_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
Pope Francis showing his example of the "inviolability and the dignity of the person" of Italy's foremost abortionist, Emma Bonino.
Posted on 08/02/2018 8:18:12 PM PDT by ebb tide
Someone can easily make a claim in regard to the Death Penalty that there has been a development of doctrine.
It’s not a “development”; it’s a total change, i.e reversal, of doctrine.
What was once admissible is now inadmissible.
How is that any different from: 2+2=5
God invented the death penalty, knowing the wickedness of the fallen human race.
From the Catechism
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Is that JPII’s catechism or later?
If so, I don’t pay attention to them nor will I to Bergoglio’s.
“What was once admissible is now inadmissible. How is that any different from: 2+2=5”
Inadmissible does not mean intrinsically evil.
Pope John Paul II’s second edition of the CCC made it obvious where the trend in the development of doctrine was going.
“God invented the death penalty, knowing the wickedness of the fallen human race.”
Yet that same God did not execute Cain when He killed Abel. God even protected Cain so that no one would kill him. Genesis 4:15
As a Catholic, I’ll worry about the death of the innocent well before I worry about the death of the guilty.
Yes, I knew that passage decades before you did.
400 years ago.
Plenty of development of doctrine can take place in 400 years.
Remember, it says, “For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life.” The ‘97 CCC says that is best done without the death penalty.
I have no personal problem with the death penalty. But I know there’s been a development of doctrine on this issue. It’s in the 1997 CCC.
Never said “intrinisically evil”.
Sexual intercourse of a heterosexual couple, in the Sacrament of Matrimony, is not “intrinsically evil”; it is good.
However rape, heterosexual or homosexual, is “intrinsically evil”.
Abortion is intrinsically evil; a just death penalty is not.
By the way, I should point out that a Latin Mass priest I know already sent out an email to his parishioners telling them they can ignore the pope’s statement. He says the death penalty is part of the natural law. He believes this was done in error.
There’s going to be more problems over this.
Not development but reversal and it all started with VC II.
“Abortion is intrinsically evil; a just death penalty is not.”
But is now to be viewed as “inadmissible”. That was my point. Pope Francis IS NOT saying it is intrinsically evil. He’s saying it is INADMISSIBLE. This is in line with the development of doctrine already in the ‘97 CCC.
I know. I have already posted that letter on this forum.
I ignore all post VCII catechisms, they change, not develop, with each subsequent pope.
It’s ironic...if she hadn’t murdered all those Italian babies, they wouldn’t need to import Asians to help their economy. I could cry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.