Catholic Church teaching on the purpose of sex changed in the 19th century

[wanner47]

Try this. Scholarly work by a respected Catholic:

ts.mu.edu/content/54/54.4/54.4.3.pdf

This talks about DEVELOPMENT of Moral Doctrine.

DEVELOPMENT does not equate to a 180-degree change.

The distinction has already been made my Tantum Ergo earlier in this thread. The underlying principle of the teachings HAS NOT CHANGED. Only our UNDERSTANDING has changed.

Going from no contraception to contraception is a change. Going from no contraception to no contraception but permission to morally space pregnancies using the natural cycles of one’s fertility as designed by God, is a *development * and not a change.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

This talks about DEVELOPMENT of Moral Doctrine.

DEVELOPMENT does not equate to a 180-degree change.

The distinction has already been made my Tantum Ergo earlier in this thread. The underlying principle of the teachings HAS NOT CHANGED. Only our UNDERSTANDING has changed.

Going from no contraception to contraception is a change. Going from no contraception to no contraception but permission to morally space pregnancies using the natural cycles of one’s fertility as designed by God, is a *development * and not a change.

The difference scarcely matter. It might matter to someone out there whether you call it development rather than change but the end results are the same:

Own slaves vs. not owning slaves

charging usury vs. not charging usery

religious freedom vs. no religious freedom

some form of birth control vs. no valid form of birth control

Even if none of this amounts to a change on a doctrinal issue, life for the peasantry like us is still drastically affected in practice. It is still very possible for the laity to take one statement at face value and then in 500 years or so have that exact same statement reinterpreted in such a way as to have a completely different meaning.

 

[wanner47]

Own slaves vs. not owning slaves

Not a change! The church has never condoned chattel slavery.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

charging usury vs. not charging usery

Did the Church Change Its Stance on Usury?

religious freedom vs. no religious freedom

No idea what you’re talking about here. When has the Catholic Church exercised Magesterial authority and taught, as binding on all Catholics, that religious freedom was sinful? Proof, please.

some form of birth control vs. no valid form of birth control

The Church has never condemned birth control (spacing pregnancy). Couples were always free to abstain if they wanted to space births. What has always been condemned is contraception.

Even if none of this amounts to a change on a doctrinal issue

The Church can and has changed disciplinary issues (for example, clerical celibacy), and it has never been a teaching that disciplines cannot change. Only doctrines.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Not a change! The church has never condoned chattel slavery.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

Did the Church Change Its Stance on Usury?

No idea what you’re talking about here. When has the Catholic Church exercised Magesterial authority and taught, as binding on all Catholics, that religious freedom was sinful? Proof, please.

The Church has never condemned birth control (spacing pregnancy). Couples were always free to abstain if they wanted to space births. What has always been condemned is contraception.

The Church can and has changed disciplinary issues (for example, clerical celibacy), and it has never been a teaching that disciplines cannot change. Only doctrines.

I don’t disagree with anything that you’ve stated.

I am saying that it is possible for a statement to be issued, and taken by the laity as a definitive teaching, have all of the apparent marks of a definitive teaching, and then with development (not change) be reinterpreted and take on a completely different meaning.

Take for example the council of florence and the fate of unbaptized infants

the souls of those dying in actual mortal sin or in original sin alone go down at once into Hell, to be punished, however, with widely different penalties.

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’

and now the catechism

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’

Now we’ve arrived to the present day understanding via some theological presto chango that makes this only an apparent contradiction and a development (never a change) of doctrine. But the end result is the same: the laity accepted, believed, professed, and proclaimed that the fate of the unbaptized was Hell proper and now the laity is instructed to accept, believe, profess, and proclaim that there is hope for the salvation of an unbaptized infant.

There is such a large degree of flexibility that I am not sure how to interpret any one statement and then understand how that limits future development.

 

[wanner47]

I don’t disagree with anything that you’ve stated.

I am saying that it is possible for a statement to be issued, and taken by the laity as a definitive teaching, have all of the apparent marks of a definitive teaching, and then with development (not change) be reinterpreted and take on a completely different meaning.

Take for example the council of florence and the fate of unbaptized infants

Limbo was only ever theological opinion, not doctrine. As per usual, the Church released a document dealing with the alleged discrepancy:

The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized

It discusses the quotes you cited.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Limbo was only ever theological opinion, not doctrine. As per usual, the Church released a document dealing with the alleged discrepancy:

The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized

It discusses the quotes you cited.

So then what is to stop 500 years from now? “Opposition to contraception was only ever theological opinion, not doctrine, the Church released a document dealing with this alleged discrepancy.”

I am trying to understand the degree of flexibility in any one statement given what has happened in the past.

 

[Chrono13]

It’s my understanding that sainthood does not confer infallibility nor does it accord with automatic confirmation of their theological conclusions. Being recognized for their theological contribution in no way warrants all of their inferences to be institutionalized Church doctrine. One must differentiate being an influence on doctrine and being actual doctrine.

Indeed so, but we should also approach the system from the point of view that, if theologian wrote “Sex is only for procreation” in third century, and pope repeated this statement 300 years later, without anything contrary in the middle…then this was practice of the Church.

I think what is meant by “constant teaching” is that the essence of the teaching has been maintained and not an absolute rigid preservation. A refinement or amplification of certain principles does not constitute substantive change and should not be construed as a teaching change. To simply impute that enhancing or illuminating teaching is a substantive teaching change is misrepresentative of the position.

Now, what would be the *essence *of the teaching? That contraception is sinful, or that it’s sinfulness comes from teaching that sex is only for procreation? What is doctrine, and what is it’s practice? And if we change the doctrine, how practice follows?

Here we see that Augustine is conferring marriage with the intrinsic capacity to pardon the conjugal love act. As he stated, marriage procures pardon for the act (provided it is not overdone). So, in essence we have marriage pardoning the “marital debt” obligation, thereby assenting that conjugal love without the intent to beget children is permissible.

One should stress now the crux of the matter. Marital sexuality has been seen as something evil, something that seekspardon, needs explanation, or excuse. No matter how and when this pardon is exercised.

The whole logic that “marital debt” finds it’s conjugal element in “suffering” and “bearing weakness” because other side wants sex is completely strange not just to modern ear, but to basic understanding of what sexuality is.

This is also why Church Father attacked NFP. For his logic, sex with exclusive procreative wish can be done on infertile day, yet sex on fertile day without procreative wish is sin, no matter if person is “open to life”.

 

[wanner47]

So then what is to stop 500 years from now? “Opposition to contraception was only ever theological opinion, not doctrine, the Church released a document dealing with this alleged discrepancy.”

I am trying to understand the degree of flexibility in any one statement given what has happened in the past.

Because opposition to contraception is NOT THEOLOGICAL OPINION. It is clear, stated, taught, established DOCTRINE. It’s been taught by the Magesterium as an infallible teaching binding on all Catholics; limbo has not and never was.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Because opposition to contraception is NOT THEOLOGICAL OPINION. It is clear, stated, taught, established DOCTRINE. It’s been taught by the Magesterium as an infallible teaching binding on all Catholics; limbo has not and never was.

And we see this now… at the time Limbo was seen as established doctrine.

Or to put it another way.

There were papal pronouncements every bit as strong as the condemnation of contraception that infants who die without the grace of baptism suffer in Hell. This would have been interpreted at the time as clear, stated, taught, established DOCTRINE, NOT THEOLOGICAL OPINION. Now we understand that it was only apparently doctrine and was in actuality only theological opinion, but we only understand this with the gift of hindsight. How can we say that someone 500 hundred years from now with the similar gift of hindsight can look back and better understand the teaching on contraception as merely theological opinion? It has happened in the past why can’t it happen again?. To simply say because the fate of unbaptized infants was never a doctrine and intrinsic evil of contraception is begs the question. How are we to know a complete shift in understanding can’t occur given that it has happened in the past? Why should we assume our understanding is complete and unchangeable when many Catholics in the past have made the same mistake?

 

[wanner47]

And we see this now… at the time Limbo was seen as established doctrine.

Regardless, it never was. People also thought the world was flat but it didn’t change the fact that it wasn’t. People, including Popes, thought that the sun revolved around the Earth, but that didn’t make it so either.

Or to put it another way.

There were papal pronouncements every bit as strong as the condemnation of contraception that infants who die without the grace of baptism suffer in Hell.

Proof of these papal pronouncements, please? Show me the Magisterial documents that said that belief in the existence of limbo was binding on all Catholics. If you are going to assert that Limbo was Church doctrine, you need to prove it.

Or just read the document I posted earlier, as it covers the history of limbo as theological speculation.

 

[benidict]

Regardless, it never was. People also thought the world was flat but it didn’t change the fact that it wasn’t. People, including Popes, thought that the sun revolved around the Earth, but that didn’t make it so either.

Proof of these papal pronouncements, please? Show me the Magisterial documents that said that belief in the existence of limbo was binding on all Catholics. If you are going to assert that Limbo was Church doctrine, you need to prove it.

Or just read the document I posted earlier, as it covers the history of limbo as theological speculation.

Even if shown the papal pronouncements and Magesterial documents you will find some way to deny the proof.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Regardless, it never was. People also thought the world was flat but it didn’t change the fact that it wasn’t. People, including Popes, thought that the sun revolved around the Earth, but that didn’t make it so either.

Proof of these papal pronouncements, please? Show me the Magisterial documents that said that belief in the existence of limbo was binding on all Catholics. If you are going to assert that Limbo was Church doctrine, you need to prove it.

Or just read the document I posted earlier, as it covers the history of limbo as theological speculation.

I thought that Pope Gregory the Great said that unbaptized babies go straight to Hell. Am I wrong?

 

[wanner47]

Even if shown the papal pronouncements and Magesterial documents you will find some way to deny the proof.

Even if they don’t exist you’ll find someway to justify that.

Can you provide proof?

 

[wanner47]

I thought that Pope Gregory the Great said that unbaptized babies go straight to Hell. Am I wrong?

Even if that was his private opinion, it doesn’t make it a Magesterial teaching binding on all the faithful. Not every word that comes from a Pope’s mouth is an infallible statement binding on all Catholics. Pope Benedict’s love of Orange Fanta doesn’t mean it’s a sin for Catholics to drink anything else.

Edit: the document I cited above addresses this as well; this opinion was stated by Gregory the Great but was NOT a Magesterial teaching held as binding on all Catholics. It was his opinion:

So great was Augustine’s authority in the West, however, that the Latin Fathers (e.g., Jerome, Fulgentius, Avitus of Vienne, and Gregory the Great) did adopt his opinion. Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. He cites Job 14:4-5 (LXX), John 3:5, and Ephesians 2:3 on our condition at birth as “children of wrath”.[42]

Please read the document; it gives an EXHAUSTIVE history on the teaching of Limbo, especially on what the early Greek and Latin Church fathers had to say about it.

 

[benidict]

Even if that was his private opinion, it doesn’t make it a Magesterial teaching binding on all the faithful. Not every word that comes from a Pope’s mouth is an infallible statement binding on all Catholics. Pope Benedict’s love of Orange Fanta doesn’t mean it’s a sin for Catholics to drink anything else.

Ok, so your admitting the Pope and Magesterium are failable?

 

[wanner47]

Ok, so your admitting the Pope and Magesterium are failable?

No, I’m saying that a Pope’s PRIVATE OPINIONS are fallible.

The Magesterium, in concert with the Pope on matters of faith and morals, is infallible. However, the Magesterium never taught that belief in the existence of Limbo was obligatory, only that it was a valid option in which to believe.

 

[benidict]

No, I’m saying that a Pope’s PRIVATE OPINIONS are fallible.

The Magesterium, in concert with the Pope on matters of faith and morals, is infallible. However, the Magesterium never taught that belief in the existence of Limbo was obligatory, only that it was a valid option in which to believe.

But Papal infailability only comes into play when He speaks from the Chair of St. Peter, correct? How many times in our Church history has this happened? A bare handful.

 

[Rock_Happy]

No, I’m saying that a Pope’s PRIVATE OPINIONS are fallible.

The Magesterium, in concert with the Pope on matters of faith and morals, is infallible. However, the Magesterium never taught that belief in the existence of Limbo was obligatory, only that it was a valid option in which to believe.

There is this disconnect between official doctrine and human behavior. Check out wikipedia for popes who were sexually active. One of them is supposed to have died of a heart attack while having sex with a male page. Can a pope be removed from his office for immoral behavior? What is the process? How could you trust such a pope to be infallible, if he can’t conduct himself more appropriately? I don’t understand how the moral values of the Pope have no bearing on his authority as a moral teacher. Can you explain that? And also, I thought that the appointment of the pope was guided by the Holy Spirit. There have been some great men who were popes, but what about the wop doozers who have had male lovers, who have raped women, who have had harems, who had multiple bastards… In one case, a cardinal was appointed in exchange for sexual favors. How is that problem explained? Is the pope pure of heart when he is appointed, and he somehow becomes corrupted in those cases? What is the role of the Holy Spirit in appointing the ones that I am referring to? Did something go wrong, or was this God’s vision for the papacy. I really don’t understand all of this.

 

[wanner47]

But Papal infailability only comes into play when He speaks from the Chair of St. Peter, correct? How many times in our Church history has this happened? A bare handful.

Not necessarily. Read this:catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

 

[wanner47]

There is this disconnect between official doctrine and human behavior. Check out wikipedia for popes who were sexually active. One of them is supposed to have died of a heart attack while having sex with a male page. Can a pope be removed from his office for immoral behavior? What is the process? How could you trust such a pope to be infallible, if he can’t conduct himself more appropriately? I don’t understand how the moral values of the Pope have no bearing on his authority as a moral teacher. Can you explain that? And also, I thought that the appointment of the pope was guided by the Holy Spirit. There have been some great men who were popes, but what about the wop doozers who had male lover, who raped women, who had multiple bastards… how is that problem explained?

With God, all things are possible. He has preserved all Popes, even bad Popes, from teaching error. Isn’t that wonderful?

from here: catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the “bad popes” stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.