How would this hypothetical affect one's view of Catholic history?

[ffg]

I thought that reasonable and decent people generally accepted that the phrase “mistakes were made,” wherever it occurs, is a red flag indicating that something is rotten.

Am I glad that is not a reality (seemingly). I’d hate to throw away every presentation I build because of the mistakes within them.

The mistakes don’t define the message. If material, mistakes can divert attention and have to be addressed, but they never bring down the message.

However, I’m sure there is no doubt that regardless of intent and delivery, some folks find my presentations to be rotten!

With regard to your problem about separating the person from the entity ‘the Church’, it’s just a matter of individuals being responsible for their own sins.

Why can God make a sinner infallible for the moments of delivering a message?

! don’t know but the logic probably flows along the lines of why God made the vessel pure for His entrance to Earth.

Obviously, this assumes the immaculate conception.

It makes sense to me that where God acts in creation, there is purity from sinfulness - And it doesn’t take away from the foundation of creating - an act of love, that by definition can’t force the return to act in love. Thus the creation still has the freedom to respond.

Take care,

Mike

 

[NovusFidem]

Am I glad that is not a reality (seemingly). I’d hate to throw away every presentation I build because of the mistakes within them.

The mistakes don’t define the message. If material, mistakes can divert attention and have to be addressed, but they never bring down the message.

I find your words oddly inspiring

It could also be said that, in choosing sinful vessels to pass His messages, God shows that “no matter how rotten you may think you are, still there can be good in you”.

The Church would be much more credible to the world. Far more people would be Catholics, Catholics would have much less excuse for their sins, and those who weren’t Catholics would have a high respect for Catholicism even if they disagreed with the teachings.

Saying that only perfect people would make acceptable teachers, is to rely in the “tu quoque” or “appeal to hypocrisy” fallacy. As Wikipedia explains:

“It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument”.

People are getting distracted by the dirt around the poster, instead of reading the message in the poster. Even in the time of Jesus, the Pharisee only paid attention to the silly details: that He ate with sinners, that He worked on Sabbath, that He didn’t do what was acceptable most of the time. What Jesus said? “Meh, who cares? The guy eats with the sinners! And that obviously makes his teachings worthless…” - fallacy at its finest!

And, let’s be honest, you won’t find anyone as sinless as Jesus (perhaps His mother) - if His spotless past wasn’t enough to make His words “credible”, do you really think a good-though-not-perfect Pope/clergy would make much of a difference?

In a hospital, the doctors also get ill, just like the patients.

Just because doctors get ill, doesn’t mean they don’t know how to prevent illness, or how to cure them. It just means that doctors have the same nature as their patients, and are just as vulnerable to the environment’s attacks.

(**change **Hospital =Church, Doctor=Priest, illness=sin, patient=faithful, environment=Devil)

 

[josie_L]

The Church would be much more credible to the world. Far more people would be Catholics, Catholics would have much less excuse for their sins, and those who weren’t Catholics would have a high respect for Catholicism even if they disagreed with the teachings.

And a lot of people would be Christian, if, Christians acted like Christians, and/or we weren’t so divided, the point is, there is no church or religion without it’s mistakes and/or failings, in fact, it’s a miracle that the Church survived when there were enemies from within (wheat with the weeds) and without.

Moreover, like the Jews who failed to keep God’s commandments, but were still the chosen people of God, we are still the Church of Christ despite our failings.

 

[josie_L]

I’m going to go ahead and add a post that should give some clarity as to where I’m coming from on this thread. Imagine this, if you please.

Imagine that the Catholic Church is on trial for some alleged wrongdoing. Is it on trial for burning heretics? No. Is it on trial for murder? No. Is it on trial for making false claims about its ability to teach dogma absent any error? No. It is very important to understand what charges are being brought against the Church. It is not whatever charges you heard from someone somewhere, these are not charges that you hear frequently from some random people whenever. I am telling you what the charges are, and I expect that these will be treated as the actual charges that will be dealt with on this thread.

The charges are as follows- that the Catholic Church has, at various points throughout its history, inappropriately compelled and/or forced and/or silenced dissenters who were baptized Catholic as infants, but later developed different beliefs and likely began teaching beliefs contrary to the Catholic faith. Despite the fact that these beliefs were contrary to the Catholic faith, the Catholic Church does not and has never had the right to force these people into silence- although it can control what happens within the walls of its own property, it has no right to force such people to silence in toto. It has no right to compel anyone to state beliefs that they do not want to state. And it has no right to prevent people from leaving the Catholic faith in some sense and starting a different church, or of disagreeing with the Catholic claims to truth as if they know better than the Catholic Church. Even if they do not know better, they get to do all of these things, it is their God-given right to do so, and the Catholic Church stands charged of violating these rights and freedoms through compulsion and force.

It’s like your imposing your American ideals (freedom of speech, expression, religion. . . etc.) onto a society that wasn’t even cognizant of these ideals.

p.s. Why is “silencing” dissenters who were obviously heretics according to the Church magisterium wrong? By allowing them to flourish or rather to evangelize would endanger the souls of many, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Church hierarchy to bring back heretics into the fold via councils, debates. . etc., and when that wouldn’t work to excommunicate and/or anathematize them, and when that wouldn’t work, well, the state would intervene.

 

[Contarini]

I understand your frustration with apologists, and I can relate. But I would like to keep on discussing with you, so give me a call if I annoy you suddenly!

Something you will figure out about me if we keep talking is that I generally don’t stop talking to people even if they annoy me. This may not be a virtue on my part

As in regards to free will+sin=imperfect Church, I wonder if, instead of it not being self-evident, perhaps it is a different opinion on the matter of what free will is? Calvinists believe in determinism, for example; their understanding of free will is different from the Catholic understanding, so when we pose our stance, they might understand something else entirely!

Depends on which Catholic understanding. The Thomist understanding is not, in fact, that different from the Calvinist one (and Calvinism isn’t monolithic either–many historic Calvinists have been essentially Thomists, something Catholics often don’t realize).

However, as valid as this reasoning is, it is a bit unseemly to engage Catholics (or anyone, for that matter) in a discussion, without understanding first the barriers in communication.

I’m not quite sure what you mean or if you are suggesting that I’m engaging in such an “unseemly” practice.

If people came to discuss infallibility KNOWING what Catholics understand of it, perhaps we wouldn’t have to go back and sneer: “You are confusing infallibility and impeccability!”.

But my point is that simply announcing that the Church distinguishes them isn’t good enough. You have to explain why infallibility can function without impeccability.

The discussion would veer towards moments where the Catholic Church truly declared something as true and then said the teaching was wrong.

Or more likely the other way round: condemned something and then came to accept it, as with Exsurge Domine 33 or the condemned propositions of Quesnel on lay reading of Scripture.

Usury may be another example, but that’s an extremely complicated issue I don’t fully understand, so I steer clear of it.

Slavery, which lots of people want to go for, isn’t really a good example, because the Church never positively advocated for slavery or condemned abolitionists, with the possible exception of a 15th-century decree on the Hussites which was probably talking about serfdom (and when I tried to verify my memory of what I’d read earlier about this, I couldn’t).

Sorry for the cuts. I agree with you, this is more relevant to the original question!

Ok, so let me get things straight:

1. the Church taught something before that, today, is not acceptable;
2. teachings that were misinterpreted. (which you consider far more dangerous)

On the first one: I believe this question is in line with current discussion in regards to death penalty - the Bible allows it, the CCC ALLOWS it, and yet current Popes advocate against it.

The development certainly seems to be going in the direction of outright condemnation. But unless and until the right of civil governments to execute people is outright denied, I’m not sure there’s a problem with previous teaching.

At least, not as clear a one as there is in the very specific case of heretics.

Just to add perspective. While it CAN be both moral and needed to kill a man** (to protect another, for example), the teaching of the Church is that, if you can avoid killing and still protect the other, then you SHOULD avoid killing.

That is the teaching now. It was perhaps supported tacitly by the activity of bishops and saints throughout the centuries asking for mercy, including a formula used by medieval Church courts when handing people over for execution (which I think everyone agrees was a formality and no one expected the state to comply–but the fact that it was there is significant anyway).

But the formal teaching of the Church on the death penalty included not only the goal of defending the innocent but also the goal of retribution. And that was generally taken to require the death penalty for certain crimes.

Death penalty made sense when we had no means to lock dangerous people up; so, in order to protect society, they had to be killed. Nowadays, we have means to keep people locked up HUMANLY (see Norwegian prisons), so killing is unadvised.

So, perhaps, there is a valid reason for a Doctor of the Church to preach that killing heretics is reasonable. (not that I believe it ever was a teaching; so far the only sentence I’ve found for heresy is excommunication. I’ll keep you updated on this )

Well, there was a certain sleight of hand–the language was “hand the heretic over to the civil authorities,” who were then fully expected to carry out the death penalty. That was the only reason you would hand them over, since lesser penalties could be imposed by Church courts.

 

[Contarini]

In this, we get to a difference of opinions. “The Church teaching the wrong thing” is a subjective interpretation of what the “wrong thing” is. Just to put on perspective:

• The Church teaches against contraception → while it make sense for our beliefs, society believes we are wrong;

• The Church teaches against same-sex marriage → while it makes sense to our beliefs, society believes we are wrong.

Killing heretics sounds too different when compared to contraception,** but if** (big IF here) that is a Church teaching, then it stands true still, just like the morality of death penalty. As much as current society may deny, for Catholic the Truth doesn’t change and the Church always teach the Truth. So, it was moral then, it should be moral now…

You’re assuming that either
a) whatever society says is right, or
b) the “Church” (i.e., what people in authoritative positions in the Church say in an official way–theologically, I’m arguing, this may not always turn out to be what Catholics call “Church teaching”) is always right

But it might be that the Church does, in fact, come to a fuller understanding, which may involve backing away from earlier statements that seemed authoritative at the time but in hindsight were not part of the deposit of faith. And it might be that social pressures play a role, but are not all-powerful. In other words, that the development of doctrine is a dialogue between the Church and the surrounding society. The authority of the Church isn’t a guarantee that we can always know, at any given moment, that the official stance is correct, but rather a gift from God that enables the Church to stand up against cultural pressures so that eventually a fuller understanding of the truth emerges through the dialectic.

That is what I see happening, historically.

This “unchanging Church that is always right” I don’t see, at all.

Hence, if the latter is the Catholic claim, the Catholic claim is clearly false.

On the second: if people did what they did, because they understood wrong… again, is it a fault of the Church or of the individual?

For example, if instead of “wash hands” the hospital said “do not disseminate diseases” (in a time when they didn’t know HOW to avoid diseases - those silly Middle Ages ). Doctors back then would amputate infected members, or burn suspicious pustules. And some doctors would kill the ill and burn the body! - problem solved…?

The teaching may still hold true - it is good to not disseminate diseases. But the doctors (specially the Inquisition ones) did poorly on the execution of the order - they forgot that, as doctors, there are other (bigger) rules they must follow (such as “do no harm” :doh2. While today we know that washing hands is enough; back then they had to study the policies as a whole - if the Hospital didn’t order them to kill the ill, then they had the obligation of studying both policies (“stop dissemination” and “do no harm”).

Actually that is pretty much exactly my understanding of the point at issue

But again, Leo specifically condemned Luther for saying that heretics shouldn’t be burned.

So clearly in this case, a Pope speaking in a very official voice got things pretty badly wrong, in service of the true principle of defending the faith against heresy.

** people.howstuffworks.com/trolley-problem1.htm - interesting reading on "why it could be moral to kill a man"

The Church rejects consequentialism–the idea that you judge the morality of an act solely by its consequences.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as double effect.

Certainly the “trolley problem” is difficult and we can be grateful that it’s pretty far removed from any likely real-life situation.

But as I understand the Church’s teaching, the morality of flipping the switch to send the trolley down a different path would depend on the act not being understood as the direct killing of the people down the different path.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Finally, (I’ll try to keep it short):

Imagine that, back then (Inquisiton, Crusades and all that jazz), society was not as developed as today. Remember that adultery, homosexuality, theft, witch and wizardry** all carried a death penalty**.

I’m not sure what you think the connection is between these two things. The greater “development of society” in the 12th century actually led to harsher laws on these matters.

In some Christian States, heresies were considered a serious crime.

In all of them, pretty much.

You can reason it however you like:

• different opinions generated dissent and conflict (like today - people die because of football games results!);

• the dissenting opinion resulted in death or ill for the rest of the population - as was the case of witches and wizards, who would bring about “plagues” and “curses”;[1]

• the grievance caused was considered serious - adultery brought a great harm to society (as it affected the cell called Family); or homosexuality, which offended the in-vogue/current God.

Heresy was a crime because it was “treason against Christ,” the ultimate King. It would bring divine wrath down on society.

The first to declare heresy a capital crime was Theodosius, a Christian Roman EMPEROR. It wasn’t the Church who declared it, but the State - the reason being that they considered heresy a crime against the State.

Yes, and as you note later the Church opposed this.

Then, in the 12th century, as you also note correctly, the Church changed its position.

Then, later yet (19th century?), the Church changed its position again.

Then, at Vatican II, the Church further affirmed religious liberty beyond just rejecting the death penalty for heretics, thus contradicting St. Augustine (“compel them to come in”–but by non-lethal means) and not only the late medieval and early modern consensus.

In this site: www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm they put some light on the subject. They say that, under ecclesiastical discipline, nothing much could be done to the heretic in this life - the only option was to excommunicate them. Only under secular forces was heresy truly hunted.

But this is a bit of a dodge. As Exsurge Domine demonstrates, the Church came down on anyone who suggested that heretics shouldn’t be burned. It wasn’t something the state was just doing on its own with the Church standing back innocently. That is not an honest reading of the historical evidence.

I find the CE to be pretty disgusting on this particular issue, frankly. And of course it’s pre-Vatican-II, so the Church’s position on religious liberty has considerably developed since!

My head is spinning, so I’m going to bed. But, just to play the Devil’s Advocate, I’ll raise the question: did the Church CONDEMN the murder of heretics?

The Church condemned someone who said that heretics shouldn’t be executed.

I’m actually going to stop short of using the word “murder.” Heretics were killed for freely chosen actions against the law. I think they ought not to have been killed, and I think it’s abominable that the Church not only condoned but openly advocated for their killing. But I won’t load the issue by saying “murder,” as I would if, for instance, they were killed just for something they were born with (as in Hitler’s murder of the Jews), or killed as children under the age of reason. The Church has never condoned either of those things.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If we truly believe the Church to be infallible, then all that which she did remains moral. It was moral to kill heretics then (given the circumstances), and it would be moral to kill heretics now (if the circumstances ask for it).

As I understand the Catholic position, immoral actions would not be seen as, theologically, the actions of “the Church.”

But if you are refusing that dodge and are using the phrase “the Church did” in its “common” sense (i.e., official leaders of the Church did things in their official capacity, either at the highest levels or at a consistent, widespread level without the Pope or other higher authorities interfering in any way), then the claim is just obviously false, and itself immoral.

“Oh, but that is immoral! The Church is teaching immorality!” - again, no. You may perceive those actions as immoral, but that is YOUR judgement on those actions. Just like what the Church believes of contraception vs. what society thinks of contraception is at odds. Just because you think those (hypothetical) actions are immoral, doesn’t make them immoral in the eyes of the Church and, in fact, are probably supported by Scriptures, Tradition, Magisterium, and the many Doctors of the Church.

Nope. To go down that path is to worship demons. Sorry to be so blunt. But whenever I heard that kind of talk I hear the voice of Antichrist.

Just for comparison - Islam **extremism **believes in “holy wars”, and actively start them. They bomb schools, sell young virgins into prostitution, and decapitate people of other faiths. Are they being immoral?

According to their belief: NO, they are not.

It’s funny how many of the champions of the Church on this thread have suddenly become cultural relativists

Surely what matters is whether they are being immoral by the laws of God?

I, like you, also believe in objective morality.

Ah. That’s reassuring. Although what you mean by this seems a bit twisted to me, frankly.

The fact that my religion teaches infallibly makes me BELIEVE that all who teach differently (such as Islam, Protestants, Buddhist) teach immoralities, to different degrees. If my Church does “evil things” (as is perceived by society), such as discriminating against homosexual acts and other sexual acts, it is because that is the truth of the matter, and society as a whole is wrong on this matter.

In other words, you blindly accept authority and abdicate your own moral reasoning, and you call this “believing in objective morality.”

What on earth became of natural law?

By your way of thinking, I don’t see why anyone would be Catholic in the first place. I have the same reaction to Calvinists who make this argument about the Bible (as interpreted by them, of course). If you abdicate your reason and your moral intuitions, what are you left with with which to determine that the Church is true?

History? But what, historically, can you determine, if your judgments about good and evil and truth and falsehood can’t be trusted?

The position just falls apart. It’s a sort of chaotic nothingness. It is, in itself an evil position and a source of great evil in the world. I am sure that you adopt this view for the best of reasons. But you are endorsing and advocating for evil.

You can’t ask an ideology to judge itself as immoral.

But as Pope Francis has reminded us, Christian faith should not be reduced to an ideology

In fact, Christianity does “judge itself,” and this is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence for the truth of Christianity.

You can try, using Scripture (as it’s the one thing all Christians have in common), to show that the Catholic Church was wrong in having a role in holy wars. However, you’ll see as we defend ourselves, that Scripture DOES give leeway to Holy Wars.

Again, what about reason and natural law?

 

[Contarini]

Why would God allow the author to tell a tale of God allowing murder of women and children?

I think it’s a bit odd that you are willing to dismiss our strongest and most basic moral intuitions because supposedly they aren’t reliable, and then you make a highly speculative appeal to what you think God would or wouldn’t allow.

It’s clear that God allows all sorts of odd things.

One theory I’ve heard from a friend who’s a Biblical scholar is that the authors of the OT, writing long after the events being described, were using these ancient holy wars to call their society to total trust in God, and were in fact condemning the kinds of wars actually being waged in their own day. That doesn’t entirely satisfy me, to be sure.

You use the example of a rapist, saying that “I haven’t done that in a long time”. While I understand the decision to use a rapist (it is easier to understand the disgust for the crime), I do not believe the analogy is proper.

I agree, but for different reasons. Rape is intrinsically evil. Killing heretics is evil because it follows on the mistaken judgments that we can discern a person to be a formal heretic and that formal heresy ought to be punished by civil authorities in accordance with its spiritual gravity. A virtuous person cannot commit rape. A virtuous person may kill heretics, though he is very wrong to do so.

As the Church considers itself the True Deposit of Faith, she also believes she was always justified in her actions. She doesn’t back away from the “crimes” she supposedly committed.

And again, the referent of “the Church” becomes a bit unclear here.

Recent Popes have repeatedly “backed away” from these events, solemnly and publicly.

But apparently you get to speak for the Church, while JPII and Pope Francis don’t:shrug:

Back in the war, to protect the country, the CC soldier killed many, bombed cities, muffled dissent in the ranks, hunted traitors. It was, on her understanding, a needed and moral “evil”. It wasn’t right to kill, but it was far** more MORAL to kill those soldiers, than to let the enemy get to the country and abuse the civilians**. In fact, not only was it moral, but the soldier acted in great love, and was justified by this love. It was a harsh action, but done in love and for a good reason.

Today, as society lives times of relative peace, the soldier doesn’t kill, and many see wars as a bad thing (even if that one war protected their chances of living free today). “I haven’t killed since the last Crusade…”. Says the CC soldier.

She says that killing is bad, and has always been.

She looks at other countries killing for “holy wars” and says - they are doing evil! That is immoral! They should stop!"

“Wait, is that hypocrisy?” - asks another

“Of course not. We fought for the Truth. They fight for Lies.”

That view is sickeningly immoral.

It’s not even coherent. You can’t say simultaneously that killing is bad and that it’s OK when done “for the truth.” That’s rampant consequentialism and relativism, and is (thank God) actually rejected by the Church.

You are led into this position by your zeal, but you are contradicting the Church’s actual teachings.

Because, in the end, for the Church their war was holy"

For what, then, was St. John Paul II expressing repentance on March 12, 2000?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi, however, sorry, I believe you haven’t thought this through.

It’s hard to imagine what people think they are going to accomplish when saying this.

Why not show me to be wrong and let me decide whether I’ve thought it through or not?

Is the church to blame for the beliefs or actions of every single person in the church? Or is the church even to blame for every single word or action of every saint, irregardless of the culture and era the saint lived through?

No. These are all straw men.

I am talking about official words and actions, like Exsurge Domine.

Of course not. Only for those actions which were known to be sinful at the era as revealed by the church. Knowledge grows as time passes, and so does the understanding of the church, while at the same time never changing the magisterium.

We aren’t talking about moral responsibility, but about whether, at any given time, it may be right for Christians to engage in “faithful dissent” without leaving the Church.

Truth does not change. If it’s wrong to burn heretics now, it was wrong in 1520. That means that Luther was right and Pope Leo was wrong on that specific point. (Luther was wrong about plenty of other stuff.)

And they lived in an era when people were hung for stealing bread. But most of all, treason resulted in execution. Heresy was considered a form of treason

Worse than treason–treason against Christ.

and all governments of the era followed the practice.

I’m not sure that’s true, actually. Executions for heresy were not extremely common, and when Church courts handled the matter they tried very hard to avoid handing the person over for execution.

But any government that did not prosecute, and when necessary execute, impenitent heretics was not considered to be a good Catholic government.

The Church took a more active role from the 12th century on for two reasons:

1. Some governments were not acting to suppress heresy, and
2. Others were going to far and acting with injustice and excessive brutality.

Anti-Catholics tend to emphasize the first motive, and Catholic apologists the second. But the evidence points to both being a factor. If anything, it seems to me that the first motive was the primary one. But both were certainly part of the picture.

Um, no. No and no and no. If they were really interested in the church and church history, they would be truthful enough with themselves to hunt also for the good things the church had done, the amazing cornucopia of good the church has showered the world with throughout its history.

I argue there has never been - ever, or ever will be - any other religion that rivals Catholicism as a force for good throughout the world. I fear there has to be something preventing those who don’t see the blinding truth .

Well, I think that position is very much the result of your bias.

Of course, I can’t prove to you that I’m not biased against Catholicism myself.

But for years now I have desperately longed to believe what you are saying.

One of the things that keeps getting in my way in my desire to become Catholic is the historical evidence for the atrocities committed in the name of the Church. This is a serious issue and when Catholics try to brush it aside they just lose credibility.

Don’t mean to be harsh here, but of all the atheists I know (many in my own family), of all the pagans and fad yoga lady Buddhists (yet more in my family) not a single one has rejected Christ for any reason save one: sin. They love their sins more than they love God.

I don’t know how you think you know this. I am quite sure that you can’t know it. And I fear that you are sinning yourself in making such a judgment of people whose hearts you can’t read.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It could also be said that, in choosing sinful vessels to pass His messages, God shows that “no matter how rotten you may think you are, still there can be good in you”.

Agreed. But it’s quite clear to me that God has chosen heretics too sometimes, and many Catholics on this forum have a lot of trouble with that. In fact, suddenly moral flaws become very relevant when talking about people “outside.” Very few here are willing to accept the possibility that God had something important to say to the world through Luther, for instance

Saying that only perfect people would make acceptable teachers, is to rely in the “tu quoque” or “appeal to hypocrisy” fallacy.

First of all, that’s not what I said.

Secondly, no that’s not tu quoque. When someone makes a logical argument, you don’t dismiss it by pointing out their flaws.

It is possible to argue that since sin disrupts our ability to know the truth, only a righteous person can have reliable knowledge about anything. That isn’t a logical fallacy. However, it doesn’t appear to be true as a matter of practical experience, which is one reason why Aquinas rejected the Augustinian “divine illumination theory of knowledge.”

But when speaking of divine revelation, we aren’t just talking about any kind of knowledge. We are talking about a claim to hear from God. It is quite reasonable to suppose that holy people are more likely to hear reliably from God than sinful people.

Edwin

 

[NovusFidem]

I’m not quite sure what you mean or if you are suggesting that I’m engaging in such an “unseemly” practice.

Not you, people. They expect us to define infallibility when engaging us on infallibility discussion.

If you want to know the difference between infallible x impeccable, sure, ask away. But to point out moments of when a Pope wasn’t impeccable saying he wasn’t infallible, (and then get angry that people point out the difference), as usually happen with pretty much anyone is just… derp.

One can ask how infallibility can work without impeccability, as long as that is the core of the discussion. Else, it is just not the time to clear the definition.

Or more likely the other way round: condemned something and then came to accept it, as with Exsurge Domine 33 or the condemned propositions of Quesnel on lay reading of Scripture.

Most (if not all) cases where the Church “went back” on a teaching relates to the “change on teachings” on slavery - people believe the teaching changed, because they misunderstood the teaching completely. The ban of Bibles for the lay is a good example of this: you are misunderstanding both the decree (not a teaching) and the reason - the Church didn’t prohibit it because she thought it was wrong for the lay to read Scripture; she didn’t allow those Bibles because the translation was not reliable. So, basically, she was protecting the lay people.

As to the Death penalty. My intention was to show that the Church doesn’t “back away” from infallible teachings; the teachings usually hold true forever, such as is with death penalty.

Well, there was a certain sleight of hand–the language was “hand the heretic over to the civil authorities,” who were then fully expected to carry out the death penalty.

Remember that the Church condemned PUBLIC heresies. You could be an heretic in your head, no one would know. But if you started speaking aloud your ideas, ANYONE could hear you.

Usually, you ended up being questioned by the Inquisition because someone accused you of crimes. In a time where “vigilantism” was norm, and civilians would burn anyone accused of being a witch; having the Church decide on the case was suddenly a very good idea.

The Church declaring you heretic was just confirmation to your own public declarations. She had, then, nothing to do with your death - you were basically asking for it.

You’re assuming that either
a) whatever society says is right, or
b) the “Church” (i.e., what people in authoritative positions in the Church say in an official way–theologically, I’m arguing, this may not always turn out to be what Catholics call “Church teaching”) is always right

Yes. I assume B, but only towards teachings.

By OBJECTIVE morality, I meant to say that there can only be one truth in regard of morals.

To quote RationalWIki:

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person’s subjective opinion, but factually true.

Or, as atheist Colin McGinn states:

If I say ‘this is good’, and another person, referring to the same situation, says ‘this is not good’, one or other of us must be mistaken… The validity of a moral judgment does not depend upon the person by whom the judgment is made…

While Philosophy does try to justify Moral Objectivity without relying on God it has, so far, not made much progress.

In order for it to be Objective, there MUST be an anchor from which morality comes or refers to. Although many have tried, the only acceptable explanation relies on religious belief pertaining to “god”. (a god, God, an entity, etc).

Which brings me to:

In other words, you blindly accept authority and abdicate your own moral reasoning, and you call this “believing in objective morality.”

What on earth became of natural law?

If there is ONLY ONE TRUTH, then** I can accept it “blindly”**. If God decided to make the Catholic Church infallible in regards to MORAL and faith, and DEPOSITED on it the ENTIRETY of Truth, WHY on heavens should I doubt its authority??

Reductio ad absurdum:

“The Church declares something on moral grounds. God gave us objective Morality. God made the Church infallible in matters of Moral. ERGO, the Church’s declaration was morally accurate.”

If every Law originates from God, I would suppose “so does our Nature”. If morality derives from our Nature (which I believe it DOES - see St. Thomas Aquinas works on it), then it derives from God - God gave us this Nature, which moves us towards good.

According to St. Thomas, the natural law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law” (I-II.94). The eternal law is God’s wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. [1]

And also:

The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.

 

[NovusFidem]

Now, why do I defer to the authority of the Church… for starters, let me make it clear that I do not trust **BLINDLY **the teachings of the Church. Specially the ones I disagree with, I usually study to UNDERSTAND the position of the Church.

(Which is why I had a link to prove how homicide could be moral - I had to understand why the Church allowed death penalty when the Bible says clearly “thou shall not kill”.)

I try to discern as much as possible, compare Church teachings and interpretations with Scripture and my own interpretations, to reach both true UNDERSTANDING and peace with Church teachings.

Now, I also defer to Church teaching because the Church actually studies the issues before declaring binding teachings. She, guided by the Holy Spirit, recognizes how something (say, contraception, pornography, drug use) relates to: 1) What the Bible says; and 2) Our moral lives.

As I said, I usually do my own research to put against Church teachings but, so far, She has been proven to be smarter, RIGHTer, than me. Whereas I once defended positions in opposition to the Church, as I sat down to study Her position, I saw that She was right.

Tl;dr: As a Catholic, I DO believe in infallibility, mostly because - as I’ve found out - the Church has always been right on matters of faith and morals.

In fact, Christianity does “judge itself,” and this is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence for the truth of Christianity.

No, it doesn’t. Christianity calls us to judge ourselves, but never to doubt the Scriptures. We may judge (as in, DISCERN - study) the teachings, to bring about a true understanding (meaning= not trust blindly). This doesn’t mean, however, that Scriptures may be wrong.

It’s clear that God allows all sorts of odd things.

God allowing bad things to happen does not equal with God TELLING people to do bad things. Which only serves to proof that: 1) either God is not all-good; or 2) Holy Wars are a good thing.

(just to define: Holy Wars = wars that God wants us to fight)

It’s not even coherent. You can’t say simultaneously that killing is bad and that it’s OK when done “for the truth.” That’s rampant consequentialism and relativism, and is (thank God) actually rejected by the Church.

You missed the point completely; I am sorry, but did you understand what the Trolley Problem was about? Because it served to clear the position of the Church perfectly:** that actions by themselves are NEITHER good NOR bad.**

In a nutshell: Actions are neutral. Different circumstances and intentions give morality to an action. Killing is neutral. Killing in self defense is good, but Killing for revenge is bad.

Killing soldiers is good, if doing that in a sanctioned war is NEEDED in order to protect civillians. Policemen may morally kill to defend victims.

You are led into this position by your zeal, but you are contradicting the Church’s actual teachings.

Am I now?

According to the CCC:

CCC 2265 - Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a GRAVE DUTY for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

So, no. I actually check on Catholic sources before saying anything here. At most my **justifications **for the teachings could be wrong, but I try really hard not to pass on wrong teachings.

For what, then, was St. John Paul II expressing repentance on March 12, 2000?

The excesses? When members in power of the Church made use of a good teaching to do bad things? He asked for forgiveness for ACTIONS committed.

As you pointed out, the Church can’t ACT much. It TEACHES only. Infallibly so.

Agreed. But it’s quite clear to me that God has chosen heretics too sometimes, and many Catholics on this forum have a lot of trouble with that. In fact, suddenly moral flaws become very relevant when talking about people “outside.” Very few here are willing to accept the possibility that God had something important to say to the world through Luther, for instance

Good point. God did want to say something through Luther, which I believe I already spoke about somewhere in these forums. Luther had to say: “Friends, you are sinning! You are using clerical power to Sin and lead others into sin.”

However, instead of simply pointing those out and helping clear the Church from those merchants (like Jesus did to the merchants in the Temple), Luther decided to preach against the TEACHING of indulgence. He went against the Church, and not the hypocrites, or usurpers. This was the heresy.

God does, indeed, use heretics for good things. But those things certainly are NOT the heresies they preach.

Nope. To go down that path is to worship demons. Sorry to be so blunt. But whenever I heard that kind of talk I hear the voice of Antichrist.

Please explain how speaking of the evils of contraception is demon worship.

Reference:
[1]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

 

[Thorolfr]

According to the CCC:

CCC 2265 - Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a GRAVE DUTY for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

So is killing children or other innocent people ever legitimate to protect the common good? Could a child ever be considered an “unjust aggressor”? I’m just thinking of the stories from the Book of Joshua where the Israelites supposedly annihilated all the Canaanites including women and children in all the towns that they conquered. In his Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), John Collins who is Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale Divinity School discusses this issue in a section called, “The Moral Problem of the Conquest”, pp. 200-203:

The story of Jericho has been somewhat of an embarrassment for conservative biblicists because of the negative findings of archaeological research. A more fundamental problem is posed, however, by the morality exemplified in the story…When the Israelites enter the city, we are told that “they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep and donkeys” (6:21). This dedication and destruction is known as herem, or the ban. The custom was known outside Israel. King Mesha of Moab, in the ninth century BCE, boasted that he took Nebo from Israel, “slaying all, seven thousand men, boys, women girls and maid-servants, for I had devoted them to destruction for (the god) Ashtar-Chemosh. The story of the capture of Jericho is almost certainly ficticious, but this does not lessen the savagery of the story. We are not dealing in Joshua with a factual report of the ways of ancient warfare. Rather, the slaughter of the Canaanites, here and elsewhere, is presented as a theologically correct ideal.”

The savagery of the destruction here is bound up with its sacral character: the victims are dedicated to the Lord…The herem was essentially a religious act, like sacrifice. It not only condoned indiscriminate slaughter; it sanctified it and gave it legitimation.

Collins concludes, however:

History is always ambiguous. But the ambiguities of history should not blind us to the fact that the unprovoked conquest of one people by another is an act of injustice and that injustice is often cloaked with legitimacy by claims of divine authorization. At the very least, we should be wary of any attempt to invoke the story of the conquest of Canaan as legitimation for anything in the modern world.

 

[Duane1966]

Agreed. But it’s quite clear to me that God has chosen heretics too sometimes, and many Catholics on this forum have a lot of trouble with that. In fact, suddenly moral flaws become very relevant when talking about people “outside.” Very few here are willing to accept the possibility that God had something important to say to the world through Luther, for instance

Could it also be that what God intended, was something like 20 theses? And that, perhaps, just perhaps, the other 75 were born of Luther’s pride?

Here is a problem I have with this point of discussion. Is the problem the killing of heretics, or the problem the way they were killed? You must say it is the killing of heretics, because any way of killing them could be viewed as cruel.

To add to that problem, most of the reformers had no problem with the mode of burning. Surely if it is against the will for the burning of heretics, it would be against the will for the burning of witches.

What occurred to me while writing this was how much Leo X saw into the future. To condemn the burning would be condemning the death penalty. If that had happened, how do you think the European rulers would have reacted?

 

[NovusFidem]

The Church rejects consequentialism–the idea that you judge the morality of an act solely by its consequences.

Again, you misunderstand the idea of The Trolley Problem. The idea is to propose a reasoning, a LOGIC by which we can define moral and immoral actions. You can apply it to just about any action.

Also, the example doesn’t suggest “consenquentialism”; Thomas Aquinas said that morals came not only from the consequences of an action, but also by the action used and the reason. Saving 5 > 1 is good, but not if those 5’s lives are saved as a result of a bad consequence (the 1’s life). It is a good action to push a button to save 5 lives, even if one dies as consequence - the first problem, - but not to push someone into the tracks to save the same 5 lives. The consequence in both is the same (5 live, 1 dies), so OF COURSE he was not judging the action by the CONSEQUENCE ALONE.

Certainly the “trolley problem” is difficult and we can be grateful that it’s pretty far removed from any likely real-life situation.

The exercise uses a Problem (Trolley Problem) in order to PROVE a Principle (Principle of the Double Effect).

It merely proposes a REASONING that can be used to judge just about any moral issue.

For example: Is it moral to abort a baby?

Comparing to the Trolley Problem:

1st situation (defended by the CHURCH!!):[2]
A pregnant woman has a terrible disease that may kill her unless treated. It is caused by the pregnancy. In order to save her life, she takes medication for the disease. The medication, as a side effect, kills the baby. The woman lives.

2nd situation (NOT defended by the Church):
A pregnant woman has a terrible disease that may kill her unless treated. It is caused by the pregnancy. In order to save her life, she takes medication TO KILL the baby. The medication kills the baby as expected. The woman lives.

Applying the Principle of Double Effect:

On the first, just like with the Trolley Problem where you pull a lever, the desired Outcome (heal the woman = save 5 lives) comes from the action (taking medication to heal disease = pulling the lever). There is, however, a consequence (baby dies = man on track dies), caused indirectly by the action (taking the medicine = pulling the lever). As the good outcome (woman lives) is produced by the action taken (medicine), and NOT by the bad consequence (baby dies), the action was morally acceptable.

On the second, just like with the Trolley Problem where you PUSH the MAN on the tracks, the desired Outcome (heal the woman = save 5 lives) comes FROM the BAD consequence (baby dies = pushing the man on the tracks) directly caused by the action (taking abortive medication), which makes the action (taking the abortive medication) morally unacceptable.

(NOTE: Since taking abortive medication/abortive methods will always cause the death of the baby, it will never be morally acceptable, even to save the mother’s life - the abortive medication doesn’t save the mother; KILLING the baby is what saves the mother. By this logic, we can safely say that abortion is intrinsically evil, since the action (aborting) is to guarantee the bad consequence (baby dies).)

The logic can be applied to any other moral issue: you weigh an action, the intentions, the consequences, and see if it is morally acceptable or not.

[2] A case using the principle of double effect - catholic.com/quickquestions/can-a-pregnant-woman-undergo-chemotherapy-if-it-will-harm-her-child

 

[Duane1966]

Or more likely the other way round: condemned something and then came to accept it, as with Exsurge Domine 33 or the condemned propositions of Quesnel on lay reading of scripture.

The condemnation was NOT on the lay reading of scripture.

 

[NovusFidem]

So is killing children or other innocent people ever legitimate to protect the common good? Could a child ever be considered an “unjust aggressor”? I’m just thinking of the stories from the Book of Joshua where the Israelites supposedly annihilated all the Canaanites including women and children in all the towns that they conquered.

As happens with Holy Wars, if God commanded those actions, they were JUSTIFIED, period. May I remind the readers that God once commanded a father to kill his own son as sacrifice.

It is not for us to judge God’s actions. God gives lives and takes lives however He likes - His actions are not closed towards the morals that direct OUR actions.

Also, I call to attention the following passages from the same Book of Joshua. Right after the passage you used:

“But the sons of Israel acted unfaithfully in regard to the things under the ban, for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, took some of the things under the ban, therefore the anger of the LORD burned against the sons of Israel.” - Joshua 7:1

Basically, God directed them towards a war (that was Holy because He commanded it), but the people acted unfaithfully and did things God did not allow.

 

[Thorolfr]

As happens with Holy Wars, if God commanded those actions, they were JUSTIFIED, period. May I remind the readers that God once commanded a father to kill his own son as sacrifice.

It is not for us to judge God’s actions. God gives lives and takes lives however He likes - His actions are not closed towards the morals that direct OUR actions.

Also, I call to attention the following passages from the same Book of Joshua. Right after the passage you used:

Basically, God directed them towards a war (that was Holy because He commanded it), but the people acted unfaithfully and did things God did not allow.

But the conquest of Canaan as described in the Book of Joshua, according to archaeologists and much of modern scholarly consensus, almost certainly never took place. Excavations at Jericho, for example, have revealed that it was unoccupied during the 13th century BC and the century before that it was unwalled. According to the archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silbeman in their book *The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Scripture *(New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), pp. 81-82:

In the case of Jericho, there is no trace of a settlement of any kind in the thirteenth century BCE, and the earlier Late Bronze settlement, dating to the fourteenth century BCE, was small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified. There was also no sign of destruction. Thus the famous scene of the Israelite forces marching around the walled town with the Ark of the Covenant, causing Jericho’s mighty walls to collapse by the blowing of their war trumpets was, to put it simply, a romantic mirage.

The scholarly consensus is that the Book of Joshua was written during the time of King Josiah of Judah in the 7th century BC and is basically fictional. But, of course (and this is the problem), later Holy Wars have almost certainly been justified on the basis of this fictional account in Joshua and it has supported the mistaken belief that God would condone such indiscriminate slaughter in some cases.

 

[NovusFidem]

The scholarly consensus is that the Book of Joshua was written during the time of King Josiah of Judah in the 7th century BC and is **basically fictional. **

But, of course (and this is the problem), later Holy Wars have almost certainly been justified on the basis of this fictional account in Joshua and it has supported the mistaken belief that God would condone such indiscriminate slaughter in some cases.

Firstly, I do not know the position of the Church on this story in particular. However, just as happens with the story of the Flood, or the guy who was swallowed by a whale, general consensus is that, although it does have verifiable facts, the Bible is not a historical book. Instead, its purpose is to pass on a message.

Whether those stories are literal or not has no bearing on whether the lesson they impart is true.

Jesus used parables, while He could have used real stories to pass His message. The morality of a teaching comes not from the actions taken or its consequences, but from God. If Scripture is the Word of God… there you have it.

(in simpler words: had God simply sent a **note **saying “Hey, you can do wars in my name!” would have been enough to justify Holy Wars. The story on the Book of Joshua at least serves to show that not all actions were sanctioned by God, and that there’s a difference in doing a Holy War and doing wars for the spoils alone)