
It's very likely that future popes will go one to make even more outlandish statements. It's important to understand infallibility and more importantly to understand our Sacred Tradition or our faith will be rocked to the core.
What will you do Johnboy when a future pope says to an audience, "Well, I think under some circumstances, married couples should have access to artificial contraception." or "I think perhaps the Church should reopen the examination of allowing woman access to holy orders" ??
What will you do?
What will you say?
Given your current attitude toward all things papal, you'll either jump on board and embrace serious errors or you'll become of sede-vacantist. Neither is the correct route. But given your current state of mind, I don't see how you can end up any place else.
The third option, the Catholic option, is to be at peace, trust in God and the benevolence of his Holy Mother, and understand our Sacred Tradition - so our faith will remain intact.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
1) If you believe burning heretics is an infallible and even further "ex cathedra" statement then you must conclude those who fail to accept this "dogma" knowing full well this are guilty of heresy.
We need to be very, very precise when discussing these things. The bull condemns the proposition "That is against the Spirit that heretics be burned." It does not say that heretics need to be burned. It does not say that any particular act of burning heretics was in fact justified, or prudent.
Furthermore, it does not necessarily condemn this statement as being heretical. At the end of the list of 41 condemned propositions, Pope Leo states, that the statements are "EITHER heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears OR seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth." He does not specify which statements fall in which category. This particular statement need only be "scandalous," "false," "offensive to pious ears" or "seductive of simple minds." I have not read the Latin text, but from the appearance of the (EWTN) English translation, all of the propositions are condemned as "opposed to Catholic truth." So even if I hold that JPII directly contradicted this statement on purpose and persisted in it, this does not necessarily mean that he was saying something heretical (nor did I claim this). He need only have been saying something scandalous or offensive to pious ears. Popes are not protected from saying scandalous or offensive things (outside of ex cathedra pronouncements). Consider Pope St. Peter, who scandalously refused to eat with non-Gentile Christians at Antioch, thereby earning St. Paul's rebuke.
2) If Pope John Paul II publically denounced the "burning of heretics" (and all forms of oppression to root out errors) he is formally indicating he thinks it was wrong. Otherwise he would not ask for forgiveness.
I have already pointed out to you that Pope John Paul II may, MAY (I'd use italics, which are less brash, but I don't know how) have thought that all the actual uses of force were extrinsically wrong. He may have thought that burning heretics per se was okay, or morally permissible, but that all instances the Church used were in fact mistaken. In that case, his apology would not have been contradicting Exsurge Domine at all. I do not remember him ever addressing the bull, nor do I recall anyone bringing it up to him. Therefore I can only speculate as to what his approach to the bull was. Since the bull is official, and nothing he said necessarily, explicitly rejected it, I assume that he accepted it. If he was mistaken, that's the job of a future pope or ecumenical council (headed by a pope) to judge, not me.
In any case, I agree with Pseudo-Thomas -- it is not all that difficult to reconcile current teachings of the Vatican with Exsurge Domine, once you get past a knee-jerk aversion to what Leo X wrote (which it seems you have). Since that bull is authoritative, we should try to see the consistencies, not the inconsistencies between past and current actions (right?). If there are any inconsistencies (e.g. when modern prelates have acted in contravention to the bull's teaching, in a non-authoritative action or statement), we must follow the more authoritative.
Do I claim that the apologies were scandalous? Sure, but they were scandalous for a whole bunch of reasons other than this one issue. Asisi I and II, visiting the synagogue, and kissing the koran were also scandalous. However, no one ever said that Popes were immune from causing scandal. I assume that you think that past popes (like Leo X) have committed scandal. Now either Pope John Paul II was a super-pope, or else he was liable to all the weaknesses of any other successor to St. Peter.
We seem to follow two separate modes of operation. I read "Exsurge Domine," see it's ex cathedra, and interpret everything that doesn't rise to that level in light of that declaration. You seem to look at John Paul II's actions, judge them automatically to be right, and interpret the authority of all other past Church teachings in light of him. Perhaps this interpretation of your m.o. is unfair, and I hope it isn't true, but from "discussing" (i.e. arguing) with you, that seems to be a habit of yours.
Pope Pius IX was declared a Blessed by H.H. Pope John Paul II, I believe at about the samed time Pope John XXIII was declared Blessed. Here is what Blessed Pope Pius IX wrote in the Syllabus of Modern Errors (1864):
"24. The Church has not the power of USING FORCE [emphasis added], nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851."
Condemned as erroneous.
Whoops, I meant when St. Peter refused to eat with Gentile Christians.
Tobias,
I suggest here that the propositions contained in Exsurge Domine are errors in both doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline. Back in the 16th century the Church had certain temporal power and thus exercised it. Ecclesiastical discipline (in this case temporal power) is not infallible; nor is it "ex cathedra".
As far as I know, for a doctrine to become ex cathedra the Holy Father must:
1) Proclaim it as to be held definitively with a Divine and Catholic faith.
2) Proclaim it to be held by Catholics throughout the entire world (not certain sections or individuals).
3) Proclaim it with the authority given to him by God Almighty.
and
4) Proclaim matters of faith and/or morals...only!
The Church back then was acting out as the modern-day "state"; so they could inflict unjust and horrible punishments not by Divine approval per se (although, as noted by Psuedo-Thomas it is only the state that has the ability to use capital punishment; and I would continue to clarify that this actual practice is indeed not good for Christians unless to protect the society from previous and present harm by no other means).
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Additionally, I haven't gone into the "Syllabus of Modern Errors" but I suggest the quote you gave was rather not too clear. For instance...was the quote "USING FORCE" applied to Star Wars spirituality? Suppressing errors? Defending herself? Attacking other nations?
Tobias, I do really like the Exsurge Domine approach to the death penalty issue.
Johnboy, I have a suspicion that the phrase "horrible and unjust punishments" in the days of Leo X would have put you in just a little worse position than traditionalists today!
Also, in regards to:
I would continue to clarify that this actual practice is indeed not good for Christians unless to protect the society from previous and present harm by no other means
It seems to me the corruption of the true religion, and the death of souls wrought by an infamous heretic constitute far more serious dangers to society than any mere bodily harm.
Thanks for the comments. But after one considers Vatican II's decree on religious liberty (which is infallible) one would assume otherwise.
I would think those folks back in the day would also conclude the punishments of burning alive horrible (they did it because it gave the heretic a taste of hell and possibly one last chance to repent...as far as I know). As for the unjust part; indeed the Church was whacked up back then anyways with worldly evils. Hence the start of the Protestant Reformation. I would also say add in JPII to that list...
As for the second part; I think you are entitled to that opinion; although it flies in the face of JPII in some respects.
Now I'm not trying to be a jerk. There are schools of thought in our Church that definitely agree with your interpretation. Likewise, with mine. However, it appears the encyclical of JPII mentioned before is a further clarification that does not exactly follow your interpretation.
Thanks for the reply, John-Boy. I'll try to get back to the four-part section on "ex cathedra" declarations later, hopefully, if I get the chance and you're still interested.
The "Star Wars" bit was funny, which I appreciate in any discussion.
In any case, am I to understand that you no longer claim that my position necessarily entails that Pope John Paul II was a heretic (don't you just love subordinate clauses?)? Then good.
John boy, whence do you conclude that VII's decree on religious liberty is infallible? What does that even mean? "Infallible" means that something is not capable of erring. How could a decree be incapable of erring?
The important fact about the documents of VII is that they taught nothing new dogmatically. Therefore, when we are concerned to know the de fide teachings of the Church, we can completely ignore them.
Which is what I suggest you begin to do immediately, John boy. Then, I recommend that you purchase The Popes Against Modern Errors (TAN Books) and read every bit of it, cover to cover.
Tobias,
If I remember correctly; the whole issue over whether JPII was a heretic was initiated according to my understanding that your claim of "burning heretics" was ex cathedra. That is all.
The VII's decree on religious liberty is infallible? Who told you this? The Conciliar Popes never said this, the Vatican Comissions never said this. VII Second was a Pastoral Council. It was the intetion of the Conciliar Popes to define nothing, to teach nothing, to condemn nothing. There was nothing dogmatic about VII, nothing de fide.
If you think otherwise, the preceding Church teachings about religious liberty were all wrong. The Church erred for 1960 years. Can you believe? Piux IX, for example:
Syllabus of Errors
X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
To put in a simple way: the State is a "creature" of God, so it has the duty to profess the true religion. That is obvious. The error can't have the same rights that truth has. Religious liberty leads to indifferetism, and indifferetism leads to atheism.
You live in a pure contradiction John Boy. You accept VII as dogmatic and reject what was (really) defined as de fide before. You believe that the Catholic Faith is the True, but you defend religious liberty? Impossible.
Even Caesar has to give God what is God's. The State has to be Catholic.
Liberalism denies truth. Liberalism is a sin.
The Syllabus of Errors isn't clear? What is clear then? The Vatican II's decrees? These are confusing and ambiguous. They do not adopt the clear thomist philosophy, but rather some kind of modern philosophy.
That is why we live in a chaos today. After the Council the modernists took the conclusions they wanted from the ambiguous letter of the Council. Pius VI said in Auctorem Fidei (Encyclical against Jansenism) that nothing ambiguos could be de fide. The enemies of the Church always tried to make Conciliar texts ambiguous, so that they could continue inside the Church propagating lies, for if the viruses is inside the body it causes more damages, being almost inoffensive remaining outside. This since the Nicean Council or soething.
This time seems like they were able to do it. However, divine providence has established precisely what carries the infallible character or not (Vatican Council I).
Read Liberalism is a sin (TAN). Read Saint Thomas. Read good books about the French Revolution (not the origin, but the propagator and establisher of liberalism) and how in a "liberal spirit" it persecuted the Catholic Church and killed thousands of Catholics.
Liberalism is the opposite of Catholicism.
Iosephus,
The way that I used the term infallible (grammatically) is used correctly.
Iosephus & Daniel,
Yes, I went overboard and was wrong. The decree on religious liberty was indeed definitive doctrine but did not meet the solemn definition permitted for the term "infallibility" since it was not a "de fide" proclamation. However, the "Dogmatic Constitution on The Church" of the Second Vatican Council stated an assent to faith must be given towards the magisterium and Holy Father in both solemn infallible teachings as well as definitive teachings. The Decree on Religious Liberty is bound by all Catholics. To question its legitimacy is not exactly an assent of faith.
To act otherwise is what the liberals do...rejecting teachings of "Humanae Vitae", etc. just because it's definitive teaching but not a solemn "infallible" statement.
So in any case it's necessary to believe this; as well as the last 50 or so years of definitive teaching by the Church.
I'm with Iosephus, Johnboy - that grammatical usage is really, really silly. A document can be free of errors, or the Church can be infallible in certain proclamations, but you would never say that the documents themselves are infallible. We might as well go around saying that Holy Scripture is infallible - its just that odd.
To my ears, "infallible" might perhaps be used of Sacred Scripture, especially if one thinks that the meaning of Scripture is not always obvious, it must be brought out, explained over time, as it were. Then the idea is that no matter what propositions are brought forth from Scripture (by a legitimate authority), these propositions will be free from error.
But a document just says on the surface what it's trying to say; you shouldn't have to interpret, like a Scripture scholar, the nuances and intricacies of a conciliar declaration - another preposterous situation with the documents of VII: they need so much interpretative work.
A document is not capable of erring or not erring; it either contains error or it does not. "Infallible" means that something cannot err; so the adjective suggests something about possible cases. But the claims of a document are in actuality, they are what they are. To say that a document is infallible is to say that the document is not capable of erring. But what does that even mean? Some particular document either erred or it didn't - possible cases are irrelevant. "Infallible" applies to a type, like "infallible cures."
We say that some TYPE of cure is infallible, not that a particular, given instance of the cure is infallible.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
"If I remember correctly; the whole issue over whether JPII was a heretic was initiated according to my understanding that your claim of "burning heretics" was ex cathedra."
Since the subject of grammar has come up, I'd like to point out that "burning heretics" cannot be ex cathedra. "Burning heretics" is a gerund describing a policy. "Ex cathedra" is an adjective that applies to declarations concerning formulations of the Faith or of morality. What I hold to be ex cathedra is Pope Leo's solemn condemnation of the statement "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit." From this I infer that burning heretics is at least morally permissible since something that is intrinsically immoral is thereby opposed to the Spirit. I will return to argue for the ex cathedra nature of the condemnation when I get the chance. However, we should be wary of using such sloppy expressions as " 'burning heretics' is ex cathedra," since 1) that means nothing and 2) evidently it has led to some confusion as to what claims Leo X and I (we've become so close of late) are trying to make.
Actually "ex cathedra" is a prepositional phrase, but among armchair theologians it is used as though it were an adjective (so don't jump on my Latin, Iosephe!).
No jumping from me, Tobias!
Tobias & company,
Of course the whole issue here really has to do with the reality that the propositions are not definitive (eg, precisely defined or explicit) since they clearly allow for ambiguity. Hence, you nor I could decipher right now whether it's infallible; much less if there is a correct interpretation that is infallible. To even go further and elevate one of the propositions to an "ex cathedra" statement is certainly out of the ball park.
Furthermore, throw in the fact that it is uncertain the proposition is doctrinal or scandalous, etc.; it is evidence the whole issue you raise should not be given such weight.
I happened to come across an article on this very discussion; check it out:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp
Gentlemen:
Infallible = Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.
I was thinking, too, Iacobus, that the Bible is considered inerrant but not infallible (correct usage).
John-Boy, please. I will defend the ex cathedra nature of the bull when I get the chance -- maybe tomorrow. You who belittle "Exsurge Domine," beware -- it was followed by a major excommunication! Are people excommunicated for matters not deserving of "such weight"? Argue that the bull is not definitive -- I argue that you're wrong, but at least that's an argument. But don't pretend that it's deserving of less weight than we're giving it. The condemnation of this proposition was part of the official condemnation of the Lutheran heresy, so at least pay lip service to the idea that the bull is relevant to the discussion. St. Robert Bellarmine in "De Laicis" (the link from St. Benedict Center I better you didn't read) used it in his argumentation.
Also: Gentlemen:
Infallible = Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.
Right -- the definition of the word applies to a person or an office, not to a statement. A statement or exposition is true or false, as Iosephus stated. You are using a popular, and sometimes problematic, "transferred epithet." "Infallible statement" technically means a true statement made by a person exercising his personal infallibility. That is our point.
Ok, so I mean the article in question is proclaimed infallibly rather than taking on the infallible charism.
However, when one states an article of the faith is infallible, it not that they mean it has this charism; it refers to the fact that it is erroneous and certified that by the Holy Spirit.
Plus you all happened to get sidetracked on the meat of that response on 12/3/06 9:08 AM.
Of course if you demonstrate the Bull was ex cathedra, then rest assured the debate is over.
Check that last comment:
"that it is [not] erroneous"
Here is the base for the discussion about Exsurge Domine. One should note that it says that every proposition (stated before) is against the Catholic Truth. I believe there is no doubt that it infallibly condemns the propositions.
"Exsurge Domine"
With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication....
About religious liberty, Unam Sancta (Boniface VIII) should be read. For sure no one can be forced to believe. However, the state must be under the spiritual power of the Church. The Church always teached this way. If the VII's decree teached otherwise, it contains error, what is possible, since it *can* contain them. The doctrine of the Church doesn't change.
Post a Comment
<< Home