Actually, my question was about the theological nitpicking. I really thought I’d heard that ‘the pope has never invoke papal infallibility on capital punishment, [?but has?] on abortion’.
So, I do want to know the exact difference between abortion and capital punishment.
But thank you for your input.
Sorry! And sorry, Captain Amazing.
That the pope has never made an ex cathedra declaration on either topic has been addressed.
As to the difference: abortion is regarded as the taking of an innocent life and can only be accepted with reservations if it is an unintended consequence of a measure to save the life of the mother. (Ectopic pregnancies, for example, as noted by Bricker, where the child is going to die, regardless, but the mother could be saved.)
Capital punishment is regarded as the taking of the life of a convicted criminal who is considered dangerous to society following a legitimate decision by a court of law. (Executions following a kangaroo court would be prohibited; executions for petty offenses would be prohibited; executions for major crimes where the felon was not likely to physically harm other people (e.g/, Enron management) would be prohibited.)
That sounds a bit too rational to mesh with my own memories of Catholicism. Does anyone have a cite that would back up that “record” from the Catholic Church?
I’m not challenging so much as looking for evidence to help me argue that view with my still-Catholic siblings…
If that were only true! But unfortunately, it’s not. The Church does not forbid capital punishment in any official teaching. And I tried very hard to find one. The closest I could find was summed up in this article: Church opposition to execution ‘practically’ absolute
Okay, here we go. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
The source for these statements (see link for citations) is primarily Dignitatis Humanae from the Vatican II council. I highly recommend reading the entire document for a full understanding of what the church understands religious freedom to entail and what its reasons for supporting it are.
Clearly the RCC currently believes that soul-saving depends upon religious freedom. Were they to come into conflict, I believe that the answer in Catholic moral teaching would rest on the concept of “the very dignity of the human person” alluded to in the quote above. Human dignity is an important concept in Catholic moral theology because to act morally in Catholic thinking is to act in accordance with the truth. It is an absolute duty. (1713 Man is obliged to follow the moral law, which urges him “to do what is good and avoid what is evil” (cf. GS 16). This law makes itself heard in his conscience.–Catechism) The duty to proselytize and to oppose heresy stems from the same commitment to human dignity and truth. The duty to the truth, in fact, stems directly from the dignity of the human as a creature endowed with reason. To deny religious freedom in order to oppose error is an offense against the very thing it seeks to uphold. Dignitatis Humanae spells it out as follows:
Again, this os not to imply that the RCC has always believed this, or that it has always acted in accordance with it. But when it does proclaim that religious freedom is a fundamental right, it isn’t being hypocritical.
And which of these documents show that Law was aware of Shanley’s history and lied about it?
I’d like to expand on the teaching about abortion a little, if I may. AIUI, it is not correct, as jsgoddess claims, that the RCC allows abortion even under the most extreme of circumstances. There is a subtle but significant difference between what is allowed - a procedure to save the life of the mother that incidentally will cause the death of the fetus - and what is not allowed - a procedure to save the life of the mother by causing the death of the fetus.
In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, it is not necessary that the fetus die in order to save the mother’s life. Ectopic pregnancies are resolved during the first trimester, when it is currently impossible to maintain viability of the fetus. The fetus is removed from the mother, and dies as a result, but it may be possible in the future to preserve a fetus that is removed at that stage and implant it into a (human or artificial) womb. The doctor does not deliberately kill the fetus as part of the procedure.
A case in which the mother was saved by intentionally killing the fetus as a deliberate act would not, in my understanding, be countenanced by the RCC. I can’t think of a medical analogy, but one I remember from a class on moral theology is that if a mother and a child were trapped in a burning car, it would be permissible to remove the mother if doing so meant trapping the child permanently. It would not be permissible to drill through the living child, killing him, in order to get to the mother, even if that were the only way to save either of them.
Dude, seriously, denial doesn’t fit you. The letter from Wilma Higgs about Shanley’s talk states that he said
I don’t know what kind of fantastical world you are living in, but if someone wrote me a letter accusing one of my employees of buggering kids, I would stand up and take notice and look at the dude’s history, which by at least 1967 had two allegations against him. If I let that slide, maybe the allegation of a sexually charged atmosphere where Shanley discussed sado masochism might raise a flag. Somehow Shanley’s involvement in NAMBLA fell from the archdiocese consciousness the moment Law walked through the door? I don’t know if you are a lawyer for the church or what, and you want me to produce a smoking gun letter where Law states that Shanley buggers kids, I don’t have it. But even the limited amount of documents I linked to show a history that a reasonable person would become concerned about. If Law was sequestered in a cone of silence and had no involvement with the people that he supervised, and never cracked open a file, and have proof that he never did such things, you might sell me on him not knowing. Otherwise, you are delusional if you think a guy with that kind of history would have escaped the attention of everyone in the office of the archdiocese.
Dammit dammit dammit! I had a long reply and now it’s gone. I don’t think that has ever happened to me on this board. Damn and blast.
I haven’t said the church is being hypocritical, only inconsistent (though I’m not sure I’ve even used those words, specifically).
I concede that the church supports freedom of religion, though the “acting in accordance with it” caveat is an important one, and the built in limitations on it are also important since, for example, they offer only religious reasons for opposing same-sex marriage (at least that I’ve ever encountered), yet want those laws passed. To me, freedom of religion should include freedom from laws that are solely based on religious underpinnings.
Crap. I can’t remember what else I wanted to say.
Your contributions to this thread have been a a series of brief claims, including links to long citations; you have consistently failed to quote the part of the cite that you are relying upon in offering your claim. It’s not “denial” so much as it’s requests for clarification and a reluctance to construct your argument for you.
Now, we’re trying to find support for the claim that Law knew of Shanley’s history and lied about it.
According to your link, Wilma Higgs wrote Law a letter which he received in May 1985, which said that Shanley gave a talk in Rochester saying, among other things, that it’s immoral to try to change homosexuals, and if adults have sex with children it’s because the children seduced them.
So where’s the lie Law told?
I’m in agreement that as of May 1987, Law knew or should have known that Shanley had a history of past accusations of molestation. Where was his lie?
post #188 dude.
1990 is later than May of 1987, according to my math.
Yes, it is. However, Law didn’t assure the California authorities of anything; Fr. Banks did, by writing “I can assure you that Fr. Shanley has no problem that would be a concern to your diocese.” Although Banks invoked Law’s name in the letter, Law specifcally said, under oath, that he did not know Banks had done this.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but so far as I know, Fr. Shanley did NOT have a problem of any kind while in California – did he?
Again, I’m not denying that there were massive, negligent fuck-ups here. I’m denying they were intentional. If you can open my eyes to evidence otherwise, I’ll gladly learn.
No you won’t.
Well, it’ll take me a while to dig through the massive evidence you’ve provided in your post, so I hope it’s OK if I don’t get back to you right away.
Aha! Now I see! You are inclined to believe pure bullshit when you see it, whereas I am not! I knew there was a simple explanation!
If you read this article about Law’s deposition in a Goughan case, you’ll see that he makes Alberto Gonzales look like an amateur when it comes to not remembering. The man is what a reasonable person would call full of shit. A prime example,
He made notes in the fucking margins! And he claims not to remember it! How the fuck can someone not remember that!? If you can give me a rational explanation for that, I’ll be impressed.
And the letter written by Fr. Banks in which he states “His Eminence, Cardinal Law, will appreciate whatever assistance can be given to Father Shanley” sure makes me think that Law knew his underling was writing the letter, or why include that? It was at a time that the church had just began to be rocked by lawsuits, do you think Law was aawre of the suits in Canada and England at that time? Don’t you think he would have been a little twitchy holding on to that hot potato? Or was he just blissfully ignorant of all that surrounded him? Like I said, there isn’t a smoking gun document where Law admits knowledge, but given even the limited paper trail that the church has released, a reasonable person can come to the conclusion that the sex abuse was common knowledge by Law’s staff and underlings.
Oh, and he’s accused of buggering in California:
Don’t bother. I’m not interested in debating someone who is trying to win an argument rather than find the truth. I know far too many Catholics like you. Your willingness to defer to the authority of the Church is the reason for all this shit, and they rely on people like you to maintain their status. Congratulations.
Sorry, the distinction I was trying to make was
Allow abortion: I know it goes on and while not supporting it, I don’t intervene either. An abortionist lives across the river from me and I don’t restrain him from going to work each day. I regret that it goes on but don’t believe the Church considers my non-intervention sinful.
Actively supporting it: driving someone to the clinic, advocating for abortion rights.
Well, the letter was sent in 1984. The question about the letter was asked almost twenty YEARS later.
What letters did you receive at your job in 1990? Who were they from, what were they about, and what actions did you take with respect to them?
It’s not crazy, in my view, to not remember details of a letter you got twenty years ago.
The “Turbulent Priest” method.
Kinda funny that its application here actually involves a priest. But I find it very plausible that Law said to Banks, “Just handle it – OK?”
Yes, I agree it was. The question is: did Law lie? If we want to expand this to, “Did Law’s staff and underlings lie?” then yes, it’s clear they did.
Lovely. OK, ignorance fought on that score.
Oh, I don’t know, if I got a letter that said that one of my employees was FUCKING SEVEN LITTLE BOYS it would make a lasting impression. We’re not talking about a fucking Visa bill here.
Wow Rick. Just…wow. Are you really grasping at straws this thin?
So you concede that a Bishop’s staff said to themselves, “I know this priest is gonna keep abusing kids, but frankly I couldn’t care less.”?
Great. Nice bunch you are defending.
It’s not like this went by with little turbulence. Law resigned, and McCormack, who worked with Law until 1998, was forced to acknowledge publicly that the church had “contributed to the endangerment of children.” Lawyers for the diocese in suits against Law have chosen to settle for millions rather fight it out in court. It seems to me that Reasonable people are realizing that Law was full of shit. I’m just amazed that you can’t see it.