Tom Faranda's Folly

Comprehensive explanation of change in the catechism on the death penalty – not a difficult read

—

by

Tom Faranda
in

The author is Ed Mechmann, the Director of Public Policy for the Archdiocese of NY. I know Ed – great guy. Family man and graduate of Harvard Law School.

Edward mechmann

It takes about ten minutes to read the whole article, which is a re-posting onto National Review Online. I urge anyone interested in this subject to hit the link and read carefully.

Pope Francis’s Challenging Lesson in Mercy

The Holy Father’s teaching on the death penalty is a development, not a contradiction, because it adapts the same principles of the faith to new situations.

Editor’s Note: A version of this essay was previously published by the Archdiocese of New York.

Last week, the Holy See announced that Pope Francis had approved a revision to the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the death penalty. This has provoked considerable controversy, and I believe that is because many people haven’t fully understood exactly what has happened. The controversy has been over whether this new language contradicts prior Church teaching and thus casts into doubt the teaching authority of the Church. I am certain that it does not, and I will explain why.

Comments

8 responses to “Comprehensive explanation of change in the catechism on the death penalty – not a difficult read”

  1. Sweat Avatar
    Sweat

    Mechmann is all wrong. He’s putting his own personal interpretation on it, which doesn’t reflect what Bergoglio’s new dubious teaching actually says. Bergoglio actually is calling the death penalty intrinsically evil. It’s quite clear from the text, no matter what spin anyone puts on it. Pope JP II’s opinion was that capital punishment should be ‘very rare’ in today’s world. But a most critical difference which cannot be overlooked is that he based his case for this position on ‘prudential’ grounds; as opposed to Bergoglio, who made the mistake of going much further than JP II, implying that capital punishment is intrinsically wrong in all cases, and basing this dubious opinion on ‘doctrinal’ grounds, thereby falling into formal heresy. The absolute furthest a Catholic can go on this subject is what JP II did, i.e. recommend against the death penalty in practice, while leaving the Catholic Church’s perennial teching on the death penalty in place. Bergoglio failed to do that.
    Therefore, Mechmann is all wet on this, in spite of the fact that he knows Faranda, is a great guy, a family man, and graduated from Harvard Law School. Sadly, none of these saved him from arriving at an unsound interpretation here. Don’t listen to him.

    Reply
  2. Sweat Avatar
    Sweat

    Can the pope change church doctrine on capital punishment? Short answer: NO! >>> https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2018/08/can-pope-change-church-doctrine-on.html#more

    Reply
  3. antigon Avatar
    antigon

    One of the better takes on our dear antipope’s latest expression of hostility to the Faith is Michael Brendan Dougherty’s: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/off-the-shelf-one-last-thing/

    Reply
  4. tom faranda Avatar
    tom faranda

    The responses in LesFemmes are just silly. Starting that the death penalty is perennial teaching. That is not correct. Or that you can’t have a development of Doctrine – which Mechmann pointed to regarding torture and he could have – but didn’t – point to slavery. And having a picture of Bishop Gracida in the article doesn’t change they’re being incorrect. As far as Dougherty, whose article was posted by NRO before Mechmann’s – Mechmann answered Dougherty’s objections quite satisfactorily. Calling the present Pope “dear antipope” doesn’t strengthen your position.

    Reply
  5. antigon Avatar
    antigon

    He only answered them successfully for those determined to pretend such.
    *
    Meantime didn’t intend to strengthen my ‘position’ that Dougherty’s analysis is astute by the passing reference to our imperfectly dear antipope – but didn’t call our present Pope that.
    *
    His alas inactive Holiness Pope Benedict of course I mean, whose invalid abdication was addressed, shall we say, quite satisfactorily on that excellent LesFemmes site, which article know you’ve read, even as I know you’ve fled from addressing its QRD evidence.
    *
    This one: https://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2017/05/guest-post-invalid-abdication.html#more

    Reply
  6. Sweat Avatar
    Sweat

    Dear Antigon,
    Michael Brendan Dougherty of National Review has done us a great service in the above mentioned article, clearly demonstrating why Bergoglio’s half-baked and arbitrary change to the church’s death penalty teaching is not an organic development of doctrine at all, but rather a formal heresy representing a hermeneutic of discontinuity. No Catholic is bound by such foolishness.

    Reply
  7. tom faranda Avatar
    tom faranda

    Antigon the argument that the Pope isn’t the Pope is old, tired and frankly stupid. As far as Dougherty, Mechmann addressed his position quite effectively, as have others.

    Reply
  8. antigon Avatar
    antigon

    Caro TF: Quite agree that arguing Pope Benedict isn’t the Pope is frankly stupid, as is pretending your second sentence above has merit.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Sweat Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *