tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post4857266224391991267..comments2024-02-26T19:22:15.069-06:00Comments on Lex Christianorum: Evangelium vitae: Reconciling Tradition, Part 2Andrew M. Greenwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17242573723573203387noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-13292746811432870502022-04-01T06:58:20.074-05:002022-04-01T06:58:20.074-05:00SAP SRM Training Institute in Noida<a href="https://justpaste.it/5ig98" rel="nofollow">SAP SRM Training Institute in Noida</a>ERP Training Noidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16035514502876470407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-1968366860973472242012-03-29T07:29:04.397-05:002012-03-29T07:29:04.397-05:00I just hope this is your conscience rather than a ...I just hope this is your conscience rather than a planned book at work. Non infallible encyclical matter doesn't have to harmonize with past tradition; it can simply be erroneous...as was his disasterous foray into wifely non obedience and for the same reasons: he simply was repulsed by certain Biblical ideas from God.<br />Check ccc# 71. It says the Noachic covenant lasts til the end of history...it's gentile and Jew death penalty for murder is Genesis 9:6. Now check EV and John Paul repeatedly quotes it's ending in EV ( " man is made in the image of God") but each time he hides the death penalty part from the reader. Literally <br />unbelieveable. He quotes God's reason for the death penalty (for his own purposes) and hides the death penalty text and in a Church of over a billion people, virtually no one notices.bill bannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09737277581167437670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-18257968790294179412012-03-29T04:33:54.039-05:002012-03-29T04:33:54.039-05:00I appreciate your comments, and understand your fr...I appreciate your comments, and understand your frustrations in this area.<br /><br />In handling this issue, I focused on the official statements of the Church on the death penalty, so I did not include statements he may have made in statements of lesser doctrinal dignity such as homilies. JP II's statement that the death penalty is "cruel and unnecessary" in his St. Louis homily can still be understood within the order of mercy, i.e., it is "cruel and unnecessary" in the order of mercy.<br /><br />Is there any statement you know of by JP II that the death penalty is "intrinsically unjust" or "offends against justice" or something similar? <br /><br />I agree that JP II's handling of the OT's pretty aggressive view of the death penalty was a little bit like ignoring the elephant in the room. It seemed a little result-driven. But that particular teaching seems obiter dicta to me.<br /><br />Maybe you're right that I'm "making a purse out of a sow's ear," but at least I'm not making a "silk purse" out of a "sow's ear." In trying to distinguish between the orders of mercy and the orders of justice, I'm trying to separate pig flesh from silk cloth. I'm trying to preserve the traditional Church teaching with the Church's current teaching on the death penalty.Andrew M. Greenwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17242573723573203387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-51125753876425803722012-03-27T14:07:51.571-05:002012-03-27T14:07:51.571-05:00You're incorrect. John Paul hated the death p...You're incorrect. John Paul hated the death penalty and called it "cruel and unnecessary" in St. Louis in 1999. He did not say it is cruel when unnecessary. He said the typical idiom..." cruel and unnecessary" and the US Bishops put his phrasing in writing in their document. God mandated the death penalty numerous times in Scripture without the caveat "unless life sentence is available" but John Paul really didn't believe the Bible when it put such mandates in God's mouth. Here is "Evangelium Vitae", section 40:<br /> " Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, does not yet reach the refinement found in the Sermon on the Mount. This is apparent in some aspects of the current penal legislation, which provided for severe forms of corporal punishment and even the death penalty."<br /><br /> Ergo...John Paul saw the OT death penalties as an outgrowth of non evolution in old testament man. Scripture says that God gave them in the first Person imperative. John Paul has new content alright. He had the catechism revised to make the death penalty impossible. He did the same "new content" thing on wifely obedience in TOB #89 and in Mulieris Dignitatem VI/24 where he used Ephesians' mutual submission to overcome 5 other passages that required at times wifely submission simply.<br /> You are making a purse out of a sow's ear. John Paul like Fr. Raymond Brown who was on the PBC under John Paul...neither liked every scripture they read and both found subtle ways around those scriptures. Benedict is from the same school...read section 42 of Verbum Domini where it seems the massacres if the Old Testament were nit really from God either...even though scripture says they were (read the entire Wisdom 12).bill bannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09737277581167437670noreply@blogger.com