Moral Relevance

[Harp]

How should I respond to friends and family members (cafeteria Catholics) who justify not following all the laws of the Catholic Church? Their justification is based on the premise that the Church has made mistakes in the past (Crusades/Copernicus/Galileo) as well as changed certain teachings (fasting requirements/Holy Days obligations moved to Sundays), therefore the Church may eventually change some of the laws they don’t currently follow and believe in, such as contraception, missing Sunday Mass being a mortal sin, etc.

 

[BayCityRickL]

Read the book “Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic”.

Don’t recall the author.

This book has quite an overview of “errors” in the Catholic Church. The author presents his own analysis that, whatever else has happened, the Popes have never preached heresy.

Some of the issues you refer to are “disciplines” which are subject to revision. The revision of “disciplines” are no more scandalous in the Catholic Church, than the revision of disciplines elsewhere in Christianity.

The Southern Baptist Church was racist for many years, and it was segregated. A few years ago, they formally repudiated and repented of that sinful practice.

Also, in the last 10-15 years, some evangelical churches rescinded their disciplines against smoking, dancing, drinking alcohol, and gambling, as those disciplines, in the first instance, because there was inadequate biblical justification for them. But, the point here, is that they changed.

Also, recall the recent presidential campaigns. One of the Republican candidates went to Bob Jones University, which had rules against inter-racial dating. The visit focused attention on these arguably racist policies, which were hastily revised under the light of public attention.

There are times when certain disciplines make sense, and there are circumstances in which they do not.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Harp:

How should I respond to friends and family members (cafeteria Catholics) who justify not following all the laws of the Catholic Church? Their justification is based on the premise that the Church has made mistakes in the past (Crusades/Copernicus/Galileo) as well as changed certain teachings (fasting requirements/Holy Days obligations moved to Sundays),

These are not teachings of the Church. These are disciplines.

Here’s the difference. A teaching is something you must believe in to be Catholic. A discipline is how we put those teachings into action.

What was the problem with Copernicus? I don’t recall him being censured by the Church.

As for Galileo, the Church does not claim infallibilty regarding matters of science, only matters of faith and/or morals. Sounds like the teachings your friends dissent from deal with faith and morals.

therefore the Church may eventually change some of the laws they don’t currently follow and believe in, such as contraception, missing Sunday Mass being a mortal sin, etc.

I would ask my friends if they are willing to gamble their immortal souls on that.

 

[Liberian]

Harp:

How should I respond to friends and family members (cafeteria Catholics) who justify not following all the laws of the Catholic Church? Their justification is based on the premise that the Church has made mistakes in the past (Crusades/Copernicus/Galileo) as well as changed certain teachings (fasting requirements/Holy Days obligations moved to Sundays), therefore the Church may eventually change some of the laws they don’t currently follow and believe in, such as contraception, missing Sunday Mass being a mortal sin, etc.

Harp,

Another responder has pointed out that what has changed is discipline, rather than doctrine; on the other hand, what you say your friends and family members are objecting to are doctrines. I would point out the difference, although I would not expect much effect; most of the time this is just an excuse.

If your friends and family members are also pointing to some church disciplines that they do not want to follow, then the question becomes one of obedience. Talk is cheap; if you are going to say you are Catholic, you should follow the disciplines of the Catholic Church. If the Church does relax some other discipline (like removing a few more holy days of obligation, for example) then after that happens we can start following the more relaxed discipline.

If some state were to decriminalize the use of marijuana effective July 1, and you were arrested for possession of marijuana at 11:00 PM on June 30, you would still be charged with a crime.

• Liberian

 

[jegow]

Harp:

Their justification is based on the premise that the Church has made mistakes in the past (Crusades/Copernicus/Galileo) as well as changed certain teachings (fasting requirements/Holy Days obligations moved to Sundays/QUOTE]

1. With the Crusades people need to know the real history of them. Many times people have been misinformed as to how things went wrong, blaming it on the Church instead of Her members. Because things did go wrong but it was not really ‘the Church’ but the people that were fighting the Crusades that did things they were not sent there to do. Warren Carroll’s history series gives a good summary of what actually went on and went wrong in the Crusades and how it came about.
2. The Church had good reasons for changing or modifying the fasting requirements and such. I would encourage them to read up on it. Holy Days to Sunday for instance was done because many people were not fulfilling the Holy Days of obligation because at the time there were so many of them. Since it is a sin not to go an a Holy Day of Obligation (hence the word obligation) and many people were not attending they moved some of them to Sunday to lessen the frequency of people falling into sin by not going to Mass on them - assuming that they would be able to go on Sunday.
3. So it is a bad argument for them to compare these things to the possible change of the use of contraception and so on. Things have been wrong in our history but is came from men and not the Church. Changes have been made but they need to understand that these changes could be made and were for the better. The Church knows that making a change about contraception would not be one of those changes for the better because of its sinfulness.

 

[marty1818]

In response to mention of Galileo, people don’t understand exactly what went on. A lot of people believed Galileo was killed by the Church, but he was not. This is just one of the incorrect beliefs held by most people on this topic. Take a look at the following tract.
catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

God Bless,
Matthew

 

[marty1818]

Kay Cee:

What was the problem with Copernicus? I don’t recall him being censured by the Church.

I thought Copernicus’ book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium was once condemned by the Church. Can anyone else confirm this?

matthew

 

[Black_Jaque]

Marty,

Here’s an example I use to explain why some things in the Church can change, while others are unchangeable.

For example, in the house, the parents have the perogative of setting the bedtime. If they say it is 8:00, then the children are bound by the pain of sin to go to bed at 8:00. There is nothing in natural law that says children must go to bed at 8:00. Therefore if the parents so choose they can switch the time to 8:30 or whenever. The parents may even lift the bedtime entirely. As long as the child obeys his parents, the child does not sin. But if the child willingly disobeys, the child sins.

This is different say, from sassing back to a parent. This would always be a sin. Even if the parent did nothing about it, the sassing back would still be a sin. In this case the parent would also be guilty of remiss in their duties.

The respect owed to a parent is grounded in natural law, no man has the authority to change natural law. Therefore sassing back is objectively disrespectful. And so is disobedience. But in order to disobey, you must be given an instruction first. Those instructions are the perogative of earthly authorities.

So, the Church has the authority to tell Christians how to observe the Sabbath. Though the Sabbath was “changed” by God on his resurection. The Spanish speaking world remedied the whole stupid muddle over the Sabbath-day malarky. They start the week with Monday and Sunday is, you guessed it, the seventh day.
As for Galileo, you have to read up on that history. What your relatives are reciting is possibly some distortion of the truth. My understanding is that Galileo wasn’t punished for asserting that the earth revolved around the Sun, but he was punished because he began to make theological assertions based on his scientific evidence.

Here’s an example of the difference between a scientific assertion and a scientific assertion made theological. It is plane scientific assertion to say, “The earth revolves around the sun”. It can be made theological to say, “The earth revolves around the sun, therefore we aren’t at the center of the universe, therefore God doesn’t really give a hoot about us.” I don’t know if this is exactly what Galileo was saying, but this is a general example of how one could cross a line as Galileo did.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Harp:

How should I respond to friends and family members (cafeteria Catholics) who justify not following all the laws of the Catholic Church? … the Church may eventually change some of the laws they don’t currently follow and believe in, such as contraception, missing Sunday Mass being a mortal sin, etc.

I suggest comparing the Church laws to traffic laws. At one time the speed limit was 55 mph, but that law changed. Nevertheless, some people caught driving at 65 mph on the freeway during that time were fined for speeding. If we drive our cars based on their idea that we don’t have to follow rules that might change, some might drive 35 mph on the freeway, while others go 120 mph, both creating hazards. Ask them to test their theory that they don’t have to follow the rules on an earthly judge in traffic court.

God placed us at this time in history, and He gives us the Church to set the rules for us. While the moral law of God will never change, the disciplines of the Church can. We are obliged to follow the rules until such time as they change, and some will never change.

 

[StratusRose]

Ask your friends and family if they should be held accountable for the slaves in America, or be made to pay reparations to living African Americans. The point I am trying to make is, yes, people of certain institutions make mistakes but why should we have to keep dealing with the mistakes hundreds of years later? Remind them that JPII apologized for many of the errors the Church made so we could make things right with certain groups of people. Ask them if they believe in forgive and forget. In the times of the crusades, Copernicus, and Galileo things were a lot different. Scientific discoveries were being made and the people of the Church did not know how to deal with them at the time. Also, the fast requirement is not doctrine. Doctrine never changes, but certain practices can. Doctrines like contraception and no women priests have been the same through out our history. It sounds to me that your friends/family are using cop outs to excuse their behavior. (You might want to tell them something about humility too. )

 

[cardenio]

People will always be stupid.

The Holy Spirit guides the DOCTRINE so there is no error in any official church DOCTRINE.

Popes will be stupid. Cardinals will be stupid. Bishops will be stupid. Priests will be stupid. Apologists will be stupid. If you are human, then at some point in your life, you will be stupid.

Compare the “adding” (defining) of doctrine to puberty. “we are many parts… we are all one body…” The church is growing and changing like a person grows and changes. My body does not have the same shape and proportions it had when I was six. But I’m still a human. I haven’t grown wings. I haven’t grown a tail. I’ve grown in other ways, human ways. The church grows and changes but is still right.