Talk:Evangelium Vitae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

[edit] Are dissenters from Evangelium Vitae true Catholics?

I changed the text of one paragraph from this:

On the other hand, radical theologians who disbelieve in the whole concept of infallibility (such as Hans Küng) do not accept that this teaching -- or any other -- is infallible. But those cannot properly be termed Catholics, since they deny the dogma of Papal Infallibility, solemly proclaimed and ordered to be upheld under pain of excommunication by the extraordinary Magisterium of the First Vatican Council, in the fourth Chapter of its Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, promulgated by Pope Pius IX .

to this:

On the other hand, radical theologians who disbelieve in the whole concept of infallibility (such as Hans Küng) do not accept that this teaching -- or any other -- is infallible. Yet this cannot be properly termed a "Catholic" viewpoint, because it requires rejecting not only papal infallibility but also the infallibility of church councils, since papal infallibility was solemnly proclaimed by the First Vatican Council. Indeed, Hans Küng has explicitly rejected all four channels of the infallibility of the Church that are held by Catholic theologians.

In other words, I am removing the claim that Küng (and similar thinkers) cannot be termed "Catholics". This is equivalent to saying that Küng has been excommunicated, and this is a complicated issue.

I do agree with you that Küng, in his book Infallible: An Inquiry, clearly rejects the doctrine of papal infallibility. Indeed, he rejects conciliar infallibility and the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium as well. And I agree that any common-sense interpretation of this means he is under the anathema of Vatican I's declaration, which makes him materially a heretic. If he is also a formal heretic -- in other words, if he is rejecting this Catholic truth in full knowledge of what it says and its dogmatic status -- then he is subject to automatic excommunication (Heresy is on the list of things that result in automatic excommunication -- see Excommunication#Automatic excommunication.

But under canon law, we cannot assume that he is formally a heretic just because he is materially a heretic. He has to be convicted in a heresy trial in a court of canon law for this to be taken as an established fact. I think it would be easy to convict him, because his book makes clear that he does understand the doctrine that he disagrees with. But without a trial, canon law stipulates that he must get the benefit of the doubt, so we can't assume he has been self-excommunicated. (Of course, he could be excommunicated by the Pope or his own bishop without a trial, but that hasn't happened either.)

So it is best to state in this article that Hans Küng's viewpoint is heresy, rather than to state that the man himself has been excommunicated latae sententiae. Note that the Vatican has not ever treated him as an exommunicate: in fact, Küng still has his priestly faculties, even though he lost his license to teach as a Catholic theologian.

-- Lawrence King 08:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote from the article: These are not examples of papal infallibility, but rather are examples of the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium -- in other words, the infallibility of the bishops teaching in unison, dispersed throughout the world.

The ordinary and universal Magisterium has taught all three of these teachings infallibly. So has Tradition and Scripture (at least implicitly). However, the encyclical takes three teachings already taught infallibly by the universal Magisterium and then teaches them in a particular written defintion, which itself cannot fall under the universal Magisterium. Truths taught under the ordinary and universal Magisterium have no particular definition of doctrine in any one particular act or document. When an infallible teaching is taught by the Bishops and the Pope in a particular definitive act (usually a written statement in a document) it falls under the same type of infallibility as an Ecumenical Council (even if it is not called a Council).

Anyone who says that a particular definitive definition of doctrine in one particular document itself falls under the ordinary and universal Magisterium does not understand what the ordinary and universal Magisterium is. The Pope's statement in the document that it falls under the ordinary Magisterium is citing the basis for the definitive teaching. He also cites Tradition and Scripture. But these definitions themselves fall under the same type of infallibility as an Ecumenical Council.

The claim that these three infallible teachings fall under the universal Magisterium and the subsequent citations supporting the idea consititute a particular theological argument of the author of those sections of the article. In other words, it is original research, which would be best published in an article by the author, not an encyclopedia article. You are using this article to argue a particular point of view, which is not an explanation of Catholic teaching, but a theological dispute among theologians. You interpret certain theologians as supporting your point of view, but that is arguable. This article should not state which type of infallibility these teaching fall under, because that is a matter of dispute. You do not even present it as a matter of dispute. --Ronconte 13:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evangelium Vitae on the death penalty

I added a sentence on the death penalty. JP2's stance opposing the death penalty is widely known, and one of his most frequently cited texts on the subject is this encyclical (§ 56). -- IdahoUD 12:46, 12 May 2006