My wife (who is Catholic…I’m not) got into a polite and interesting discussion about this at the bar we jsut came home from (note the time on this thread and please forgive slurred typing).
Just as a quick starter to this discussion this is soemthing like how our coversation started (not really but close enough)–
“Thou Shalt not Kill” seems to be a fundamental tenet of the bible.
Popes in the past managed to pull off the Crusades and the Inquisition.
How does a modern Pope (i.e. Pope John Paul II) manage to say “Thou Shalt not Kill” and yet let previous Popes get away with things like the Inquisition and still maintain Papal Infallibility? If that’s not good enough then how about the Catholic Church’s position on the Jews during WW-II (which it so happens the church just recently skirted this issue).
If the above example(s) makes no sense then forget it. A simple explanation of how Papal Infallibility works would be great.
The doctrine of papal infallibility is surprisingly recent, dating from the first Vatican Council in 1870. The pope is infallible only when speaking ex cathedra, which he does quite rarely.
The Vatican Council I of 1870 declared The Pope infallable in proclaiming doctrines of faith and morals. This doesn’t mean `infallable’ in any non-liturgical sense – it is a strictly theological concept. Furthermore, the principle post-dates the worst of the Popes, and nothing they might have declared that would be wrong will be counted as an infallable declaration. Even our modern Pope would be very shy to make a statement that we are meant to take as infallable, and when he does, he’ll make it very clear that he is declaring an infallable doctrine.
In other Papist trivia, the immaculate conception does not refer to the virgin birth. It refers to the fact that God made a special exception to seminaliter (i.e. everyone is born a sinner) in the case of Mary. Thus, the old joke:
Jesus is giving a speech to a thronging crowd trying to stone a sinner, and he says, “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.”
Suddenly, a stone flies out of the audience and smacks the sinner in the head, knocking him down.
Others in the past have posted references for this topic, but IIR the commandant isn’t “Thou shall not kill”, but is more correctly translated as “Thou shall not murder.” Of course, as it still is today, only illegal killing is defined as murder- i.e. wars, executions, etc. don’t count.
Right. Use of papal infallibility is actually quite rare. As I was taught it, only three things have ever been given the stamp of papal infallibility: 1) the Pope’s ability to make infallible statements 2) the Immaculate Conception of Mary 3) Mary’s Assumption into Heaven.
Some other statements of doctrine (like the Nicene Creed or the Apostles’ Creed) also carry the weight of infallibility, but haven’t been proclaimed in the exact same way as the three things above.
To put it simply, Papal infallibility does NOT mean “the Pope is always right about everything.” (Of course, a few Popes may have ACTED as if this were the case, but that’s a different story.)
So, if the Pope tells you that Johnny Unitas was the greatest quarterback of all time, and I say it was Joe Montana, you can agree with ME without be excommunicated or going to Hell.
However, the Pope does have the power to set Church doctrine on fundamental issues of faith. As has been mentioned before, Popes RARELY attempt to do this. But if a Pope DOES state categorically that this-or-that is an infallible doctrine of the Church, I have two choices: accept the doctrine or admit that I’m not a Catholic and don’t belong in the Church.
P.S. The idea that most great wars have been religious in nature is rubbish. What religion motivated Napoleon? What religion motivated Frederick the Great? What religion motivated Alexander, Caesar, Stalin, Mao, or Ho Chi Minh? What religion sparked the American Civil War, or WW1?
Ok, as long as we have these pope experts here, maybe one of you can clear something up for me.
An ameteur theologan once told me that the pope has the authority to order an execution. This idea has been touched on in several movies and novels.
So, can he be divinely enlightened to know that a person is a minion of the devil and ought to be killed? You know, by the renegade priest?
Peace,
mangeorge
I don’t know if a pope can order an execution. The current pope is strongly opposed to the death penalty anyway. You remind me of something my Latin teacher told us. He was also once a Catholic seminary student, and he said that in the old days (before his time), when a priest left the priesthood, he got a letter that consisted of one word. It was the Latin word for “you may die” or “let him die” or something like that. I don’t think it could be interpreted as a threat, but more of a wish.
Avalongod, No. In fact, it was his constant challenge of Papal Infallability that finally got the bishops to revoke Hans Küng’s right to teach theology in Catholic universities. He kept publishing against the idea, using his authority as a theologian, and they finally said, “OK, but you’re not one of our theologians.”
(Vatican I was 1869-1870, Vatican II was 1962-1965.)
mangeorge, the pope has no authority to order an execution outside his authority as head of the Vatican State (which would still require a trial). In fact, back in the days when the RCC was executing heretics, the rule was that they had to be handed over to the civil authorities, first, as the church did not have the authority to execute anyone. (Your story sounds vaguely like the rumors that have been told about Brigham Young ordering the execution of apostates. I wonder if that is a story that gets told about all powerful religious leaders?) bibliophage, this also sounds like an invention (or something that was twisted from something much less sinister).
When a priest is laicized, meaning he petitions the church to be relived of his priestly duties through their process, he is always held to at least one of his obligations: either the obligation to say the Divine Office, daily, or the obligation to remain celibate. (Guess which gets the most votes.) It’s hard to see why the church would hold him to a daily prayer, then tell him to drop dead. I’ll try to find out what was behind that story (no guarantees), but if it was not made up from whole cloth, I suspect that it has been corrupted or embellished.
Now, if a priest pulled a Martin Luther and thumbed his nose at the church, crying “I quit.” I suppose that they might have been a bit ruder, but the story still sounds as though there are key points missing.
I didn’t mean to make it sound sinister. My Latin teacher presented it as a humorous story about a very old practice, long since defunct. I’m sure he wouldn’t make it up. Although he left the seminary to marry, he remained a devout Catholic all his life. He did not recieve one of these letters himself, of course.
I don’t remember what the Latin word was. It may have been moriatur, let him die, moriatis / moriare you may die; or perhaps it was some form of obire. Morior or more especially obire could also be translated “go away” rather than “die”. I do not know if it was a double-entendre.
The more I think about it, the more that obeas and obeat ring a bell, but I’m still not sure at all. (They are the second and third person present subjunctive of obire.) I’m sure my Latin teacher didn’t point out the fact that “die” is not the primary meaning of whatever word was used. (“Die” is not the primary meaning of obire, even though we get the word obituary from it.)
I’m not 100% sure the word was even sujunctive. A form like obivisti could be translated “you have fallen”.
My Latin teacher never gave us any indication that the word could be translated any other way than “die”, so I suppose that was the accepted meaning of the word. He was far and away the smartest teacher I ever had at any level, in any subject, so I’m pretty sure he knew what he was talking about. I just wish I could remember exactly what the word was. I can’t ask him, because he died 12 years ago. I’ll try to track down his son (also a Latin scholar, IIRC) and see if he knows.
Going back to one of the points broached, how can one justify wars and death in the name of religion what with the “thou shalt not kill” commandment. St. Augustine, I believe, came up with the concept of “just war” in Christianity (borrowing heavily from past scholars). There are a number of conditions upon which a war can be just – the basic gist of it is if killing now can save more lives later, then it can be seen as just.
As I posted earlier, the correct translation (AFAIK) is not “thou shall not kill”, but “thou shall not murder”, an important difference, since murder is a matter of law.