There are two things I am getting at, the first of which needs elaborating on.
What exactly is "Faith" and what exactly is "Morality" is in of itself broad due to the fact that these fields intersect with each other and others.
...
I believe that morality must be objective and consistent in terms of baseline principles...
The same principle must necessarily apply for the Death Penalty. If the intrinsic morality (not just the discipline) is changeable, than morality isn't actually objective, and God is a cruel tyrant who condemns people willy nilly.
If I you understand you correctly, what you are saying is:
1) Since we are the final epistemological authority on whether something really is a matter of faith or morals, it is meaningless to say the Pope is final epistemological authority on matters of faith or morals,
and
2) The intrinsic morality of the death penalty is changeable and has changed, according to Papal teaching. Thus, either morality isn't actually objective or the Pope is not in fact the final epistemological authority.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
The answer to 1) is that I deny the antecedent. The Pope, and not we, is in fact the final epistemological authority on whether something actually is a matter of faith or morals. In every case, however, he must show that he is exercising such authority (e.g. acting in such capacity) and not merely speaking as a private person giving his private opinions.
The answer to 2) is that I deny both the antecedent and the conclusion. The baseline principles of morality don't logically entail such a thing as "intrinsic morality of the death penalty" (despite many thinking they do) - and, as such, the baseline principles of morality (which are, do good and avoid evil) can dictate different conclusions of the morality of the death penalty dependent on societal circumstances, without themselves changing. Obviously it necessitates a different way of categorizing morality instead of simply "intrinsically good" or "intrinsically evil" - but maybe it's past time for this to happen, given the torturous justifications of moralists for some actions (such as killing in self-defense when attacked or removing a cancerous womb) under the "principle of double effect" while condemning other actions which seem similar (e.g. killing to prevent an imminent attack but not while it's actually occurring, abortion to save the mother's life) as "doing evil so that good may result".
I appreciate your effort in responding, which others haven't.
But yeah, that's what I'm saying.
As a response to each one,
1. Catholics - neither Liberal nor Traditionalist - actually follow this principle as you lay down. Many Liberals will argue that Pope John Paul II's decision to forbid female ordination wasn't Ex Cathedra, and many Traditionalists will argue that canonizations aren't infallible.
You also run into problems with Popes later annulling what was seemingly considered a matter of Faith and Morals by declarations of Popes who already declared something as such - Pope Saint Pius V wrote "Quo Primum", where he said this about the Tridentine Reforms put in place.
You can read the encyclical here:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us.
This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.
This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.
All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas,
by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure....
Furthermore, by these presents [this law],
in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed
absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. [Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that n
o one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and
that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing....
Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there.
Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
It's clear that Pope Pius V wanted the Tridentine alteration to be permanent, as he makes use of "Apostolic Authority" and forbids any changes to the missal whatsoever, saying nobody whomsoever is able to use a different missal unless the missal is older than 200 years, and whomsoever does so will incur the wrath of Almighty God and the Apostles Peter and Paul.
Yet, in Vatican II, Pope Paul VI completely ignored this decree, arguing that the Mass is something of mere discipline which the Pope can alter.
And then, Pope Francis claims that the liturgical reforms of Vatican II are magisterially irreformable -
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/08/24/pope-invokes-magisterial-authority-declare-liturgy-changes-irreversible/so we have three Popes saying three different things about what rightly belongs to the authority of the Magisterium - that is, teaching authority on Faith and Morality. So who is right?
Finally, if the Pope is the ultimate authority which makes something a matter of Faith and Morality, then the Pope has no authority in virtue of the Pope arguing for Geocentrism as a matter of Faith and Morality at the time - something clearly wrong.
2. This is assuming that the death penalty change to the catechism was merely just disciplinary, which I could accept, but the Catechism says that the death penalty "was thought to be a legitimate means of authority", and that "in light of the Gospel, the death penalty is inadmissible because it violates the dignity of the human person, and therefore, the Church works for it's abolition worldwide.
If the Catechism outright just said "although in the past the death penalty was morally admissible, in current social circumstances given our developments in technology and imprisonment standards, the death penalty is no longer morally admissible, and the Church must advocate for it's abolition worldwide as such," I would have no problem with that. As I've said, I believe that the way baseline morality is interpreted can change - but here, Francis is implicitly and thus logically stating, as an act of magisterial authority, that the death penalty was never really moral to begin with despite people thinking so in the past, and that it's immoral because it violates the dignity of the human person -
and this is a very clear and logical contradiction that violates the baseline of morality, that states have authority from above to execute people (which, as I've pointed out, is what Christ Himself said).
The argument that it's just discipline that we must submit to seems to be an argument that - as far as I've seen (as nobody has really expounded upon how the literal words can refer to just discipline in that convincing of a manner) - tries to strawman, by not engaging with the material itself but coming to a necessary deduction to maintain an anticipated conclusion.
