Has the Church ever been wrong?

[Abu]

Leela
Which teachings of the church are dogma and which ones are not. Is it dogma that women are unfit to be priests, or is that something the church could be wrong about? Is it dogma that contraception is sinful? Is it dogma that homosexuals ought not marry? Is it dogma that women in AIDS infested Africa ought not demand that their husbands wear condoms to so that they won’t bring home STDs from their philandering? Or could the Church be wrong about these moral questions?

Post #49 may be helpful for you.

 

[grannymh]

To no one in particular :

No amount of debating angels on pinheads will convince any reasonable person that a two thousand year old organization never once make a mistake. Stuff happens, we all know stuff happens. To an outsider it’s completely irrelevant to argue long complicated sets of ancient ifs and buts about internals. Nor would any reasonable person hold anything against the Church, particularly when a widely revered head publicly apologized for past mistakes.
*
Wearing the purple vestments of lenten mourning, the Pope sought pardon for seven categories of sin: general sins; sins in the service of truth; sins against Christian unity; against the Jews; against respect for love, peace and cultures; against the dignity of women and minorities; and against human rights. - guardian.co.uk*

“An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.” - JPII quoted in wikipedea
Good for him, and good for the Church.

My position is that the Catholic Deposit of Faith, dogmas, do not contain errors.
This is way different from the Church making mistakes. At the moment, I am not into the various mistakes even though I can acknowledge them.

 

[DavidPalm]

I guess you are saying that geocentrism was never dogma, so the fact that the Church was wrong about that doesn’t count against it. Which teachings of the church are dogma and which ones are not. Is it dogma that women are unfit to be priests, or is that something the church could be wrong about? Is it dogma that contraception is sinful? Is it dogma that homosexuals ought not marry? Is it dogma that women in AIDS infested Africa ought not demand that their husbands wear condoms to so that they won’t bring home STDs from their philandering? Or could the Church be wrong about these moral questions?

I don’t think the answer if that geocentrism was never dogma so it “doesn’t count”. I think the correct answer is that geocentrism lies outside of the realm of faith and morals, so it “doesn’t count”.

The other things you mention certainly do fall under faith and morals.

 

[Leela]

I don’t think the answer if that geocentrism was never dogma so it “doesn’t count”. I think the correct answer is that geocentrism lies outside of the realm of faith and morals, so it “doesn’t count”.

The other things you mention certainly do fall under faith and morals.

Then the Church certainly must have been wrong when it taught that geocentrism was a matter of faith.

“To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.”

~ Cardinal Bellarmine, at the trial of Galileo in 1615.

 

[inocente]

“To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.”

~ Cardinal Bellarmine, at the trial of Galileo in 1615.

It would be nice if CAF allowed setting that into Ye Olde English font.

As I now understand it, the answer to the OP seems to be that the Church has admitted getting things wrong, as per John Paul II’s apologies.

The one exception is in the dogmas of faith, where by stating what is right the Church cannot be wrong by definition (or at least to the faithful). I’m not sure what these are but given that they must stand for all time, I’d expect their scope to be limited as a single change would the risk of a schism.

So someone would need to find an example of one of those being changed after the time when the Church declared it as dogmatic. This would seem irrelevant to non-Catholics (unless using a particularly arcane evangelical style to try to lure Catholics into another religion), and why any Catholic would want to pick over their faith in this way is a little beyond me.

But then I’m a relativist born and bred, or so I’ve been told.

 

[grannymh]

Then the Church certainly must have been wrong when it taught that geocentrism was a matter of faith.

“To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.”

~ Cardinal Bellarmine, at the trial of Galileo in 1615.

Out-of-context quote which clouds the usage of two completely distinct parallels in order to make a point.

Logical fallacy of a personal interpretation or of mine quoting?

Lack of understanding of the positions in plural of St. Robert Belarmine.

 

[grannymh]

It would be nice if CAF allowed setting that into Ye Olde English font.

As I now understand it, the answer to the OP seems to be that the Church has admitted getting things wrong, as per John Paul II’s apologies.

I agree. It is the status of “things wrong” which makes the difference.

The one exception is in the dogmas of faith, where by stating what is right the Church cannot be wrong by definition (or at least to the faithful). I’m not sure what these are but given that they must stand for all time, I’d expect their scope to be limited as a single change would the risk of a schism.

I agree.

The early dogmas can be found in the Nicene Creed. Deeper explanations of these followed as subsequent dogmas often centered on a specific point.

So someone would need to find an example of one of those being changed after the time when the Church declared it as dogmatic.

I agree.

This would seem irrelevant to non-Catholics…

People other than Catholics often benefit from Catholic Dogma’s. For example. Respect for the dignity of the human person comes from the dogma that all of us are created “in the image of God” in that our own nature unites the spiritual and material worlds.

why any Catholic would want to pick over their faith in this way is a little beyond me.

Catholics are free to imitate Adam.

But then I’m a relativist born and bred, or so I’ve been told.

To me, the above sounds like objective thinking.

 

[Leela]

Out-of-context quote which clouds the usage of two completely distinct parallels in order to make a point.
.

Not at all. As was quoted by Cassini before, Bellarmine was specific on the matter and made other such parallels to argue that geocentrism is as much a matter of faith as oter cherished beliefs:

“Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.”

To say that the Church can’t be wrong about matters of faith and morals requires also that it be right about what matters fit those categories. It clearly erred in that regard.

 

[grannymh]

Not at all. As was quoted by Cassini before, Bellarmine was specific on the matter and made other such parallels to argue that geocentrism is as much a matter of faith as oter cherished beliefs:

“Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.”

To say that the Church can’t be wrong about matters of faith and morals requires also that it be right about what matters fit those categories. It clearly erred in that regard.

Obviously, the above is a snippet of the entire context of the event.

And the conclusion again misses the point of two realms of interest and how they interact. However, everyone is free to interpret quotations as they wish.

 

[cassini]

May I respectfully point out that I have not engaged in the scientific discussion regarding the earth and the sun.

I have listed a couple of times that the Catholic dogma is that God is the Creator. I believe that you will find that St. Robert Belarmine accepted God as the Creator and thus I agree with his position regarding God as Creator.

As to St. Rober Belarmine’s positions regrading movements of earth and sun or sun and earth, I consider those matters of natural science and thus I do not express an opinion one way or another.

Granny, I am confused. The thread question is : Has the Church ever been wrong?
Thus the question is confined to the Church, not the individual mistakes of churchmen, no matter what they are.

Now what is under discussion is the suggestion that the Church was wrong in its 1616 papal decree. If you are a Copernican, that is, if you believe science proved the sun is fixed and the earth moves then you suggest, infer, say, think, believe the Church was wrong in its papal decree. In other words NATURAL SCIENCE says the Church was wrong in 1616 and 1633.

Now you come out saying you do not argue the scientific case. So what then is your position. Why do you say the 1616 decree wasn’t infallible? What difference does that make?

The reason I ask the above is because it is the Scientific Copernicans who HAVE to argue that the decree wasn’t infallible so that it looks like it doesn’t matter then, it was only a ‘non-infallible’ papal decree and they don’t count in the Church. But you now say you have no scientific opinion to offer against or for the 1616 decree, yet are in the front line insisting the decree was not infallible.

Now let me state your position now. You hold that unless a decree is infallible it isn’t worth the paper it is written on and therefore Catholics can tear all such decrees from Denzinger’s as of no consequence, just like the 1616 decree.

 

[grannymh]

Now let me state your position now. You hold that unless a decree is infallible it isn’t worth the paper it is written on and therefore Catholics can tear all such decrees from Denzinger’s as of no consequence, just like the 1616 decree.

Your statement of my position is not correct.
Would you care to rephrase it so that it reflects what I have been posting regarding a theological dogma which is not the identical twin of a local decree describing, in scientific terms, the physical position of the material earth?

 

[cassini]

Your statement of my position is not correct.
Would you care to rephrase it so that it reflects what I have been posting regarding a theological dogma which is not the identical twin of a local decree describing, in scientific terms, the physical position of the material earth?

So, you now hold that a non infallible decree is binding on the faithful?

 

[grannymh]

So, you now hold that a non infallible decree is binding on the faithful?

That statement does not address the specifics in my posts.

However, I do see the logical fallacy in going from a local decree in 1616 to proposing that it is universally binding on all people at all times in order to support a scientific theory regarding the physical place of the material earth in the amazing, glory-filled universe.

The unfortunate mistake of claiming a theological dogma is the painful root of all the confusion surrounding individual interpretation of earth science in 1616 and following.

 

[Abu]

With the Galileo case, at that time, the core error by the theologians “lay in faulty exegesis: in supposing that the Bible does in fact assert a particular physical proposition (geocentrism) which it does not really assert.” (Fr Brian Harrison , O.S., Living Tradition, p3). There was no dogma, nor defined doctrine declared by a Pope or Ecumenical Council.

The four senses of Scripture may be explored at: rtforum.org/study/lesson2.html in the Roman Theological Forum.

It’s not rocket science:
The Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ or infallible definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus, for instance, *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) against contraception, and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

For infallibility to be operative in the case of the Popes. A papal definitive doctrine, to the whole Church by the Supreme Pastor on faith or morals has to be declared. Neither dogmas nor doctrines are “theological”, “scientific” or any other such descriptive assumptions.

 

[grannymh]

For infallibility to be operative in the case of the Popes. A papal definitive doctrine, to the whole Church by the Supreme Pastor on faith or morals has to be declared. Neither dogmas nor doctrines are “theological”, “scientific” or any other such descriptive assumptions.

Excellent post. I agree with the above. However, as a matter of clarification between the realm of natural science and the realm of faith and morals, I will use the term theological dogma because the subject matter relates to the Blessed Trinity and to Divine Revelation regarding the purpose of our lives and how we are to live in order to reach our ultimate goal. (faith and morals)

There are far too many Catholics who do not understand the purview of Catholicism. This thread and others contain good examples of how not to understand the Catholic Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Is it your position that the Church never taught that the sun revolves around the earth and never condemned those who said otherwise?

You know while we are quick to point out what we know today. I wouldn’t be so quick to speak on what happened thousands of years ago. God had 45ft Giants walking around. He may well have had the sun revolving around the earth.He had no problem playing with it at Fatima. I’m gonna ask him about this.

 

[inocente]

Now you come out saying you do not argue the scientific case. So what then is your position. Why do you say the 1616 decree wasn’t infallible? What difference does that make?

The reason I ask the above is because it is the Scientific Copernicans who HAVE to argue that the decree wasn’t infallible so that it looks like it doesn’t matter then, it was only a ‘non-infallible’ papal decree and they don’t count in the Church.

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture…

– Pope John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992*
When John Paul II formally apologized to Galileo later in 2000, no one noticed as the cosmos stopped rotating and the Earth suddenly started revolving. The universe is as God made it, and that cannot be changed by decree.

It’s perplexing as to why it might be necessary to point this out to Catholics of all people, but just to be clear, in science you make up your own mind based on the empirical evidence, and in no circumstances whatsoever rely on authorities, whether they are 400 years-old or 4,000.

JPII understood this, Pope Benedict understands this. Truth cannot contradict truth, and faith is unlikely to be found in legal histories.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Has the Church ever been wrong?

In matters of procedures, Church government, non-doctrinal policies, etc. - Things controlled by men…Yes

In matters of teaching, faith, and morals, God, etc…No

 

[DavidPalm]

Then the Church certainly must have been wrong when it taught that geocentrism was a matter of faith.

“To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.”

~ Cardinal Bellarmine, at the trial of Galileo in 1615.

Actually, St. Bellarmine wrote words to that effect (the words above are not an exact quote, despite the quotation marks) in a private letter, not at the trial of Galileo. The private opinion even of a saint and Doctor is not the same as the teaching of the Church.

And Cassini continues to speak of the 1616 decree as a “papal decree” which is factually incorrect. It was a decree of the Congregation of the Index, approved by the Pope only in forma communi (see my comments on this here and here.) Granny is correct to state that a decree of a Roman Congregation approved in forma communi is incapable of establishing a universally binding theological dogma.

 

[Leela]

Actually, St. Bellarmine wrote words to that effect (the words above are not an exact quote, despite the quotation marks) in a private letter, not at the trial of Galileo. The private opinion even of a saint and Doctor is not the same as the teaching of the Church…

The letter nevertheless tells us what Bellarmine meant when he said, “To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.” It is clear that geocentrism was viewed at the time as a matter of faith. Though today Catholics make a distinction between matters of science and matters of faith and morals that ground was not ceded to science until later. It is anachronistic to apply the science/faith distinction to Galileo’s time. It didn’t exist then.