7 thoughts on "The death penalty and the new “dogmas”Church: why not trust Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot to direct social services by the priest Antonio Mazzi?”
Caro Father, I share all his analysis. Subject to due submission to the Pope, However, some doubts arise:
1) legal: many noted that the CCC is not the Denzinger. It was not until more clarification?
2) We are talking about a subject to which the criterion of the third degree of authority applies, for which it requested the submission of will?
2) It is too much to say that therefore the death penalty is a malum intrinsece? If ever you encounter any similar occasions to those you mentioned (a dictator whose symbol-not killing involves not stop the trail of death that accompanies it), you should do a Catholic (maybe judge)? It is likely to fall into a sin of omission?
Thanks
The philosopher totally secular Guido Calogero, in defense of the sanctity of the death penalty, He asked that was not performed by the despicable Executioner, But the head of state, One Pontiff between the majesty of the state-redemption and atonement of the offender. That would be in perfect harmony with the sacramental nature of the Church, if only still existed, at any level of society is secular or religious, a minimum sense of seriousness, not to be confused with the seriousness to which Father Ariel store for an unenviable treatment. Thus a papal decision can be legitimate in law to, But here and now it is very doubtful that it is serious, it is wise, and that it is relevant.
Gent.mo father, be understood as to understand the new wording of Article 2267 I propose an example of the CCC, perhaps surreal but can in certain social and political conditions.
Let us assume that the law of a State for the crime of murder admits only the death penalty and any form of detention, even life imprisonment. A Catholic judge of this State, He asked to judge one self-confessed mass murderer, filmed while performing the efferatezza and capable of understanding and will, He must acquit him not to sin mortally?
From what I understood the previous formulation, that tolerated as a last resort (but he not admitted at the death penalty as a routine measure) the death penalty would have said no: She could sentence him to death and not commit mortal sin, It is the acquittal of an accused and the possibility of recurrence of even the worst of his death. And with the current wording?
Thank you for your interesting articles and I hope will answer. It is not the first time that I seek some continuity with the past in magisterial acts of Pope Francis (I think the note 351 The joy of the gods) and I would succeed this time too. Greetings.
This question her, about the “Catholic judge”, It should be placed on all political Democrats called “baciapile”, sopraffini specialists in turning the tables and have signed at the time the law on abortion, then hiding behind the finger of … "It had been an institutional act".
In the same situation, the King of Belgium, Baldovino, with a constitutional ploy, I abdicated the throne for a few days so that the abortion law did not pass by his name.
But excuse me, but he did not answer me or perhaps I have not caught me. He's probably trying to figure out if they were local conditions “Catholic judge” I assumed he would resign before reaching judgment? So that the death penalty in this case would be immoral?
Note that some teachers monsignori Roman ecclesiastical history at the Gregorian – I think of one who knew her, incidentally – They have repeated that Zizola reported that Ottaviani slandered the then Monsignor Montini front of Pius XII insinuating that he had very particular sexual tastes. And mentioning journalist Zizola approvingly, ie taking him by reliable historical source, and to give him a Ottaviani.
Please also note – but here it is easier to disassemble, it is an inveterate haters – that the famous Giordano Bruno Guerri ruled that the letter Serenelli gliel'avrebbero written brothers.
Caro Father, I share all his analysis. Subject to due submission to the Pope, However, some doubts arise:
1) legal: many noted that the CCC is not the Denzinger. It was not until more clarification?
2) We are talking about a subject to which the criterion of the third degree of authority applies, for which it requested the submission of will?
2) It is too much to say that therefore the death penalty is a malum intrinsece? If ever you encounter any similar occasions to those you mentioned (a dictator whose symbol-not killing involves not stop the trail of death that accompanies it), you should do a Catholic (maybe judge)? It is likely to fall into a sin of omission?
Thanks
The philosopher totally secular Guido Calogero, in defense of the sanctity of the death penalty, He asked that was not performed by the despicable Executioner, But the head of state, One Pontiff between the majesty of the state-redemption and atonement of the offender. That would be in perfect harmony with the sacramental nature of the Church, if only still existed, at any level of society is secular or religious, a minimum sense of seriousness, not to be confused with the seriousness to which Father Ariel store for an unenviable treatment. Thus a papal decision can be legitimate in law to, But here and now it is very doubtful that it is serious, it is wise, and that it is relevant.
Gent.mo father, be understood as to understand the new wording of Article 2267 I propose an example of the CCC, perhaps surreal but can in certain social and political conditions.
Let us assume that the law of a State for the crime of murder admits only the death penalty and any form of detention, even life imprisonment. A Catholic judge of this State, He asked to judge one self-confessed mass murderer, filmed while performing the efferatezza and capable of understanding and will, He must acquit him not to sin mortally?
From what I understood the previous formulation, that tolerated as a last resort (but he not admitted at the death penalty as a routine measure) the death penalty would have said no: She could sentence him to death and not commit mortal sin, It is the acquittal of an accused and the possibility of recurrence of even the worst of his death. And with the current wording?
Thank you for your interesting articles and I hope will answer. It is not the first time that I seek some continuity with the past in magisterial acts of Pope Francis (I think the note 351 The joy of the gods) and I would succeed this time too. Greetings.
Dear Reader,
This question her, about the “Catholic judge”, It should be placed on all political Democrats called “baciapile”, sopraffini specialists in turning the tables and have signed at the time the law on abortion, then hiding behind the finger of … "It had been an institutional act".
In the same situation, the King of Belgium, Baldovino, with a constitutional ploy, I abdicated the throne for a few days so that the abortion law did not pass by his name.
I remember that event.
But excuse me, but he did not answer me or perhaps I have not caught me. He's probably trying to figure out if they were local conditions “Catholic judge” I assumed he would resign before reaching judgment? So that the death penalty in this case would be immoral?
Dear don Ariel,
Note that some teachers monsignori Roman ecclesiastical history at the Gregorian – I think of one who knew her, incidentally – They have repeated that Zizola reported that Ottaviani slandered the then Monsignor Montini front of Pius XII insinuating that he had very particular sexual tastes. And mentioning journalist Zizola approvingly, ie taking him by reliable historical source, and to give him a Ottaviani.
Please also note – but here it is easier to disassemble, it is an inveterate haters – that the famous Giordano Bruno Guerri ruled that the letter Serenelli gliel'avrebbero written brothers.