When Catholics file for an annulment, the tribunal requires that they get a civil divorce, without even investigating anything.
Without a list of what is and what is not infallible, it is difficult to answer the question posed.
Slavery was never pursuant to any good, although someone will parse something out of it I’m sure.Ender:
Is slavery ok? What about lending money at interest?
The Church participated in the first, and it is even found throughout the Bible. The second was condemned for centuries, before ceasing to be so.
What about praying for the conversion of the Jews? That’s even been taken out of liturgy, and has also been condemned, but the Church preached that was a good thing to do for centuries (probably longer).
I’m not sure how the death penalty is any different from those three things, but the crack theologians here at CAF will fix that.
I think @StephenW made a very perceptive response in post 129 to this sort of question. When was slavery ever pronounced as a doctrine? Where is the historical support of slavery from the Fathers and Doctors?
The pedigree for capital punishment is nothing like that of the other items: it is found in Scripture, it was acknowledged by virtually all of the Fathers, by all of the Doctors, by popes, Magisteria, and councils for 2000 years. Doctrinally opposing slavery is quite literally nothing like opposing capital punishment.
Yes, and that was not really what I asked. An annulment is a statement that there was never a valid marriage in the first place. Can the church change the doctrine prohibiting remarriage after a divorce from a valid marriage?
This was taught in Catholic colleges in the past. Today however, it is different. I get an alumni magazine/journal from a Roman Catholic college. It publishes about 4 times a year. One of the sections has to do with congratulating alumni who have just married. It has several full color pictures. In the past the Roman Catholic magazine would only congratulate those alumni who entered into MF marriages. However, for the last several years, the Roman Catholics have been congratulating alumni who enter into SS marriages. Some are FF others are MM. The photos are there.
You are throwing in the word “valid” here which is not a well defined term.
Do you really want to use that one? It easily proves the opposing case.
Perfect. I think this will work without addressing the other issues. This is not just what was taught in the past, and while I accept that (some) “Catholic” colleges may not teach this now, this is still the doctrine of the church.Ender:
This was taught in Catholic colleges in the past. Today however, it is different.
Then we’ll drop it and focus solely on homosexual behavior.
I just threw out some issues. As for this one, I really don’t know if it is doctrine or practice, like eating fish on Friday, but even that would make the point that in fact some changes are legitimate, and that just because X changed is no necessary indication that Y may be reversed as well.
The question is a moral one, not really something you will hammer out in specific doctrine.goout:
I just threw out some issues. As for this one, I really don’t know if it is doctrine or practice, like eating fish on Friday, but even that would make the point that in fact some changes are legitimate, and that just because X changed is no necessary indication that Y may be reversed as well.
I am happy for you to shed light on this, and it would help if you would explain “defined doctrine.”
I presume that such a thing has never happened. My position is that if we accept that capital punishment is now “inadmissible” (for other than prudential reasons) then this would be an example of such an error.
I am not clear on what question is being posed here. Divorce in the Orthodox and Oriental Churches? Civil divorce before annulment process? The meaning of an annulment? I probably missed some other post here, so if it is not too much trouble, could you formulate for me the question you are trying to address here?
I have never argued that capital punishment is universally appropriate; I have always accepted that there can be valid reasons to oppose it in particular cases. Here is what I have said:
If you believe there is a principle of the ‘common good’ which is the end of human justice. If you believe in the collective social conscience, that being the capacity of ‘the people’ to recognize by moral reasoning what is good for society and what is harmful. Why not just accept that this process is a valid case for abolition of the death penalty? Why not just have your private dissent and not try and argue that there is a Catholic case against abolition?Motherwit:
You should know that I do inasmuch as I have said this any number of times.
That is obviously not true since the death penalty for intentional murder has been abolished in all Judeo Christian countries and the Church has never called that a failure of justice. We aren’t talking just about the recent Popes either. These are the Popes of the late 19th and early 20th century. None have ever addressed abolition.
“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Lk 16:18).
Profit? You aren’t a socialist, are you
No one in the Church has the authority to decide that homosexual behavior is now moral. Yes, Scripture would disallowed a repudiation of this teaching. It is not only Scripture that condemns this behavior. Note what the Catechism also says, “…tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law…” The “natural law”, in this case, has to do with how God has created man and woman. As such, accepting homosexual behavior would also contradiction other teachings of the Church (i.e. Scripture/Tradition). Thus, the Catechism says, “Under no circumstances can they be approved.” In other words, the Church cannot approve it; it is not within the Church’s power to do this.
I can see why you want to drop it because is it not true that the Catholic Church has changed its position on marriage after divorce by redefining the words “valid” or “invalid”. The words are the same, but the definitions of the words have changed. This is why in 1929, there were about 10 marriage annulments in the USA, whereas in recent years it has gone into the tens of thousands. If that is not enough proof that the term “invalid” is ambiguous, take a look at the Kennedy - Rauch case. The US tribunal said the marriage was invalid, but the Roman Rota overturned the decision. So the US tribunals and the Vatican Rota do not agree on what is valid and what is invalid. If the US Catholic tribunal and the Vatican Roman Rota cannot agree on what is meant by the ambiguous term “valid”, how can anyone else know? So although one can claim that the teaching on remarriage after divorce has not changed, it is not really true, because the definitions of the words used to define the teaching have changed. And even then there is disagreement on what these words really mean. Teaching with ambiguous terms allows for changes, at least in an operational sense of the term, even though theoretically people can argue that it is not so.
Yes, the teaching on remarriage after divorce is reversible in an operational sense because the terms “valid” and “invalid” have been redefined to align with modern secular concepts.
It’s all over the Bible. God gives several commands about treating slaves properly.