Of course he can’t. This is his own contrived hermeneutic that he applies extraneously to Catholic doctrine to suit his personal taste. Armed with this sort of thinking, he makes himself the adjudicator of which teachings are authoritative for him and which are “up for discussion.” Hence, he casts doubt on Vatican II and the subsequent pope’s teaching on faith and morals (he even minimizes the force of Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae by claiming erroneously that the Bible is the real authority on this matter, perhaps in its account of Onan, and that the Bible condemns all forms of contraception).

Really? Are you f###ing kidding me?

Can you provide the ex cathedra statements that bind us to the Golden Rule, The Great Commandment, The Beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, Matthew Chapter 25, The Sermon on the Mount, Paul’s Hymn to Love in 1 Corinthians, the Mandatum of the Last Supper, or basically all of scripture and tradition?

I am aghast. According to what you say, all of scripture and tradition is up for grabs unless some part of it has been juridically encoded by the Bishop of Rome. That is a total caricature of the Catholic Faith.

If this is what we have become, God help us all.

My mother also insisted it was against the Catholic religion to get a tattoo when any of her children suggested the idea. Once in the supermarket when I asked if we could get some cookies, which were shaped in zodiac signs, she said no because astrology was against the Catholic religion and told me to put a box of the cheaper brand in the shopping cart.

In my adulthood, I sometimes wonder if she had other agendas. :)

I know there’s discussion of whether Paul VI used ex cathedra formulation in _Humanae Vitae_, but the main reason he did not is that it was already a defined doctrine of the Church before him.

Again, most of these are questions I’m asking intellectually, because, as you say, a new definition must have grounds in existing teaching, something that ways already there.

But, like with teh Immaculate Conception, and the two great Doctors who opposed it (while the guy who supported it–Bl. Duns Scotus–has never been canonized, and his name has come to be associated with an idiot: the “dunce”), the question is whether certain subjects have been defined to a degree that all discussion is out of the question.

I know this issue has hit me out of left field. It’s not that I don’t think it’s wrong. It’s just that I never gave it any thought before. I took it for granted.

I think a lot of people are understandably still grappling with all this, at several levels.

All this said, I’ve been pondering CCC 2297 since this thread started, and, speaking as a writing instructor, it’s vaguely worded. It has the flaw of all Vatican II-era literature: instead of just saying “mortal sin,” it says, “gravely wrong.”

I mean, I think that what Steven Colbert does is “gravely wrong” and “contrary to human dignity.” Those terms can mean a wide range of things, and the wording opens the paragraph up to misinterpretation.

It’s listing, in summary form, three crimes–kidnapping, torture, and mutilation–but without a topic sentence, so it could be read as “kidnapping” is the topic sentence, as it might be by a busy person shooting off a quick message to an internet question on a subject she’s never really considered.

Oh, BTW, 2297 is a canon I’ve cited quite a lot myself, as I’m one of those who believe that it prohibits body piercings and tattoos.

The prohibition of torture, taken in complete isolation and considered as formula, is novel. But within the context of the Church’s consistent official teaching on human dignity and life it is a clear implication, which means it really is not novel at all. As for timing, the prohibition was issued at the same time as the development of “intelligence agencies” in the West and in Russia. The “enhanced interrogation” techniques became more prominent in the quest for intelligence after WWII, so I see the prohibition as a necessary crystallization of a principle that has always been part of the Church’s tradition (typically, clearly defined doctrines, be they of faith or morals, are issued when most relevant).

Immaculate Conception does not count: it is an ex cathedra declaration. For a doctrine to be binding on all Catholics, it must be declared by a dogmatic Council or by an ex cathedra statement from the Holy Father. Otherwise, there is room for discussion.

I am not sure this is right. For instance, where has the Church ever said that something that is not declared infallibly by Council or Pope is open for discussion? Infallible teaching is not equivalent to binding or authoritative teaching, but is instead a subset of the latter. For instance, the Church’s teaching on contraception was not pronounced ex cathedra or by an Ecumenical Council, and yet it is binding on all Catholics. How about masturbation or pornography? These were never dogmatically prohibited, but the Church’s teachings on them are most certainty binding.

My point, however, with the Immaculate Conception was simply to illustrate that official declarations (whatever sort they may be) of the Church on faith and morals do not invent truth but confirm what has always been true no matter when they are issued.

David Nickol, not exactly. But we do to Vatican II: John XXIII said Vatican II was not supposed to be a “dogmatic Counsel,” but a pastoral Council, and Paul VI emphasized the same thing. The Council documents themselves emphasize that only what has been previously defined by a Council or papal declaration could be considered “infallible” in their teachings, and that anything other than that was merely prudential judgement/pastoral advice.

Policraticus,
Yes, it does. My question, to which you have provided the most direct answer, is whether the current teaching of the Church on this subject contradicts the previous teaching of the Church. To most people who emphasize being “Vatican II Catholics”, there’s no problem with that.

I am a traditionalist in the sense that I believe in the hermeneutic of continuity (liturgy-wise, I prefer the Novus Ordo in Latin to the TLM–in short, the liturgy as it is handed down to us by Rome and not the local innovations). So, my problem with the anti-torture argument is *not* its content but its apparent novelty and apparent criticism–even in the Catechism itself–of previous Church practice.

Immaculate Conception does not count: it is an ex cathedra declaration. For a doctrine to be binding on all Catholics, it must be declared by a dogmatic Council or by an ex cathedra statement from the Holy Father. Otherwise, there is room for discussion.

While I don’t *agree* with Fr. Sirico or Raymond Arroyo (and, again, I don’t think Judie Brown counts, as she’s shooting from the hip), and I’ve always thought Raymond Arroyo is a jerk, I don’t see how what they’re saying is necessarily heretical. Just stupid and compromising.

But you have mostly answered my basic questions on this issue. That was what I was hoping for. In fact, the very argument about “how we train our soldiers” is a good example to my question concerning corporal punishment in the spiritual life, as it is a voluntary thing.

I don’t agree with the Inquisition’s use of torture–which is itself vastly over-exaggerated in the popular mind (the reality was that torture, while used, was far rarer in the Inquisition than in any other ecclesiastical or secular court of the day)–I just agree with the Inquisition itself.

M.Z.(again), I don’t know whose names you were going to name, but I fall somewhere between categories 2 and 3–Aquinas’s _Treatise on Kingship_ is my political manifesto. :) (As for the basic problems of traditionalists with Vatican II, don’t forget the “responsible parenting” innovatino of _Gaudium et Spes_, which introduced Malthusianism into the Church).

This seems like a side discussion, but I thought I would put in a few thoughts. You seem to assume that “traditionalists” are somehow opposed to Vatican II. There certainly are some who reject it outright. However, others contend that many traditions and traditional ideas that went out of fashion after the Council were not opposed to it. Unless of course you actually think Vatican II caused a rupture with the past.

There are many other examples I could provide but I think you get the picture.

When you write about torturing someone guilty of murdering innocent soldiers, civilians and the like and you compare that with what is being done to preborn babies under cover of law, I have to say … no contest.

As for the Catechism, this might interest those of you with a logical thought process:

2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

Judie Brown