How Much Disagreement Is OK in the Church?

[TMC]

Clearly you understand neither ‘infallibility’ nor ‘inerrancy’. I would suggest that you do some looking up and retrieve the Church’s uses of these terms.

Why do I clearly not understand? What I have said that contradicts such understanding?

And voicing them they are! Opinions and deliberate mischaracterizations however are two different things. And with much of the kefuffle in Corpus and in the Women’s Ordination Conference, deliberate mischaracterization is what we are seeing.

Most of your arguments have been sound and civil. This is the old tactic of declaring anyone that disagrees with you as is a liar.

Please give evidence that 90% of Catholics aren’t Catholic. Shows us the studies demonstrating this statistic.

Do you deny that most Catholics disagree with one or more of the following of the Church’s teachings: birth control, divorce, role of women in the Church? If you seriously do I can find some stats for you.

Who asked that differences be kept to oneself? Is this not a strawman? If Catholics are to understand, then they are to discuss. Discussion is one means to understanding. Obviously discussion involves some disagreement, some differences in understanding. Discussion however does not mean keeping differences to oneself.

Perhaps it is. I have to give you this one. I was on some threads when I first joined this forum that were very uncharitable towards any kind of discussion. I see that is not true everywhere.

It is when folks obstinately hold to error in the face of what reason tells them (because faith cannot be unreasonable) and then teach that error to the vulnerable and innocent that they are asked either to be silent or to leave.

Here we cannot agree if by this you mean that only what the Church declares as reasonable is actually reasonable. If my reason, after study and prayer on the issue, conflicts I am bound by concience to follow my reason. To say otherwise is to say that reason has no place in religion, because it is to say that the fruit of reason must be rejected if it conflicts with teaching.

The Church cannot have a person presuming to represent her without the laying on of hands and without the authority while at the same time that person thwarts the teaching of the Church.

Such a person is acting fraudulently.

I agree, so I don’t teach. But I do present my opinions. There is a difference.

Were the Saints heretics? I don’t think they were.

Again we reach a definitional impasse. They are by definition not heretics because the Church came to their point of view. Galileo, while no Saint, demonstrates that you can be labeled heretic, as he was from 1633 to 1741, and later declared not to be.

 

[SoCalRC]

Antioch shows that this has been going on from the beginning. In the last century and a half or so, the Church’s ‘evolving’ teaching on the factual accuracy of the Old Testament accounts and on evolution show that it continues today. There really can be no doubt, in my opinion, that disagreement is allowed and even healthy in the Church. Which is why I framed this question from the beginning as “how much”.

FWIW, Antioch gives me a lesson of compassion and the true apostolic nature of the Church.

We tend to think of it as Paul convincing Peter, and Paul being right. But it isn’t so simple.

For example, Jews already rejected most forms of abortion, and all forms of infanticide. The gentile world did not. By freeing converted gentiles from the Halacha, infanticide became a major problem for the church for a millenia. It even survives in some pockets of Christianity in South America and Africa today. Some of the letters in the 8th and 9th century are just heart wrenching. And stopping infanticide led to several more centuries of the Church struggling with abandonment, again, some of the first person accounts in the 12th and 13th centuries still almost move me to tears.

So, by todays standards, Antioch opened some real moral problems, which the gnostic writings seem to indicate that Peter actually forsaw. But it also ultimately seems to have allowed the Church to survive. So the message survived with it, and we morally evolved, albiet slowly, over time - growing into the message as it were. We still have some of the same problems, even modern forms of slavery, but I do think that humanity has taken some forward steps.

Peter chose patience and compassion over bias and judgement, with remarkable long term consequences.

 

[brianwalden]

Cute, but unpersuasive. If the belief that Genesis is literally true and that Adam was a man formed from clay that lived in Mesopatmia 6,000 years ago is a rosebud, then I can’t understand how it bloomed into a recognition that the first man lived in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago and evolved from lower species. If that’s the same genus of flower, I guess your analogy holds.

Was it ever a universal teaching of the Church that the only interpretation of Genesis is a literal account of creation? Was it ever infallibly defined by a Pope? Taken literally, the two creation stories contradict themselves right off the bat.

The development was from a more general belief that the creation stories, being sacred scripture, are true to a more specific understanding that the creation stories teach the truth about who man is and who God is and about the relationship between them. Scripture teaches faith and morals, not history. Same goes for the Church.

Really? What exactly was wrong with his science? Galileo’s science is not considered accurate today, because it has been updated. It was a large step towards truth in his time. He is considered the “Father of Astronomy” and by some even the “Father of Modern Science.” He built on the works of others, as do all scientists. He did not teach theology. He taught heliocentrism, and he said he believed that heliocentrism did not contradict Scripture. The Pope and the Inquisition disagreed. They asked him to admit he was wrong, he refused but offered to (and did) present opposing viewpoints in his book. The Inquisition labelled him a heretic because they believed that heliocentrism would contradict the scientific inerrance of Scripture. Galileo always insisted that it did not contradict the real truth of Scripture. The Church today agrees with Galileo. He is heretic no more. But he was in 1615. He was kept under house arrest for the rest of his life.

I studied Galileo for part of a course in college (a secular university). At the time, there was already research going on with heliocentric models which was supported by priests and even Popes. Galileo got in trouble when he got into theology and contested the inerrancy of the bible. Both sides acted inappropriately and could have avoided the huge problems altogether.

But even if you believe Galileo was totally right and the church was totally wrong. Was it ever a universal teaching of the Church that our solar system is heliocentric? Was it ever infallibly defined by a Pope? The ignorance of the Church in science (on a tangent you won’t find a church with greater contributions to science than the Catholic Church) and even any sins it’s hierarchy committed in dealing with Galileo don’t factor into the argument of whether the church is inerrant in teaching faith and morals.

I think this is why people question whether you have a complete understanding of papal infallibility.

 

[TMC]

But even if you believe Galileo was totally right and the church was totally wrong. Was it ever a universal teaching of the Church that our solar system is heliocentric? Was it ever infallibly defined by a Pope? The ignorance of the Church in science (on a tangent you won’t find a church with greater contributions to science than the Catholic Church) and even any sins it’s hierarchy committed in dealing with Galileo don’t factor into the argument of whether the church is inerrant in teaching faith and morals.

I think this is why people question whether you have a complete understanding of papal infallibility.

Now we are shifting the goalposts a bit. My point was that the Church considered Galileo a heretic and condemned him as such, but today admits this was a mistake. I did not say that the Church taught heliocentrism, or say anything about infallibility.

Galileo was declared a heretic by the Church, can we agree on that? You seem to believe that Galileo spoke out against Scriptural inerrancy, but I do not believe that to be true. Galileo insisted that his theories could be reconciled with the truth of Scripture and the Church disagreed and declared him heretic. Today the Church admits that was incorrect. This is what John Paul had to say about it:

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.

John Paul pointed out that Galileo was ahead of the Church’s theolgians on the proper interpretation of Scripture:

Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. “If Scripture cannot err”, he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, “certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways”.(2) We also know of his letter to Christine de Lorraine (1615) which is like a short treatise on biblical hermeneutics.(3)

Which brings me back to my basic point, that dissenters should speak up. It is the way the Church learns and grows.

Finally, on your comment on my inability to understand infallibility, the whole point from the OP of this thread is to discuss the proper limits of disagreement in the Church. The question is not whether there are teachings that one may not question and stay in the Church. The question is where those lines are to be drawn. Galileo was brought up as an example of someone whose dissent was significant enough to label him a heretic, but whose viewpoint was subsequently accepted. I don’t believe I ever suggested the he denied an infallible teaching, at least I didn’t mean to.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I believe the point at which Galileo erred was in teaching contrary to the Magisterium as scientific fact.
That is heresy.
What he should have done is stated that in his HUMBLE OPINION, there seemed to be a case where the Magisterium’s tewaching on this point might be suspect, not through culpable error, but by failure to understand the deeper complexity.
Ultimately, Galileo also failed to understand the deeper complexity, which paradoxically places the observer, or to be more precise, the non-rotating, and non-accelerating space-frame, defined by the observer, at the centre of the observeable universe.
This Einsteinian space frame is then, effectively Terracentric when rotation and acceleration are factored out.
So who was ultimately wrong in science?
I have defined where Galileo was rightly judged to be heretical.
These questions draw unexpected answers.

 

[Peregrino]

Now we are shifting the goalposts a bit. My point was that the Church considered Galileo a heretic and condemned him as such, but today admits this was a mistake.

Do you think the church would have owned up to that mistake had they executed Galileo??..I wonder.

 

[THurifer2]

If I may chime in…It is philosophically impossible to deny only a single dogma of the church…to do so would deny two dogmas. If one denies two dogmas they are actually denying ALL Catholic dogmas.

One either believes that the dogmas are in error or they are not in error. If you deny the Catholic teaching of say…contraception then you are actually denying contraception and the infallible teaching of the magesterium. If you deny the infallible teaching of the magersterium then you are denying the existence of all dogma.

The church may or may not shed new light on an issue but until the new light is shed Catholics are BOUND to the teaching as defined by the church.

 

[THurifer2]

For example, I was initially very skeptical about the absolute nature of our ban on abortions. After all, the tradition of abortions to save the life of a mother goes back to Christ.

DO you think a woman would throw her child at an attacking bear to save herself?

 

[brianwalden]

Finally, on your comment on my inability to understand infallibility, the whole point from the OP of this thread is to discuss the proper limits of disagreement in the Church. The question is not whether there are teachings that one may not question and stay in the Church. The question is where those lines are to be drawn. Galileo was brought up as an example of someone whose dissent was significant enough to label him a heretic, but whose viewpoint was subsequently accepted. I don’t believe I ever suggested the he denied an infallible teaching, at least I didn’t mean to.

Ok, but which teachings was Paul dissenting against? Which teachings was St. Catherine of Siena dissenting against?

For Galileo we disagree about the causes, but you’re free to believe anything from the Church was 100% wrong to Galileo was 100% wrong and you’re not dissenting.

Same goes for your interpretation of Genesis. As long as you believe that the Bible is true you can believe that the story of the creation of the world is either literal or a metaphor.

Another good example for this might be the death penalty. John Paul II strongly advocated that today’s societies which have the means to keep people incarcerated for life, the death penalty may not be necessary. You can disagree with him and not be dissenting. In fact, the only way you would be dissenting would be if you believed that the state had no authority to decide to use the death penalty.

 

[TMC]

Ok, but which teachings was Paul dissenting against? Which teachings was St. Catherine of Siena dissenting against?

Paul was dissenting against the teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised and otherwise live like Jews. Paul tells us in Galatians that he said to Peter “how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Paul does not make clear if this was a doctrine or a dogma or a ministerial leadership issue. I seriouly doubt that they thought of things in those terms at that time. But I am not asserting that Peter went back on an infallible decision. The point I am making by referring to the Antioch controversy is the same I am making by reference to Galileo – that throughout the history of the Church good Catholics have dissented from Church teaching with, at the time of the dissent, were considered important teachings.

I don’t really know anyhting about Catherine of Sienna, I didn’t bring her up.

I agree that many Catholics find room to dissent with the Pope on teachings that they don’t want to follow, such as the death penalty. My question was are there lines that should be drawn and where are those lines. You obviously agree that some dissent is allowable. I suggested that the line of permissible dissent is the ability to profess the Creed. Where would you draw the line?

 

[brianwalden]

Paul was dissenting against the teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised and otherwise live like Jews. Paul tells us in Galatians that he said to Peter “how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Paul does not make clear if this was a doctrine or a dogma or a ministerial leadership issue. I seriouly doubt that they thought of things in those terms at that time. But I am not asserting that Peter went back on an infallible decision. The point I am making by referring to the Antioch controversy is the same I am making by reference to Galileo – that throughout the history of the Church good Catholics have dissented from Church teaching with, at the time of the dissent, were considered important teachings.

I don’t really know anyhting about Catherine of Sienna, I didn’t bring her up.

I agree that many Catholics find room to dissent with the Pope on teachings that they don’t want to follow, such as the death penalty. My question was are there lines that should be drawn and where are those lines. You obviously agree that some dissent is allowable. I suggested that the line of permissible dissent is the ability to profess the Creed. Where would you draw the line?

If its not a part of the ordinary magisterium of the chruch (I.E. the church hasn’t defined it to be true) it’s not dissent. That’s what the line is. As long as it’s not doctrine, you’re free to believe whatever you want (it’s usually a good idea to go along with the Bishops but you’re not required to). For example, people who disagree with JPII’s opinion on the death penalty and think it should be used more frequently are not dissenting. Ironically, its only those who take his ideas too far and say that the state has no right to use the death penalty who dissent from Church teaching - it’s part of the magisterium that the state has the authority to use the death penalty to protect society.

Another example: St. Thomas Acquinas questioned Mary’s Immaculate Conception. That was ok, he wasn’t dissenting because even though it was a widely held pius belief it wasn’t yet declared as a truth that all Catholics must believe. In fact disagreements are usually what leads to these sorts of definitions, so you are right that they can be a good thing. But once they’re a part of the magisterium, they can’t change and disagreeing with them would be dissent. So if St. Thomas Acquinas were alive today and went around teaching that Mary was not immaculately conceived he would be dissenting from Church teaching.

I don’t know what it is you specifically disagree with. It sounds like it might be helpful for you to talk about this with a trusted priest.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

I have recently come back to the Church after seveal years of dabbling in different religious systems. I do feel that Catholicism is the fullness of the Christian faith.

I do however, have some reservations. For example, I tend to think of the Church as inspired rather than infallible, very much in the same way that I regard the Word of God. The doctrines and dogmas of the Church, I do not feel, are always immune from human/cultural/historical influence but nevertheless reflect the inspiration or guidance of the Holy Spirit. ie. I do believe the Church’s statement “there is no salvation outside the Church” was originally true, but nevertheles suffered from a limited historical and sectarian influence. Its interpretation and even the way it was originally intended by the Magisterium was, I feel, problematic. The Second Vatican Council, I do believe, made good headway into disentangling that statement from some its former, harsher implications and as a result can now affirm that statement in a purer and fuller manner.

Because of the Spirit-guided nature of the Church’s teaching authority I do believe that every Catholic has a responsiblility to respect, consider and keep up with what the Papacy is issuing. Moral teachings are never to be disregarded on account of their inconvenience they pose for our lives (as I do believe most who use birth control, have abortions, pre-marital sex, disregard them because it inconviences them and few actually consider their moral implications). However, I do believe there is a difference between the many who disregard Church moral teaching out of its inconvenience and those who can not in good conscience affirm a teaching because it compromises their integrity as human persons (as I believe can be the case in rare circumstances surrounding birth control and other contraception). This is much rarer and can only be the result of a deep and despairing personal struggle.

This is my problem with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. From everything I have observed, homosexual couples are not in the kind of self-indulgent, spiritually empty and isolated relationships that the Letter to the Bishops describes them to be. Let us say I can not seem to reconcile the Church’s on paper moral position (which is nevertheless fully logical) and the on ground experience and reality of homosexual relationships as I have observed them.

I am investigating, and will continue to do so, the Church’s official position and all the relevant theological debates on the issue to keep myself informed. It is this kind of critical thinking and meticulous dialogue, represented foremost by the Vatican’s fervent activity but also the theologian’s response, that I find to be so beautifully characteristic of our Catholic faith.

This does not affect my position on birth control, pre-marital sex or the general sacred nature of sexual relationships. Nevertheless I do see an inconsistency here in Church doctrine with the human reality that makes it impossible at this point in time for me to affirm this teaching.

 

[THurifer2]

I have recently come back to the Church after seveal years of dabbling in different religious systems. I do feel that Catholicism is the fullness of the Christian faith.

I do however, have some reservations. For example, I tend to think of the Church as inspired rather than infallible, very much in the same way that I regard the Word of God. The doctrines and dogmas of the Church, I do not feel, are always immune from human/cultural/historical influence but nevertheless reflect the inspiration or guidance of the Holy Spirit. ie. I do believe the Church’s statement “there is no salvation outside the Church” was originally true, but nevertheles suffered from a limited historical and sectarian influence. Its interpretation and even the way it was originally intended by the Magisterium was, I feel, problematic. The Second Vatican Council, I do believe, made good headway into disentangling that statement from some its former, harsher implications and as a result can now affirm that statement in a purer and fuller manner.

Because of the Spirit-guided nature of the Church’s teaching authority I do believe that every Catholic has a responsiblility to respect, consider and keep up with what the Papacy is issuing. Moral teachings are never to be disregarded on account of their inconvenience they pose for our lives (as I do believe most who use birth control, have abortions, pre-marital sex, disregard them because it inconviences them and few actually consider their moral implications). However, I do believe there is a difference between the many who disregard Church moral teaching out of its inconvenience and those who can not in good conscience affirm a teaching because it compromises their integrity as human persons (as I believe can be the case in rare circumstances surrounding birth control and other contraception). This is much rarer and can only be the result of a deep and despairing personal struggle.

This is my problem with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. From everything I have observed, homosexual couples are not in the kind of self-indulgent, spiritually empty and isolated relationships that the Letter to the Bishops describes them to be. Let us say I can not seem to reconcile the Church’s on paper moral position (which is nevertheless fully logical) and the on ground experience and reality of homosexual relationships as I have observed them.

I am investigating, and will continue to do so, the Church’s official position and all the relevant theological debates on the issue to keep myself informed. It is this kind of critical thinking and meticulous dialogue, represented foremost by the Vatican’s fervent activity but also the theologian’s response, that I find to be so beautifully characteristic of our Catholic faith.

This does not affect my position on birth control, pre-marital sex or the general sacred nature of sexual relationships. Nevertheless I do see an inconsistency here in Church doctrine with the human reality that makes it impossible at this point in time for me to affirm this teaching.

In 6 paragraphs you just publicly denied Catholicism. You believe YOUR version of Catholicism. In reality what you describe is relativism. … If we were to apply your relativistic approach to the worlds population we would have over 6 billion different truths…God is outside of time and the church is the mystical body of Christ…The truth of the church does not wax and wane with the cultural flavor of the day The church is …free from error and the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH. TO say the pope isn’t infaalible is to outright deny a required truth of the faith.

 

[TMC]

In 6 paragraphs you just publicly denied Catholicism. You believe YOUR version of Catholicism…Not Catholicisms defined truth. Not unlike Adam and Eve did with Gods few requests.

I have to disagree with your characterization of Jordan’s post. Adam and Eve willfully did what they knew was wrong. Jordan is saying that he is having trouble reconciling his conscience with the Church’s teachings. The Bible does not say that Eve came to believe that eating the fruit was not against God’s will, but that knowing it was against God’s will she did it anyway. Catholicism requires study, reflection and prayer to conform our well-formed conscience to the teachings of the Church. But when, despite our study and prayer, our conscience remains in dissent, we must remain in dissent. We are obliged to study and pray for understanding. We are also required to act in the way that we believe with a true and pure heart is correct. That is what the catechism teaches.

 

[THurifer2]

Jordan is saying that he is having trouble reconciling his conscience with the Church’s teachings. .

The conscience is the pupil the church is the teacher.

A properly formed conscience utilizes the church as the pillar and bullwark of teaching (truth). until our conscience is fully informed on a matter we must rely on FAITH to realize that the church is the provider of truth not us.

The Bible does not say that Eve came to believe that eating the fruit was not against God’s will, but that knowing it was against God’s will she did it anyway…

She knew it was wrong because God told her and Adam not to eat from it. No different than when the infallible church tells us what is wrong as well. Jesus Christ IS GOD, the church is the mystical body of CHRIST therefore the church bears the truth of GOD.

Notice it doesn’t say eve had trouble reconciling her conscience as to why she cannot eat of the tree…

 

[brianwalden]

This is my problem with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. From everything I have observed, homosexual couples are not in the kind of self-indulgent, spiritually empty and isolated relationships that the Letter to the Bishops describes them to be. Let us say I can not seem to reconcile the Church’s on paper moral position (which is nevertheless fully logical) and the on ground experience and reality of homosexual relationships as I have observed them.

I pray for the best for you on your spiritual journey Jordan. One thing that might be helpful to consider is that the Church teaching is not that homosexual couples are bad people. They might be wonderful, selfless, spiritual, outgoing people - they might care for each other immensely - but that doesn’t change the fact that they sin in one aspect of their lives.

It might also be helpful to compare it to a married couple who uses contraception or an unmarried heterosexual couple. They are self-indulgent, spiritually empty and isolated in the sexual act just as homosexual couples are. And just as with homosexuals, that doesn’t mean that they are self-indulgent, spiritually empty, isolated people or that they don’t care immensely for each other.

 

[SoCalRC]

DO you think a woman would throw her child at an attacking bear to save herself?

You are missing the point. During Jesus time one earth Halacha (Jewish law) on the matter of abortion was well formed. You became Nefesh, a human person, at birth - essentially first breath, like Adam.

Before that the fetus was very precious, because it was a potential human, and most forms of abortion were prohibited, but not all. For example, if the woman we condemned to death, her stomach was first clubbed, without consideration to the point in gestation. Similiarly, if the pregnancy threatened her life, or the life of any of her children, an abortion was considered morally required. That is, the fetus was precious, but not more precious than a fully formed human person.

This concept of relative worth did not vanish with Christianity. Tellurian, whose views on abortion most closely matched what fundementalists believe today, described a primitive partial birth abortion in gruesome detail and noted that no one could dispute that it was a “necessary cruelty”.

500 years later, Pope Stephen V, in condemning the still widespread practice of infanticide among the faithful noted that it was self evident that a baby one day old is more precious than a developing fetus.

300 years after that Pope Innocent III specifically ruled that early abortions are not murder. This view was later supported by Thomas Aquinas. And reaffirmed 300 years later by Pope Gregory XIV.

As late as 1869, even after Pope Pius IX removed the distinction of “animated” fetus from the Catechism, the Church passed on ruling on rather or not an abortion to save the life of a mother was moral. It referred the inquiry to theologians of the time. It was not until the late 1880’s that Rome finally took a stance, and we are still struggling with the teaching.

For example, after the ruling moralists theorized that the injunction would not apply to ectopic pregnancies, since the fetus has a prognosis of death. But when the Church was asked, it replied in 1902 with a pretty convincing “No”. Simply removing the fetus unharmed and letting nature take its course was not permitted. But to this day we perform about 100,000 abortive procedures each year in Catholic hospitals, the majority related to ectopic pregnancies, often applying a principle of double effect.

I find that I have great compassion for everyone involved in these painful siutations. I sincerely pray that you are spared the sort of life experiences that would permit you to better understand my difficulty.

 

[SoCalRC]

I have recently come back to the Church after seveal years of dabbling in different religious systems. I do feel that Catholicism is the fullness of the Christian faith.

I am sorry that you received a seemingly un-Christian response to what are legitimate moral questions. I would argue that Church Dogma is between brianwalden and THurifer2.

As Catholics, we rely both on Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. At times, there appear to be contradictions in Scripture, often because we do not understand the historical context. Similiarly, differing and contradictory Traditions develop. To resolve these, and other moral issues, like abortion, which is not directly addressed in Scripture, we rely on the Magesterium. The ultimate arbiter, or final authority, is the Pope:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

The Pope can speak “Ex Cathedra”, from the chair, and such teachings are deemed infallible. However this have occured only very, very rarely.

A second kind of infallibility occurs when all the Bishops are in universal agreement about something. This is the infallibility of the Church. Basically we trust that God will not let us go astray when the leadership of the Church acts in unison and harmony. This is why we believe that Papal succession has not been in error.

Sometimes the Church asserts that this sort of unison applies to specific teachings. For example, in a papal encyclical, THE GOSPEL OF LIFE, Pope John Paul II assertted that three teachings were infallible via the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium: Prohibitions on any form of murder, direct abortion, and direct euthanasia.

The encyclical makes the compelling argument that our teachings on life matters are a cohesive whole, from conception to natural death. Teachings not declared infallible are some times referred to as ‘prudential’ teachings.

With due respect to brianwalden (who has made some excellent points), prudential does not automaticly mean ‘optional’. The Church has indicated the some prudential teachings are not optional and that lay Catholics can get some idea about the importance given such a teaching by the sort of documents and priority it is given. JPII’s teaching on the death penalty has not only appeared in an encyclical (the second highest type of document Popes generate), it now appears in the Catechism of the Church. So while it is prudential, it is not to be disobeyed lightly. And, doing so, is a form of dissent.

However, in that particular instance, our current Pope, while in his prior capacity as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has noted that good faith disagreement is permissible and, in of itself, does not render a Catholic unfit for communion.

If all this sounds confusing, it can be. But my advice would be 1) strive to obey Church teachings unless you truly feel that obeying puts you at direct odds with God. I think you will find that often understanding will come with time. Certainly this was the case with me and the death penalty. Reading the ABA’s press release yesterday John Paul’s writings on the subject seem quite precient.

1. Try to look at Catholic teachings are a larger, cohesive whole. It is easy to take a single teaching and find moral conflicts. This is because we are not God. We cannot see all outcomes or have perfect understanding. But I think you will find that Catholic teachings make more sense when viewed from a little distance. For example, instead of wondering why condoms, which would appear to have benefits with regards to our teaching on abortion, are not permitted, try looking at the encyclical HUMAN LIFE. It makes a number of predictions about the sort of society widespread use of contraceptives will foster. It seems somewhat precient as well, and while it may not immediately convince you, it may make the Church’s position more understandable.

Best wishes, and may you find the Peace of our Savior Jesus Christ on your journey of Faith.

 

[THurifer2]

You are missing the point. During Jesus time one earth Halacha (Jewish law) on the matter of abortion was well formed. You became Nefesh, a human person, at birth - essentially first breath, like Adam.

Before that the fetus was very precious, because it was a potential human, and most forms of abortion were prohibited, but not all. For example, if the woman we condemned to death, her stomach was first clubbed, without consideration to the point in gestation. Similiarly, if the pregnancy threatened her life, or the life of any of her children, an abortion was considered morally required. That is, the fetus was precious, but not more precious than a fully formed human person.

This concept of relative worth did not vanish with Christianity. Tellurian, whose views on abortion most closely matched what fundementalists believe today, described a primitive partial birth abortion in gruesome detail and noted that no one could dispute that it was a “necessary cruelty”.

500 years later, Pope Stephen V, in condemning the still widespread practice of infanticide among the faithful noted that it was self evident that a baby one day old is more precious than a developing fetus.

300 years after that Pope Innocent III specifically ruled that early abortions are not murder. This view was later supported by Thomas Aquinas. And reaffirmed 300 years later by Pope Gregory XIV.

As late as 1869, even after Pope Pius IX removed the distinction of “animated” fetus from the Catechism, the Church passed on ruling on rather or not an abortion to save the life of a mother was moral. It referred the inquiry to theologians of the time. It was not until the late 1880’s that Rome finally took a stance, and we are still struggling with the teaching.

For example, after the ruling moralists theorized that the injunction would not apply to ectopic pregnancies, since the fetus has a prognosis of death. But when the Church was asked, it replied in 1902 with a pretty convincing “No”. Simply removing the fetus unharmed and letting nature take its course was not permitted. But to this day we perform about 100,000 abortive procedures each year in Catholic hospitals, the majority related to ectopic pregnancies, often applying a principle of double effect.

I find that I have great compassion for everyone involved in these painful siutations. I sincerely pray that you are spared the sort of life experiences that would permit you to better understand my difficulty.

Well to be honest with you I deal with death and dying on a DAILY basis and I have not been spared of such an instance. But luckily we remembered the story of JOB.
Your post alludes to the development of doctrine. And now the church has a fully developed doctrine on abortion.

This can be diplayed by a much more recent statment of JPII in which uses the wording from conception to natural death.

If a fetus is not a person how can that bible say such things like:
*"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; Jeremiah 1:5
*

 

[SoCalRC]

Your post alludes to the development of doctrine. And now the church has a fully developed doctrine on abortion.

This can be diplayed by a much more recent statment of JPII in which uses the wording from conception to natural death.

We have to be careful and clear with such wording. In the GOSPEL OF LIFE, John Paul II asserted that we have always rejected abortion.

That is true. We have never been ‘pro choice’, though we did view early abortions more as a grievous form of birth control than murder for many centuries. And while Church representatives have given dispensation for abortions to save the life of a mother over the centuries, the Church refrained from taking a formal stance until the 19th century.

So, the Pope’s assertion that the teaching is unchanged and unchangable appears legitimate and should not be undermined with a suggestion of evolution.

If a fetus is not a person how can that bible say such things like:
*"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; Jeremiah 1:5
*

Note that it is the Pope, not I, who asserted that there is no guidance in Holy Scripture. While I appreciate your intent, we again have to be careful.

We Catholics are Creationists, that is, every soul is a unique creation by God. We reject traducianism as heretical. This means that it is also potentially heretical to assert that a fertilized zygote is a human person in the sense of the Second Vatican Council. Fertilized zygotes can divide into multiple individuals (or wind up as uterine cysts). But we teach that a soul cannot be divided.

So we still accept that ensoulment occurs at some point in the developmental process. That is, at some point a fetus goes from human life to an ensouled human person. The Church reaffirmed this in the 1970s when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a document on Procurred Abortions, and again in the 1980s when another document was released regarding embryonic research and related issues.

Now if you look at my quotes you will see only one ‘outlier’, Tertullian, who was promoting fundementalist type views on abortion to promote the concept of traducianism, which we reject (Tertullian was labelled a heretic in his lifetime). The other events are still consistant with current Church teaching.

That is, our core teaching has not changed, only emphasis and the precautionary removal of the “animated” criteria by Pope Pius IX because of the new science of neonatal development.

The change in priorities is even understandable. By the end of the 19th century we were seeing the beginning of modern medical science and the rise of the western eugenics movement. Similarly, by the Second Vatican Council we were already seeing vaccines being created using harvested human diploid cells.

So, there is not contradiction, just changing circumstances. In the 8th century, abortion carried a penance of 120 days, sterilization carried one of 10 years (as did oral sex). Both were still viewed as mortal sins. Now with plasma, antibiotics, and modern medicine, procurred direct abortion carries a penalty of excommunication and the Church has taken a stance against exceptions for maternal well being.

Again, suggesting an evolving teaching, overlooked Scriptural guidance, or non Catholic beliefs as doctrine, questions the apostolic nature of the Church and the authority of the Magesterium. And, I think, should be avoided.