www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Primacy of St. Peter

I wonder if the death penalty would be a good example of liberalism. As previously noted, the push did not begin with Pope Francis. Pope John Paul II did come out in opposition, as did Pope Benedict, both of whom I would peg as more conservative than liberal. The death penalty is not something that fits neatly into a pro-life posture. As Pope John Paul noted, it is more applicable to societies that have no other methods of protecting their members. But we have other means of keeping dangerous people from running free. So, is the death penalty really necessary or is it simply a method of appeasing a blood-thirsty human urge?

There are other issues that I might go along with folks on being liberal theology. But I think one could make a good-faith conservative theological argument for being against the death penalty in the 21st Century. Conservatives have made this argument in the political realm as well. It is at least possible that Pope Francis is right on this one.

Christ is in our midst!!

Andy:

You miss the nuance here. Both Pope St John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict expressed their OPINION that the death penalty ought to be used sparingly and only when the community had no other option. But this expression is NOT opposition to it per se. This is NOT a change in official Church teaching--a teaching that spans the whole 2000 years of Church history and that has been taught in an unchanged fashion during the whole of that time.

Conversely, what Pope Francis did was instruct that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the compendium of official Catholic teaching, be changed to reflect a NEW take on this subject. It's akin to changing some portion of the New Testament to suit a current opinion.

The CCC was commissioned by Pope St John Paul II in the wake of the confusion after Vatican II as to what was officially Catholic teaching. There were those who, after Vatican II, taught that EVERYTHING was negotiable and up for grabs, while others maintained that official teaching could not change but that the Council had only asked for a fresh explanation of it and how it was to be put into practice. Big stuff here. The problem is that there are still certain elements in the Church who still think that the former position is still an option. Think about it. If everything is up for grabs, how does one know what is necessary for a right relationship with Christ? If that is the case, how does one know what the Truth is? If that is the case, what are we doing, what is necessary on our pilgrimage, and are we now back to being as lost as people were before Christ came?

Do you see the difference? Do you see the implications?

Bob

The Church Teaching Doctrine and Dogma can never change, theological opinions are just that opinions.

That being said, there is legitimate theological development of understanding of Articles of Faith but never to the point of changing formerly held theological thruths.

Since this one's being revisited, I guess I'll try to revisit it. While the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a handy theological compendium, reference point and reflection on the Creed, I never thought of it as being akin to the New Testament, or for the Creed itself. On another plain, dogmatic theology is quite different than moral theology; the latter being much more open to development and even change than the former. Think of Usury and Slavery, both of which have undergone some dramatic changes in the Church's understanding of these practices. Unfortunately, it took the Abolitionist movement in the nineteenth century and not the Church to CHANGE our (and the Church's) position on Involuntary Servitude. Good Pope Francis is just helping us hone our sensitivities in a world that has become increasingly more insensitive, IMHO; not to change the dogma of the Catholic Church.