Can the Church'a moral teaching ever change?

[Colorad007]

I know that the Church can clarify teachings, but can it straight up reverse them? I was reading an essay by Cardinal Pell in God and Caesar, a book by him, in which he discussed the commission convened by Pope Paul VI to ‘reconsider’ the teaching on contraception.

How or why did he do that if Church teaching is irreversible? How can the Church even consider contradicting itself? It is one thing to say that a certain sit can be mitigated by certain circumstances or that consider new technologies or something like that. But I don’t understand how a teaching can be wholly reconsidered, assuming that is what happened visa vis contraception.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Anything can happen behind the scenes among human beings. What the Holy Spirit ensures for us is the actual formal teaching of the Church. In the case of contraception, whatever travesties may have occurred at earlier stages of consideration what actually matters is the end result: Humanae Vitae. Indeed, it seems to me this is an excellent example of the Holy Spirit preserving the orthodoxy of the Church’s moral teaching in spite of everything seeming to be set up in favor of changing that teaching.

 

[McDale721]

Moral teaching can never change, however something new can arise which had not been previously addressed. My understanding in this case, it was the Pill. Since it wasn’t a mechanical barrier to procreation, the church needed to determine whether it was acceptable. And of course, in her great wisdom and with the Holy Spirits guidance, she got it right.

 

[cerad2]

Can church morals change? Sure. Happens all the time. Slavery, genocide, burning heretics, castrating choir boys, women’s rights, eating meat on Friday.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Can church morals change? Sure. Happens all the time. Slavery, genocide, burning heretics, castrating choir boys, women’s rights, eating meat on Friday.

Um. . .No. No. No. No. No. and No.

A. Church never was ‘for’ chattel slavery. The type of slavery that was known and accepted in the world at the time of Christ and many centuries thereafter resembled our ‘indentured servitude’. IOW, people ‘sold their services’ for a set period of time, sometimes even ‘for life’, but the Jewish law made provision that every 50 years, all slaves were ‘freed’ by law.
B. Church never was ‘for’ genocide. Various secular governments might have considered themselves Catholic/Christian and had those holding office sanction ‘genocide’, but the Church never taught this.
C. Church never was ‘for’ burning heretics. Again, you’ll find more non-Catholic yet ‘religious’ governments, especially ‘Calvinist’ or even early Anglican and/or Lutheran, who ‘burned heretics’. . .again, according to the GOVERNMENT.
D. Castrating choir boys? Again, not a Church law.
E. Women’s rights? The Church was more ‘for’ the legal rights of women than most secular groups. Even now, the Church is fighting for the rights of unborn women to be allowed to live.
F. Friday abstinence through the year is still the UNIVERSAL NORM of the Church. The U.S. Church has had a permission since 1965 for its bishops to PERMIT U.S. Catholics to substitute a DIFFERENT penance, but in other countries year round abstinence remains. In fact, in Britain and Wales, just recently the indult that they had held they asked to be repealed. . so guess what? Catholics in Britain and Wales abstain year round once more. . .this DISCIPLINE, being a discipline, can be dispensed with BY PERMISSION of the bishops, but here’s the thing. Since you have to have permission to dispense with the action, it means the action STILL LEGALLY EXISTS. You can’t have permission to stop doing something that already isn’t done, right? Think about it. . .

No, the moral teachings have not changed such that something once taught as dogma or doctrine as truth is now taught as ‘wrong’.

 

[edwest2]

I know that the Church can clarify teachings, but can it straight up reverse them? I was reading an essay by Cardinal Pell in God and Caesar, a book by him, in which he discussed the commission convened by Pope Paul VI to ‘reconsider’ the teaching on contraception.

How or why did he do that if Church teaching is irreversible? How can the Church even consider contradicting itself? It is one thing to say that a certain sit can be mitigated by certain circumstances or that consider new technologies or something like that. But I don’t understand how a teaching can be wholly reconsidered, assuming that is what happened visa vis contraception.

The issue with such commissions is to fully examine the changes taking place in society so that the Church can speak with full knowledge about them. It’s not about contradicting but being educated so that Pope Paul VI could understand and address any change the people were facing.

The birth control pill was approved by the FDA in 1960. It was available only by prescription and since most people lived on farms and rural areas, it was not widely used. That and the fact that people like my mother thought it was a silly idea. Then the marketing push began in 1967. Pope Paul VI reaffirmed constant Church teaching against artificial birth control and told all of us what the consequences would be if his words were not heeded. That was in 1968.

If you had not heard of the birth control pill before and did not fully understand its purpose or how it worked, that would be good information to have. It is Biblical that one should not speak in haste.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Abu]

Colorad007
I was reading an essay by Cardinal Pell in God and Caesar, a book by him, in which he discussed the commission convened by Pope Paul VI to ‘reconsider’ the teaching on contraception.
How or why did he do that if Church teaching is irreversible?
I don’t understand how a teaching can be wholly reconsidered, assuming that is what happened visa vis contraception.

The reason for the Commission was only to examine the effects of the “Pill”.

“It is often said that Paul VI was himself in doubt about the doctrinal point at issue for some time and took a long while to make up his mind. However, Fr. Lio told the present writer that the Pope assured him personally, at around the time Humanae Vitae was issued, that he had never at any stage been in doubt about the intrinsic evil of contraception. The long time lapse was due only to the need to ponder carefully the precise manner in which this truth - which had already been authoritatively settled by Pius XI in *Casti Connubii *(1930) - could best be reaffirmed.

“In support of this private information given by Paul VI to Fr. Lio is the documented fact of his personal intervention at the conclusion of Vatican II, when Gaudium et Spes was in the process of being finalized. There was division and uncertainty amongst the Council Fathers, with the result that the drafting Commission wanted to leave the question open in this new magisterial statement. However, as Fr. Lio’s book documents, Paul VI responded to a request from Cardinal Ottaviani and Fr. Lio himself by intervening personally, against the previous wish of the majority of those drafting the document, to insist on the inclusion of a reference to the crucial passage of Casti Connubii in footnote 14 to Gaudium et Spes: 51. This is highly significant, because it shows that the Pope was insisting (and made the Council insist) that whatever future statements he might make about contraception, everyone could know in advance that there would be no going back on Pius XI’s firm decision against unnatural methods of birth control as intrinsically evil. So much for Paul VI’s ‘indecision.’ ”
Fr Brian Harrison, O.S., *Humanae Vitae And Infallibity *at:
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html

The Church does not, and cannot, reverse Her dogma or doctrine, which however may develop in depth of understanding.

 

[manualman]

American catholics are largely still deceived about the nature of the commission gathered by Paul VI due to an elaborate and organized deception plan.

Most Americans suppose that the pope didn’t know what to do about the pill, so he gathered together a group of experts to advise him on what to do and say. This is ever so slightly wrong (but deliberately so). The truth of the matter is that complex doctrinal pronouncements ALWAYS get down into the weeds of examining an issue from every angle so as to address all the known arguments from all sides. The commission was asked to do precisely that: gather and clearly articulate all the arguments. It’s a mark of the church’s intellectual honesty that the majority of the commission members advocated the pill. The church wanted the very best arguments in favor to be considered.

Unfortunately, Paul VI was perhaps a bit naïve about how he handled the commission. Instead of doing their job quietly and doing the homework he needed, they took it on themselves to proclaim themselves an advisory board, including making recommendations and voting on them (never asked for). Then the majority (in favor of the pill) went on to leak a copy of their arguments (and theirs only) to the press for use in the grand deception.

Thus, instead of the truth (the pope had the honestly to gather and consider the best arguments from pill advocates), the pope instead was painted as a crusty old curmudgeon who ignored the best advice of his learned advisors and imposed his own will. He expected honest discourse and instead got outmaneuvered by slick PR operators. Don’t fall for it.

zenit.org/en/articles/father-ford-paul-vi-and-birth-control

 

[thistle]

Can church morals change? Sure. Happens all the time. Slavery, genocide, burning heretics, castrating choir boys, women’s rights, eating meat on Friday.

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about!

 

[Alizarin]

…Church never was ‘for’ chattel slavery. The type of slavery that was known and accepted in the world at the time of Christ and many centuries thereafter resembled our ‘indentured servitude’…

So it was against certain types of slavery, but not categorically against all slavery? I don’t think that helps the situation…

Besides, even if you throw out slavery and stick with indentured servitude, you still have the problem of the Church condoning something back then that would be condemned by it in this day and age.

Here’s an interesting review of a book that tackles this very issue LINK

 

[Abu]

Alizarin #10
even if you throw out slavery and stick with indentured servitude, you still have the problem of the Church condoning something back then that would be condemned by it in this day and age.

Christ had not condemned slavery and St Paul told slaves to obey their masters (Col 3:22, et al), but with St Paul, the Church revolutionised the status of the slave from the first: (re Onesimus) “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” (Philemon 1:16).

“Under Roman Law the slave was a chattel with no more rights than an animal. His master might seduce, mutilate, torture or kill him without any interference by the law.” [Sir Arnold Lunn, *Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social?, Burns & Oates 1946, p 186, 188].

The Church revolutionised the status of the slave long before there could be any thought of abolishing slavery. The inalienable rights of the slave to marriage and then family were safeguarded from the first by the precepts of the Church, and were later secured by legal enactment in the Theodosian code, which was later revised and classified by Justinian (A.D. 527-565). The law followed where the Church had led. The granting of religious equality to slaves was a silent but tremendous revolution – emancipated slaves were often raised to the priesthood and even to the very Chair of St Peter, Pius I and Callistus I in the second and third centuries. (Ibid. p 187).
[See *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 30].

‘ “Slavery” is the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person.

‘Under this definition, slavery is intrinsically evil, since no person may legitimately be reduced to the status of a mere thing or object and thus become capable of being the property of another person. This form of slavery can be called “chattel slavery”…

‘…However, there are circumstances in which a person can justly be compelled to servitude against his will. Prisoners of war or criminals, for example, can justly lose their circumstantial freedom and be forced into servitude, within certain limits. Moreover, people can also “sell” their labor for a period of time (indentured servitude)…’
catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html

‘The Magisterium condemned unjust enslavement early on, but it also recognized what is known as “just title slavery.” That included forced servitude of prisoners of war and criminals, and voluntary servitude of indentured servants.

‘These forms of servitude or slavery differ in kind from what we are calling chattel slavery. While prisoners of war and criminals can lose their freedom against their will, they do not become mere property of their captors, even when such imprisonment is just. They still possess basic, inalienable human rights and may not justly be subjected to certain forms of punishment – torture, for example.
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Christ had not condemned slavery and St Paul told slaves to obey their masters (Col 3:22, et al), but with St Paul, the Church revolutionised the status of the slave from the first: (re Onesimus) “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” (Philemon 1:16).

“Under Roman Law the slave was a chattel with no more rights than an animal. His master might seduce, mutilate, torture or kill him without any interference by the law.” [Sir Arnold Lunn, *Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social?,

Burns & Oates 1946, p 186, 188].

The Church revolutionised the status of the slave long before there could be any thought of abolishing slavery. The inalienable rights of the slave to marriage and then family were safeguarded from the first by the precepts of the Church, and were later secured by legal enactment in the Theodosian code, which was later revised and classified by Justinian (A.D. 527-565). The law followed where the Church had led. The granting of religious equality to slaves was a silent but tremendous revolution – emancipated slaves were often raised to the priesthood and even to the very Chair of St Peter, Pius I and Callistus I in the second and third centuries. (Ibid. p 187).
[See *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 30].

‘ “Slavery” is the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person.

‘Under this definition, slavery is intrinsically evil, since no person may legitimately be reduced to the status of a mere thing or object and thus become capable of being the property of another person. This form of slavery can be called “chattel slavery”…

‘…However, there are circumstances in which a person can justly be compelled to servitude against his will. Prisoners of war or criminals, for example, can justly lose their circumstantial freedom and be forced into servitude, within certain limits. Moreover, people can also “sell” their labor for a period of time (indentured servitude)…’
catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html

‘The Magisterium condemned unjust enslavement early on, but it also recognized what is known as “just title slavery.” That included forced servitude of prisoners of war and criminals, and voluntary servitude of indentured servants.

‘These forms of servitude or slavery differ in kind from what we are calling chattel slavery. While prisoners of war and criminals can lose their freedom against their will, they do not become mere property of their captors, even when such imprisonment is just. They still possess basic, inalienable human rights and may not justly be subjected to certain forms of punishment – torture, for example.
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

Also, wasn’t St. Patrick the world’s first abolitionist? Or is that a myth?

 

[Alizarin]

‘…However, there are circumstances in which a person can justly be compelled to servitude against his will.

I wonder how that quote would be received by victims of sex-trafficking…

 

[SighGuy]

Yeah, it’s really interesting to see how people would interpret a lot of things we take completely out of context and use in an inappropriate way. However, it’s not valuable. So…

 

[Alizarin]

Yeah, it’s really interesting to see how people would interpret a lot of things we take completely out of context and use in an inappropriate way. However, it’s not valuable. So…

Hard to think of anything in this world more inappopriate than treating someone as a slave, regardless of how it’s officially termed. What’s even more offensive is the idea that slavery didn’t need official condemnation, because it had been “enobled” by the NT.

 

[Abu]

What is so foolish is imagining that the Popes and the Church don’t know what or how to teach, that doctrine is contradicted, and to continue in that error even after being shown the truth.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

But it is amazing how many trained theologians have called for revolutions in the teaching of morality. You have Jesuits, who ought to know better, advocating punishment for Christians who oppose same sex sodomy.

lifesitenews.com/news/marquette-university-punishes-campus-group-for-dismissing-homosexual-office/

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hard to think of anything in this world more inappopriate than treating someone as a slave, regardless of how it’s officially termed. What’s even more offensive is the idea that slavery didn’t need official condemnation, because it had been “enobled” by the NT.

Again, you seem not to understand what is actually said and taught. Your use of ‘enobled’ (with quotes) seems to imply that the Church had ‘enobled’ slavery by accepting it as ‘ok’ in the NT. This is not the case at all. You’re arguing a strawman.