A
AlNg
Guest
There has been a change in the teaching.
A wholly reasonable approach to birth control
- Thread starter JohnStrachan
- Start date
- Status
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
As I stated before, the teaching stands. It’s prudential application in this day and age is what changed.
A
AlNg
Guest
Many who contribute to this thread do not seem to agree that there have been changes in some of the moral teachings of the Church. But:
Charging interest on loans was wrong at one time, but now it is OK provided the interest is not excessive.
Slavery was not forbidden at one time.
I don’t believe that today burning a person alive at the stake is considered to be a morally justifiable punishment for heresy or anything else.
So the precedent for change in teaching has been set and in fact there were clergy in the 1960’s who were urging a change in the teaching on artificial birth control.
I know that many here say that the teaching cannot be changed, but if there are more problems with overpopulation, climate change, environmental concerns, fresh water supplies , etc., i am not sure that you can rule out the possibility of a change seeing that many clergy had been advocating a change in the 1960’s? As we see from this thread, there are other churches who have changed their teaching on ABC, and with the Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church has been looking into the possibility of some sort of intercommunion or union with the Orthodox Churches. And this union of the two churches has become more urgent with the rise of secularism and added to that we see huge increases in the number of Muslims across the world. Under certain restricted conditions, an E. Orthodox priest may allow a married couple, who already have several children and are facing financial difficulties, to use ABC.
E
Elizabeth3
Guest
Your arguments have already been refuted and they are common arguments for those who think or would like to see the Church’s position on ABC changed.
Last edited:
M
Mrchatsworth
Guest
I think where you and I differ is not in the idea that the Church changes teachings but rather which teachings it can change and if that change makes it holy or is good. I don’t think that ABC can ever change becuase it is evil. And if it were to change then it would be a teaching that the Church would error in. As for the Death penalty as an example it is very much like the corona virus phenominon of a siezure of power. The Church and the government siezed power and everyone said they couldn’t. But they did. You can say all you want that the State does not have the power to shut down religious sorship, or relegate how communion will or will not be distributed. Or who can gather for a protest but not for prayer, or the Bishpps can say you cannot recieve on the tounge or you can or can’t do this. And people will answer with, well the government or a bishop does not have that power. Well they may not, but they have any pwoer that the people allow them to have. So, Did the Pope change teaching on the death penalty, birth control for the zika virus, or the reception of communion by people commitying adultery? Who knows? History will tell. Are these de fide Truths? perhaps not. Pernaps they are the opinion of the current pope and nothing more. Perhaps they will be enshrined in doctrine in the future. Perhaps trhey will be dealt with as 10 years in the lengthy history of the Church where there was confusion and vagueness. One thing I know is that we are to constantly be Holy. And artificial Birth Control and disordering sex to escape it’s dessign can NEVER be holy, no matter the teaching, no matter the population, no matter the time.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
As explained earlier, that intention doesn’t not make for an immoral act. And is it your corollary that’s we should check we only have sex when conception seems likely? Or must we act in ignorance of fertility? Acting with the intention of avoiding children for the whole of marriage (without justification) is contrary to the nature of marriage, but abstaining for a time Is not.
ABC is no immoral on account of its intent/purpose.
I agree.
R
Rau
Guest
There is similarity in principle. But methods of assessing fertile times in NFP are more detailed than merely consulting the calendar and counting days.Tommy999:
It is. But the most widely used is the Billings Ovulation Method.
R
Rau
Guest
Capital punishment has never been intrinsically evil and it is not now. Whether it is acceptable in a time and place is a separate question.
Would you say that every time a new generation catechism is written, the church changes “teachings”? Of course not. The church has always held and still does that capital punishment can be a just and moral act. It is not intrinsically evil. In recent times, it has “amped up” a position that, these days, it is entirely unwarranted. This is something that it could choose to say or not to say at any point in history, as appropriate. Every act, which is not intrinsically evil, is open to such prudentially based assessment.
Last edited:
Not only.
They also affect the uterine environment and so the capacity of implantation in the uterus (not always for ectopic pregnancy)
Last edited:
M
Mrchatsworth
Guest
Of course I wouldn’t say that but here is the new text.
“The death penalty is inadmissable because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” That is the reason and the meat of the teaching. That is what the CCC says.
Nowhere does it say that the death penalty can be a just moral act. In fact even though it points out the reasoning you use, it’s main argument goes to the dignity of the human person which is a change in teaching. I don’t know what version of history people have where the only way to protect every single society prior to this one was the death penalty and now somehow with the advent of cell phones or whatever it somehow isnt. It is a marked change. But we are so far off in the weeds for this thread. There are plenty of threads dealing with this. And there are plenty of other examples of the Church changing a teaching. I agree that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. I agree that ABC is indeed intrinsically evil. The only point I am making is how absurd it is to suggest that the Church does not change it’s teachings. Ab… surd.
“The death penalty is inadmissable because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” That is the reason and the meat of the teaching. That is what the CCC says.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I didn’t see the refutation on burning someone alive at the stake. Is that considered to be morally acceptable today? Thank you kindly.
Would that apply to burning someone alive at the stake with maggots at her feet but climbing up her body while the burning is taking place? Is burning a person at the stake now considered to be immoral because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person? But it was allowed in the past in the papal states, No?
thank you kindly.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Catechisms do not invalidate earlier catechisms. Something does not cease to be true because it is not stated in the document at hand. That human beings have dignity is not a change in teaching.
The point you make here is precisely the issue. Just punishment is formulated in light of circumstances which can only be judged by man. You can certainly debate those judgements, but if the judgement is that death is truly necessary, then if such is ordered for the right reason, the act is not in itself immoral. And please note there is no claim by the Church that all prior acts of CP were good acts. Their goodness is conditional. Nor is the church claiming that every every past act of CP was evil.
The present catechism factors in the circumstances of the modern world. You would understand that an act, which is not intrinsically evil (such as Capital Punishment) has its evil judged based on the two other fonts of morality - Intention, and Circumstances. That is what you read in the present edition of the catechism. The argument is made that the gravity of taking a life is simply not justified given other less grave alternatives.
For more context, read the Letter to Bishops from the CDF (para 7 and 8 particularly).
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
I’m afraid I’ve no historical knowledge about “burning at the stake”. I’ve no idea why that as opposed to, say, beheading was employed by the authorities.
M
Mrchatsworth
Guest
It probably is exhausting having to try to explain and spin an exact nuance that means the Church didn’t change teaching. It did. You can say “what it means is it what it should say is this”. It doesn’t. It’s clear.
R
Rau
Guest
Much of theology is nuanced. But that is quite distinct from requiring ‘spin’ to make a point. What has always been true is that CP is not “intrinsically evil” - a term with specific meaning and used commonly in church teaching. [You will not find any church teaching declaring CP intrinsically evil. I’m assuming you know the meaning?]
Acts of CP in the past have sometimes been good and sometimes been evil. Today, the CCC makes the point that CP is essentially always evil and thus in-admissable. Now, if you cannot understand how that position is compatible with CP not being “intrinsically evil” - that is a limitation in your ability to understand.
Acts of CP in the past have sometimes been good and sometimes been evil. Today, the CCC makes the point that CP is essentially always evil and thus in-admissable. Now, if you cannot understand how that position is compatible with CP not being “intrinsically evil” - that is a limitation in your ability to understand.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
I read that more than 15,000 people were executed in the USA since 1700, & about 3,000 of these between 1930 and 1950. Hanging accounts for the largest % (more than half!), followed by electrocution, lethal injection (the current method apparently), firing squad, “other” and then burning. I believe the last hanging was in the 1930s.
Last edited:
T
tuffsmurf
Guest
That is often claimed, but it doesn’t seem to be supported by the research done.
en.wikipedia.org
Copper IUD - Wikipedia
A
AlNg
Guest
The USA is not affiliated with any religious group, but the papal states were under the direct sovereign rule of the Catholic Pope.
i don’t see how CP can be essentially always evil because it was approved by the Church in the past. It is perhaps essentially evil today, but would that not mean that the morality of an action changes with the times and the circumstances. Which is the point about whether or not a moral teaching of the Catholic Church could change, depending on the circumstances even though it was thought to be essentially evil at one time. I don’t know of anyone who would say that burning a person alive at the stake is morally justified. Many will say it is wrong because burning a person alive is a form of horrible, excruciating torture and therefore an attack on the dignity of the person.
R
Rau
Guest
Huh? I thought we were just exchanging historical data?
I said “today” (meaning “nowadays”). The evil of a particular act depends on more than the act itself. The church has always maintained that “CP itself” is not intrinsically evil.
That is absolutely so, so long as the act itself is not “intrinsically evil”. CP is such an act. Particular state executions can be evil or not evil. For something which is “intrinsically evil”, then that act is never a moral choice. The morality of acts is determined by examining the 3 fonts of morality - which includes the circumstances. So a particular act of CP may be immoral due to circumstances, but the “act itself” or “in principle” of CP is not an inherently evil thing as is say adultery.
Prudential pronouncements will always change with the times. Eg. “There cannot possibly be a justification for the grave act of CP these days because…, therefore it is immoral to be executing prisoners…” That’s a statement that may well be justified now, but involves prudential judgements about penal systems and other issues (circumstances). [In theory, those judgements could be wrong.]
- Status