Catholic Church Teachings and Views are Wrong?

[chazcheh]

I am curious to know if the Catholic Church has changed its teachings or views about certain issues throughout its history. I ask this as I wonder if their stance on ‘same sex’ marriage or abortion will change in the future, and will they say they were wrong?? Has this happened to the church in the past??

 

[ahs]

What do you mean by “views” and “teachings”? Can you give some examples of things that have changed?

To me, a “view” is an opinion about something held by a collection of people within the Church, even the Pope himself, but not necessarily Church doctrine. A view is subject to change.

However, the doctrine on chastity, of which SSM is a part, cannot change. It’s based on God’s Natural Moral Law and cannot change, because God cannot change. The Church has no power or authority to change God’s Law…the Church can only expound upon it and uphold it as God gave it. Likewise, the Church cannot change the fact that abortion kills an innocent human, and killing an innocent human is wrong…so the teachign on abortion cannot change.

 

[1ke]

I am curious to know if the Catholic Church has changed its teachings or views about certain issues throughout its history.

It has not.

I ask this as I wonder if their stance on ‘same sex’ marriage or abortion will change in the future

The church does not have a “stance”. The Church has a teaching. That teaching is truth that comes from God. The truth cannot change. Therefore, the Church’s teaching cannot change. These things are intrinsically evil and always will be.

and will they say they were wrong??

No, because what is true does not change. The Church is not wrong because the Church is infallible.

Has this happened to the church in the past??

No.

What can and does happen is that doctrine can more fully develop-- in other words, we can come up with better ways to explain it and a more full understanding of it. But, the revealed truth of God cannot change.

 

[mikekle]

I sometimes wonder what the catholic churches were teaching back in the days of slavery, where it was common for slave owners to be in the congregation? Plus in the bible it kind of condones slavery in a few verses, so I think the church does change over time, it seems to me the catholic church tries too hard to be a good member of society, even if it goes against Gods laws. It seems to me they are too concerned with obeying mans laws.

If you look back thru history, the church and Govts of the time were always at each others throats over issues, but in modern times, at least from what Ive seen, there seems to be a great relationship between local govts and the churches, makes you wonder if they are truly doing what they are supposed to be.

 

[robwar]

I am curious to know if the Catholic Church has changed its teachings or views about certain issues throughout its history. I ask this as I wonder if their stance on ‘same sex’ marriage or abortion will change in the future, and will they say they were wrong?? Has this happened to the church in the past??

Where did you get your idea from that the Church has changed “views” or teaching? The Catholic Church is a rock founded by Jesus Christ. If you are listening to the secular press, they of course want the Church to be like them and bend at the whims of popularity. Thankfully this isn’t true.

 

[Gorgias]

I sometimes wonder what the catholic churches were teaching back in the days of slavery, where it was common for slave owners to be in the congregation?

By that, I assume you mean the slavery of Africans and African-Americans in the United States?

Pope Urban VIII condemned the slave trade in 1639. Pope Gregory XVI likewise condemned it in 1839. Pope Leo XIII wrote In Plurimis and Catholicae Ecclesiae against slavery in Brazil and in the African missions, respectively.

Plus in the bible it kind of condones slavery in a few verses, so I think the church does change over time, it seems to me the catholic church tries too hard to be a good member of society, even if it goes against Gods laws. It seems to me they are too concerned with obeying mans laws.

I guess that I would ask that you be more precise in what you’re talking about: are you talking about slavery as it existed as an institution in the ancient world? Or are you talking about the kind of slavery that existed in the New World? Or are you talking about the institution of slavery – as institutionalized racism – that existed in the United States?

If you look back thru history, the church and Govts of the time were always at each others throats over issues, but in modern times, at least from what Ive seen, there seems to be a great relationship between local govts and the churches, makes you wonder if they are truly doing what they are supposed to be.

LOL…

Actually, if you look back through history – let’s say, the past 1700 years or so – the Church was generally much closer to secular political power. During the French Revolution, for example, the Church came under power for being regarded as on the king’s side. When the Popes started writing the so-called ‘Social Doctrine encyclicals’, in the 1800s, one of the criticisms was that they were too entrenched in the pockets of the upper classes to be properly concerned for the welfare of the common person.

As an historical analysis, I think you have it backward: the Church is less entrenched in secular politics today than at (generally) any time in the past 1700 years…

 

[po18guy]

Bottom line: Same sex anything and abortion violate God’s law, not man’s. Man desires both practices to be legal, but they are clearly violations of both the natural law as well as God’s law. God’s law does not and cannot change, and the Church merely reflect’s and reinforces God’s law.

 

[on_the_hill]

I would say that over the millennia the Church has clarified and refocused as it gained and continues to gain greater and more comprehensive understanding of God’s intent, but I doubt there have been many, if any substantive changes.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I am curious to know if the Catholic Church has changed its teachings

Nope.

or views about certain issues throughout its history.

Sort of. The teachings haven’t changed, but certain instances about how to apply such teachings have changed. For instance, while the teachings about liberty of conscience or relations of Church and state haven’t changed, the Church has changed her views on how to go about applying them. (E.g it has up to now been seen as more prudent to allow more freedom with regards to matters of religion for those in error, whereas in the past often it was seen as imprudent to allow dissidents to disturb the common good through erroneous teachings. In the long run though the latter idea often doesn’t end up serving the common good.)

I ask this as I wonder if their stance on ‘same sex’ marriage or abortion will change in the future, and will they say they were wrong?? Has this happened to the church in the past??

Can’t happened, won’t happen, definitely hasn’t happened.

 

[anruari]

Let me try to illucidate with some relevant examples.

On Abortion:

Before modern science the development of the unborn child in the womb was not well understood. It was not known when “Conception” occurred. Some suggested that the baby was not alive until it was felt to move - but that was derived from best availale evidence to the level of biological knowledge at the time and was assumed to be incomplete. On the topic of Contraception: It was not until the 1950’s that a private individual funded a lab to develop “The Pill”. (Big Pharm. companies and government grants wouldn’t touch it).

Around that time ope Paul VI wrote “Humanae Vitae” condemning the use of The Pill. It did not present new theology, but established as doctrine, what had been understood by the church since the earliest writings of the Early Church Fathers…

In the early church the concepts of Abortion and Contraception did exist. Then they were dangerous and unrelaible. Even then the Church roundly condemned them. All forms of abortion were considered murder.
Some early church fathers wrote that any person who attempted to use artificial contraception was guilty of murder for every act of sexual intercourse undertaken while using contraception… Modern biological knowledge can demonstrate that this is not true… and that was a proposed idea not formal official doctrine: but it is illustrative of how the church has never condoned contraception or abortion.

At the time the Pill became available every one of the protestant communities and other christian churches and communities condemned the use of the Pill.
To date almost all of them have capitulated to the modernist approach - yet I am not aware of any of them being able to defend this change on theological grounds… just as Moses permitted Divorce because of the hardness of hearts of the Jews and Israelites, so most pastors in the Protestant diaspora have permitted the use of The Pill, and many tolerate remarriage after Divorce and some even permit Abortion: not due to sound Theological reasons, but because “This teaching is too hard”… they cant face teaching the truth because of the hardness of heart of our western culture in which they live.

Jesus prophesied that “The gates of hell will not prevail against” [the True Church]. As such it is impossible for the official teaching of the Church to capitulate of issues like these. otherwise the Gates of Hell would have prevailed.

On the topic of Slavery:
The bible, in the Old testament, sets rules on how to deal with slavery. For Gods People: the Israelites and Jews, Slavery was a form of indentured servitude by which to pay off debts. The Slave was automatically freed after 7 years, when all debts were automatically cancelled unless they asked at that time to be made a permanent slave of their master. (presumably as the “owner” was a better master than any other employment prospects that person would have)

In the new testament we see instructions to both slaves and slave owners. It is clear that St. Paul is not willing to condemn slavery, or try to cause a revolution among the christian slaves by insisting that slave owners automatically free any slave… but it is implied that it is the right thing to do. Slaves are instructed to obey their masters… in the same way we should interpret it that employees should serve their employers today. but it is recommended that if a christian slave has the opportunity to become free he should take that opportunity so he can be free to serve God alone, and not be subject to 2 masters.

Throughout the Bible, we see a tacit acceptance of the fact that slavery existed in the world, but it’s condemnation as being inhumane to the slave, and the promise of God to free us from slavery. Our weakness to Sin is constantly described as being a slavery.

On the teachings on same sex “Marriage” and abortion: the moral teaching that Abortion is murder can never change. The teaching that Marriage is between a man and a woman, and christian marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman till death do them part can never change. Both these are subject to divine revelation, and are clearly understood from a proper understanding of Natural Moral Law. The church is subject to God’s Law, and not to the whim of the weather of popular opinion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I sometimes wonder what the catholic churches were teaching back in the days of slavery, where it was common for slave owners to be in the congregation? Plus in the bible it kind of condones slavery in a few verses, so I think the church does change over time, it seems to me the catholic church tries too hard to be a good member of society, even if it goes against Gods laws. It seems to me they are too concerned with obeying mans laws.

If you look back thru history, the church and Govts of the time were always at each others throats over issues, but in modern times, at least from what Ive seen, there seems to be a great relationship between local govts and the churches, makes you wonder if they are truly doing what they are supposed to be.

I suppose someone a few hundred years into the future could make similar observations about the “Church” of today where it is common to have pro abortionists, gay marriage supporters and where a large portion of the congregation supports contraception and, perhaps, even euthanasia, under some conditions, despite the fact that Church teaching on all of these opposes those positions. Has the Church changed is position on any of those issues? No. How do we explain the fact that those sitting in the pews oppose the Church’s position and yet claim they are “Catholic?” This even applies to some of the hierarchy that promote their heretical views as catholic.

The thing to do would be to engage in deeper inquiry into what the magisterium of the Church actually held, where and why dissenting views were voiced and how those views were tolerated or dealt with. Abortion supporting “Catholic” politicians, for example, are tolerated in Church congregations, ( a contentious issue among many Catholics,) yet these politicians are clearly in opposition to Church teaching. These Catholic politicians are in a similar boat to the slave owners of the past who may have been tolerated in the pews but were not representative of the Church on that issue. Their mere presence is not to be taken as indicative of what the Church teaches.

Hopefully, future historians will not have the same “impressions” concerning the position of the Church then as you do today about its position on slavery two hundred years ago.

I guess the answer to your question is that we need to look at how moral views can be very diverse and not rigidly policed as an aspect of personal responsibility. The Church’s authority and responsibility is more one of teaching and clarifying rather than policing.

 

[edwest2]

I am curious to know if the Catholic Church has changed its teachings or views about certain issues throughout its history. I ask this as I wonder if their stance on ‘same sex’ marriage or abortion will change in the future, and will they say they were wrong?? Has this happened to the church in the past??

The Church’s view on abortion will never change. The same with same-sex marriage. The first is clearly the intentional killing of a life. The second is a problem that is fully discussed here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Avila123]

Interesting question. I would recommend having a look at the Didache which is a brief early Christian treatise believed to have been written in the late 1st/early 2nd century (author/s unknown).

Chapter 2 lists some of the things people shouldn’t do “You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child whether by abortion nor kill that which has been born.” Looks like the sins and the teachings are the same, however, as I am not a scholar, I do not know how accurate my translation is, or who the translator was.

The rest of the book covers topics such as the Eucharist. It is a very short book but quite fascinating.

 

[edwest2]

I suppose someone a few hundred years into the future could make similar observations about the “Church” of today where it is common to have pro abortionists, gay marriage supporters and where a large portion of the congregation supports contraception and, perhaps, even euthanasia, under some conditions, despite the fact that Church teaching on all of these opposes those positions. Has the Church changed is position on any of those issues? No. How do we explain the fact that those sitting in the pews oppose the Church’s position and yet claim they are “Catholic?” This even applies to some of the hierarchy that promote their heretical views as catholic.

The thing to do would be to engage in deeper inquiry into what the magisterium of the Church actually held, where and why dissenting views were voiced and how those views were tolerated or dealt with. Abortion supporting “Catholic” politicians, for example, are tolerated in Church congregations, ( a contentious issue among many Catholics,) yet these politicians are clearly in opposition to Church teaching. These Catholic politicians are in a similar boat to the slave owners of the past who may have been tolerated in the pews but were not representative of the Church on that issue. Their mere presence is not to be taken as indicative of what the Church teaches.

Hopefully, future historians will not have the same “impressions” concerning the position of the Church then as you do today about its position on slavery two hundred years ago.

I guess the answer to your question is that we need to look at how moral views can be very diverse and not rigidly policed as an aspect of personal responsibility. The Church’s authority and responsibility is more one of teaching and clarifying rather than policing.

I disagree.

freep.com/article/20130408/NEWS05/304080041/Detroit-area-Catholic-leaders-urge-gay-marriage-supporters-to-skip-Communion

lifesitenews.com/news/bolivian-bishops-declare-pro-abortion-legislators-should-not-receive-commun

Peace,
Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

I disagree.

freep.com/article/20130408/NEWS05/304080041/Detroit-area-Catholic-leaders-urge-gay-marriage-supporters-to-skip-Communion

lifesitenews.com/news/bolivian-bishops-declare-pro-abortion-legislators-should-not-receive-commun

Peace,
Ed

Certainly, an aspect of teaching and proclaiming is to clearly state that someone who dissents from Church teaching on grave matters should not be taking Communion, but will that ever escalate to the point of forcibly restraining anyone from doing so?

As always, I look forward to your insightful reply.

 

[dronald]

I ask out of ignorance, but what about burning heretics? Was this ever condoned by Popes or councils or was it always condemned? (even though it was practiced)

I’m sure the Church teaches against burning heretics now?

 

[dronald]

I read this in another post, maybe someone can address it:

A certain paranoia of heresy and its taint on the community is apparent from St Paul through all the church fathers and right into medieval Christendom. Jerome is famous for commenting on Galatians 5:9, “A little leaven,” says (Catena Aurea): “Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.” We have Augustine’s commentary of ‘And the Lord said to the servant: Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in [compelle intrare], that my house may be filled.’ [Luke 14:23] to justify coercion. And Aquinas in the Summa re-iterating that “…by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.” This thinking is very much the life blood of the Church and burning and torture was quite a common fate of heretics. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century [NB unofficially in use a millenia earlier]. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake.” And from this the Crusade against the Cathars and so forth.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am curious to know if the Catholic Church has changed its teachings or views about certain issues throughout its history. I ask this as I wonder if their stance on ‘same sex’ marriage or abortion will change in the future, and will they say they were wrong?? Has this happened to the church in the past??

The Church’s teaching on Faith and Morality are not subject to change and will never change. Purely disciplinary practices can change, like Friday abstinance.

Linus2nd

 

[edwest2]

Certainly, an aspect of teaching and proclaiming is to clearly state that someone who dissents from Church teaching on grave matters should not be taking Communion, but will that ever escalate to the point of forcibly restraining anyone from doing so?

As always, I look forward to your insightful reply.

Excommunications are always a possibility. However, the Church, in imitation of Christ, meets with the person in question on more than one occasion, privately, to personally clarify any matter(s) at issue and counsels him or her. Unfortunately, from time to time, on this board, there’s an “off with their heads” or “why isn’t the Church doing anything?” commentary that I’ve seen more than a few times. I never, and no one here, has ever used the word force. God will not force you to love Him and neither will the Church, but those who cause open scandal, particularly those who hold public office, will be ‘called on it.’

Such as the person mentioned here:

sfarchdiocese.org/about-us/articles-resources/?i=1306

Peace,
Ed

 

[JerryZ]

I ask out of ignorance, but what about burning heretics? Was this ever condoned by Popes or councils or was it always condemned? (even though it was practiced)

I’m sure the Church teaches against burning heretics now?

Why is it always THE CHURCH the one that gets blamed by what the secular establishment did. It is like the Pope was the one that ordered this or that directly.
When in fact if you dig, you will find that it was the government that was in charge at that particular moment that carried out executions.
Pretty much exactly as it is TODAY
A 1000 years from now someone will blame the atrocities commited in the 20th century on the Church.
Look at St. Joan of Arc, she was burned at the stake as a heretic SHE IS A SAINT for pete’s sake.
The Church cannot condone violence because it goes against the GOSPEL!!!
It runs contrary to the tradition of MARTYRDOM. You rather die for the faith. NOT take a life.
If any individuals did not follow what the Church teaches that proves what?
That there are lots of people that call themselves Catholics that require a true conversion. Look at the Catholics that condone contraception and abortion and SSM there is your modern day example of people that clearly DO NOT FOLLOW the teachings of the Church.

Peace