Need Clarification and Assistance in Discussion

[CutlerB]

OK, here’s the case:

I’m currently involved in a Facebook discussion on the Church’s stance on homosexual behaviour. It has now developed into a question of her infallibility.

I need clarification on the following points:

1. 
   *]Can anything except Dogma change? That is, doctrine. Discipline can change, but can something that has not been clearly stated as dogma by virtue of the charism of Infallibility?
   *]Is Natural Law tautological? (I hope this is not Pandora’s box)
   *]Is Natural Law the foundation of all Catholic moral teaching? I argued no, since if Natural Law weren’t existent, we would still have the Bible and Tradition.
   *]Could the Church bless homosexual unions? I argued no too, because that would be blessing sin.
   
   Something else I’d like comments on:
   
   Someone accused me of having a rather “static interpretation” of Church teaching, when I said “The Church will never say ‘Well, homosexual behaviour isn’t sin after all. And marriage… well, that could be different too.’” This is where someone claimed that anything that isn’t dogma can change. They said: “The Church’s sexual morality was certainly always, and will always be, changeable.”
   
   It appears to me those people there want to “reform” (I can no longer stand the word) Church teaching on these matters. I am not in favour of such a thing, and, in fact, consider it impossible. Yet that’s when I get accused of wishing for an “unshakable, irreformable” teaching, which indeed I do like the idea of, but that’s what they do not believe the Catholic Church has! Is that correct?

 

[ahs]

1. The Church’s teaching on morality cannot change, because it is based on God’s unchangable Natural Moral Law.
2. I had to look up “tautological” and I still dont’ understand what is beign asked. I would answer it as a queation: “Is the Law of Gravity tautological?”
3. I believe the answer is “yes”. But I will defer to the better educated on this one. It’s my understanding that the Natural Moral Law…the natural order set by God, is what has determined “morality”. Sexual morality refers to the proper use of the sexual faculty according to its natural design. My understanding is that the Bible and Tradition simply relfect, and seek to exlain, this Natural Moral Law. But again…I only a superficial understanding on this one, I feel.
4. No, the Churhc cannot endorse sin.

Being accused of being “static”, I would refer to God being unchanging. For example, God commanded that we not commit adultry. When Christ came, did He say, “well, that’s different now…you can from now on remarry, etc…”? No. In fact, Christ “upped the ante”, so to speak, to say that even if we just look lustfully in our hearts at another, we are STILL guilty…even if we didn’t commit a physical sin. (Mt 5:27-28, 19:6) Sin is sin, regardless of how many people want to engage in it or support it.

 

[ahs]

Read through the CCC in sections 1954-1960 (Natural Morla Law) and 2331-2336 (Male and Female He Created Them".

 

[CutlerB]

1. I had to look up “tautological” and I still dont’ understand what is beign asked. I would answer it as a queation: “Is the Law of Gravity tautological?”

I just realised that the word is probably wrong. I thought it meant “arguing in a circle”, but it appears not to. An example of tautology would be “heterosexual marriage”.

1. No, the Church cannot endorse sin.

My thinking exactly.

Being accused of being “static”, I would refer to God being unchanging. For example, God commanded that we not commit adultry. When Christ came, did He say, “well, that’s different now…you can from now on remarry, etc…”? No. In fact, Christ “upped the ante”, so to speak, to say that even if we just look lustfully in our hearts at another, we are STILL guilty…even if we didn’t commit a physical sin. (Mt 5:27-28, 19:6) Sin is sin, regardless of how many people want to engage in it or support it.

I agree. Those people don’t seem to like what I do, namely clear boundaries of doctrine. Where’s the border to sin? I’m the type of person who doesn’t like laymen being so full of themselves as to assume they knew better than Mother Church. If I had my way, bishops would bang an iron fist on the table when heresy and dissent was uttered. There would probably be maaaany excommunications.

Read through the CCC in sections 1954-1960 (Natural Morla Law) and 2331-2336 (Male and Female He Created Them".

Shall do.

 

[steve_b]

OK, here’s the case:

I’m currently involved in a Facebook discussion on the Church’s stance on homosexual behaviour. It has now developed into a question of her infallibility.

I need clarification on the following points:

1. • Can anything except Dogma change? That is, doctrine. Discipline can change, but can something that has not been clearly stated as dogma by virtue of the charism of Infallibility?
   • Is Natural Law tautological? (I hope this is not Pandora’s box)
   • Is Natural Law the foundation of all Catholic moral teaching? I argued no, since if Natural Law weren’t existent, we would still have the Bible and Tradition.
   • Could the Church bless homosexual unions? I argued no too, because that would be blessing sin.
   Something else I’d like comments on:
   
   Someone accused me of having a rather “static interpretation” of Church teaching, when I said “The Church will never say ‘Well, homosexual behaviour isn’t sin after all. And marriage… well, that could be different too.’” This is where someone claimed that anything that isn’t dogma can change. They said: “The Church’s sexual morality was certainly always, and will always be, changeable.”
   
   It appears to me those people there want to “reform” (I can no longer stand the word) Church teaching on these matters. I am not in favour of such a thing, and, in fact, consider it impossible. Yet that’s when I get accused of wishing for an “unshakable, irreformable” teaching, which indeed I do like the idea of, but that’s what they do not believe the Catholic Church has! Is that correct?

1. • 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10 no sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders ἀρσενοκοίτης arsenokoitēs ], 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
   Homosexuals don’t need to feel picked on. All those sins mentioned are mortal sins. We know they are mortal sins because if one dies in them they go to hell.
   
   While it was Paul who wrote that, he did so under the inspiration of the HS.[2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Douay-Rheims Bible, 2 Timothy Chapter 3) And the HS received that from Jesus. [John 14:25-26 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 14) , [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16)
   
   So we know how the savior and redeemer of the world will judge those sins if one dies in them. This won’t change.

 

[DavidFilmer]

OK, here’s the case:

I’m currently involved in a Facebook discussion on the Church’s stance on homosexual behaviour.

*]Can anything except Dogma change? That is, doctrine. Discipline can change, but can something that has not been clearly stated as dogma by virtue of the charism of Infallibility?

Yes. The Church, at one time, accepted Limbo as a doctrine (never a dogma). The Church has not recanted or changed that teaching (and Catholics are free to accept it), but she no longer actively teaches or promotes the idea. You can, for example, find it in the old Baltimore Catechism but not in the modern CCC.

However, this is the ONLY example I can think of in the whole 2000 year history of the Church.

*]Is Natural Law tautological? (I hope this is not Pandora’s box)

It either is or it is not. (this is an example of a tautological construct, usually considered a logical fallacy, but difficult to understand how the term could be applied to natural law.)

*]Is Natural Law the foundation of all Catholic moral teaching?

Natural law is the foundation of the human conscience - the innate knowledge of right and wrong and fairness. Only humans possess a conscience, and the existence of a conscience has been used to support the existence of God. Catholic moral teaching is informed by natural law, but it its ultimate foundation is the Holy Spirit.

*]Could the Church bless homosexual unions? I argued no too, because that would be blessing sin.

Neither would the Church bless the union of a man and woman who were “shacking up.” It’s the same sin. The Church doesn’t have a moral teaching that applies only to homosexuals.