Does Morality Ever Change?

[tonsofquestions]

Can God’s morality ever change? Does anything that used to be a sin stop being a sin, and does anything that used to be okay ever become a sin? Can God change His mind on morality?

 

[tonsofquestions]

I forgot to say, please quote Church teaching if there is one on this subject.

 

[skallal]

Hey tons,

I like your style! Thanks for such a thought-provoking question!

“Love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 13:34). This is the foundation for understanding all catholic morality. Anybody who has a properly formed conscience must simply ask, “Would this be loving? Is it an acceptable form of love? Is it a necessary form of love?” If you can knowledgably answer yes, then the act is acceptable, or even necessary.

There are 3 parts to any moral act:

1. “intention”: why you do something, your goal
2. “matter”: what you do to get that result
3. “circumstances”: when, where, with who, how, etc

Your goal must always be to love God, neighbor self. All else is a means to these goals. As long as you love, #1 doesn’t cause any problems. The problems come with #2 and #3 sometimes. Some acts (2) are always wrong: killing an innocent human life. Others depend on the circumstances. For example, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas both defend the death penalty as a way to protect innocent members of society. Yet today many circumstances have changed, we have maximum security prisons for instance, and so JPII says that in most cases today the death penalty is unnecessary. Through the creative power of love, we have come up with a way to protect ourselves without killing, so this is what love demands. This is just one example. If you have more specific questions or want me to dig up the exact quotes, I’m sure I can find something on the internet for you to read. Please keep coming with these great questions!

In Christ,

Brother Scott
Apostles of the Interior Life, Rome

 

[tonsofquestions]

I guess my real question was, was fornication always wrong? Could God decide to have it not be wrong anymore? Has theft always been wrong? could God decide to have it not be wrong anymore? Do God’s rules on certain acts ever change? Can God decide that something that has always been a sin is now okay? Can He decide that something that has always been okay is now a sin? Thanks

 

[ConallCernach]

For acts that are intrinsically bad, the answer is no.
G.K. Chesterton said something along the lines of "it is as silly as saying that one belief may be held on Tuesday, but not on Wednesday, or that one view of the cosmos was correct at 3:30, but incorrect to hold at 4:30.

Pax

 

[tonsofquestions]

For acts that are intrinsically bad, the answer is no.
G.K. Chesterton said something along the lines of "it is as silly as saying that one belief may be held on Tuesday, but not on Wednesday, or that one view of the cosmos was correct at 3:30, but incorrect to hold at 4:30.

Pax

I know it’s silly, but do you have a Church teaching that says acts that are intrinsically bad can cease to be intrinsically bad, or that acts that aren’t intrinsically bad can become intrinsically bad?

 

[Ender]

I forgot to say, please quote Church teaching if there is one on this subject.

Here are some comments from JPII’s Veritatis Splendor that go to the question of whether morality changes:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

If we therefore wish to go to the heart of the Gospel’s moral teaching and grasp its profound and unchanging content … (#8)

God has enabled man to share in this divine law, and hence man is able under the gentle guidance of God’s providence increasingly to recognize the unchanging truth". (#43)

This is the reason why “the Church affirms that underlying so many changes there are some things which do not change and are ultimately founded upon Christ, who is the same yesterday and today and for ever”. (#53)

*In a particular way, it is in the Crucified Christ that *the Church finds the answer to the question troubling so many people today: how can obedience to universal and unchanging moral norms respect the uniqueness and individuality of the person, and not represent a threat to his freedom and dignity? (#85)

*Universal and unchanging moral norms at the service of the person and of society *(section title)

*The Church’s firmness in defending the universal and unchanging moral norms is not demeaning at all. *(#96)

• In the end, only a morality which acknowledges certain norms as valid always and for everyone, with no exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence, both on the national and international levels. *(#97)

The words spoken by John XXIII at the opening of the Second Vatican Council can also be applied to moral doctrine: "This certain and unchanging teaching (i.e., Christian doctrine in its completeness), to which the faithful owe obedience … (footnote 100)

Ender

 

[RosaryFan]

Can God’s morality ever change? Does anything that used to be a sin stop being a sin, and does anything that used to be okay ever become a sin? Can God change His mind on morality?

God does not change. Since God is not bound by time and space, as we are, God has in His presence, the past, present and future all at once. So He is unchanging.

 

[skallal]

Hey tons,

Great question about “intrinsic evil.” As you can imagine, intrinsic means intrinsic. That means something really bad is always bad and can never be good. I know it can be a major bummer sometimes when your flesh REALLY wants to do something intrinsically evil and you say no, but it’s totally worth it. It’s kinda like going to the dentist. Nobody likes all that scraping and pulling, but everybody likes good teeth, everybody wants a good life. So get rid of your cavities and enjoy a nice steak dinner, or the Eucharist if you prefer…

In Christ,

Brother Scott
Apostles of the Interior Life, Rome

PS. Stop stealing and fornicating!.. just kidding…

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Well God is supposedly immutable, so he does not change his set of beliefs about what is moral and when. However, as skallal pointed out, what is moral can depend on the circumstances. So there are certainly some things that are moral/immoral in our society that could later be the opposite. For example, incest was not immoral when the children of Adam and Eve did it, but is immoral today. Slavery was not immoral in ancient times when God supported it (and maybe it was also moral 500 years ago when the pope issued a papal bull supporting it), but is immoral today. So while God may not change his views on morality (as he is immutable), he could easily consider the circumstances different enough in 50 years that something like incest would be moral again.

 

[buffalo]

No.

 

[Rolltide]

Slavery was not immoral in ancient times when God supported it (and maybe it was also moral 500 years ago when the pope issued a papal bull supporting it), but is immoral today.

Actually, the pope condemned slavery just after the discovery of the New World on May 29, 1537 in the Papal Bull Sublimus Dei. (Sublimus Deus)

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Actually, the pope condemned slavery just after the discovery of the New World on May 29, 1537 in the Papal Bull Sublimus Dei. (Sublimus Deus)

I know. I was referring to Romanus Pontifex (1455):
Pope Nicholas V:

We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.

 

[Rolltide]

I know. I was referring to Romanus Pontifex (1455):

Keep in mind that the type of slavery being condoned here is completely different than the type of African slavery that we most associate it with today. Most slavery until the 1500s was based on the type seen in the ancient world, especially the Roman empire. Slaves were simply those unfortunate enough to be captured in war. In ancient times, those captured in war had two choices… death, or slavery, so slavery was seen as the compassionate choice. In fact, the word “slave” comes from the Slavs (as in the Slavic peoples, Yugoslavia, etc…), because early Greeks used to capture slaves from the Balkans. Further, most slavery (but not all) was temporary, like a jail sentence, and a person would earn their freedom after a few years. Slavery was not based on skin color, it was not passed down to children, and slaves were free to marry who they wanted. They often maintained an independent household. Slaves also were permitted to make money when they weren’t working for their masters, and if they ever earned back their purchase price, governments like that of Spain and Italy guaranteed that they MUST be freed.

Things heated up with Sublimeus Deus in the 1500s because it was believed up until then that you could enslave “infidels”, or those that had rejected Christianity outright, like Muslims, because they were doomed to hell anyway. However, Native Americans were an entirely different matter, and the pope decided that since Indians never had a chance to learn about Christianity, that there was NO legitimate basis for enslaving them. At the same time, the Portuguese were beginning to exploit Africa. West African tribes practiced a style of slavery similar to the Roman style themselves, and in the beginning, sold African slaves to the Portuguese for use in the New World. These slaves came from local tribal wars, and chiefs knew that they would be weakening their traditional enemies, because the Portuguese would probably not send slaves back after their period of slavery was up. So, the chiefs began to become powerful… for a while. When they had finally defeated their local rivals, the Portuguese continued to want slaves, and began hunting their former partners. Over time, African slavery became permanent because it was too expensive to send them back. This move transformed slavery into a radically different institution.

 

[tonsofquestions]

Keep in mind that the type of slavery being condoned here is completely different than the type of African slavery that we most associate it with today. Most slavery until the 1500s was based on the type seen in the ancient world, especially the Roman empire. Slaves were simply those unfortunate enough to be captured in war. In ancient times, those captured in war had two choices… death, or slavery, so slavery was seen as the compassionate choice. In fact, the word “slave” comes from the Slavs (as in the Slavic peoples, Yugoslavia, etc…), because early Greeks used to capture slaves from the Balkans. Further, most slavery (but not all) was temporary, like a jail sentence, and a person would earn their freedom after a few years. Slavery was not based on skin color, it was not passed down to children, and slaves were free to marry who they wanted. They often maintained an independent household. Slaves also were permitted to make money when they weren’t working for their masters, and if they ever earned back their purchase price, governments like that of Spain and Italy guaranteed that they MUST be freed.

Things heated up with Sublimeus Deus in the 1500s because it was believed up until then that you could enslave “infidels”, or those that had rejected Christianity outright, like Muslims, because they were doomed to hell anyway. However, Native Americans were an entirely different matter, and the pope decided that since Indians never had a chance to learn about Christianity, that there was NO legitimate basis for enslaving them. At the same time, the Portuguese were beginning to exploit Africa. West African tribes practiced a style of slavery similar to the Roman style themselves, and in the beginning, sold African slaves to the Portuguese for use in the New World. These slaves came from local tribal wars, and chiefs knew that they would be weakening their traditional enemies, because the Portuguese would probably not send slaves back after their period of slavery was up. So, the chiefs began to become powerful… for a while. When they had finally defeated their local rivals, the Portuguese continued to want slaves, and began hunting their former partners. Over time, African slavery became permanent because it was too expensive to send them back. This move transformed slavery into a radically different institution.

Is there any kind of slavery which is morally acceptable?

 

[Rolltide]

Is there any kind of slavery which is morally acceptable?

Some people believed that it could be morally acceptable in the past, with regard to infidels, since they were doomed to hell anyway. However, as the Catholic concept of “No salvation outside the Catholic Church” began to develop in the 1500s (by realizing that it WAS possible for non-Catholics to be saved, such as Native Americans), this position was refined, especially by people like Bartolome de las Casas. Note that the idea that slavery was always considered wrong, except for those who had explicitly rejected Christianity. When salvation it became clear that it was impossible to judge the salvation of non-Catholics definitively, any remaining position in favor of slavery became untenable. This falls under a development of doctrine issue.