Question about dogma / infallible teachings

[Torquemada72]

Yes, it doesn’t make sense to me that something that had previously been classified as an actual sin - homosexual sex acts for instance - could “develop” into a non-sin.

*It’s worth noting that I"m not claiming to be sin-free or holier than anyone else afflicted by different types of sin - I just keep running into people that seem to want to argue that doctrines can radically change through the magical passage of time - and who also claim that these long-held beliefs have no basis in dogma or infallibly defined truths…

 

[TMC]

Yes, it doesn’t make sense to me that something that had previously been classified as an actual sin - homosexual sex acts for instance - could “develop” into a non-sin.

Its happened before, so why could it not happen again?

 

[Torquemada72]

So what argument would you use or what source would you cite if you were arguing that teachings on homosexual sex acts can’t possibly “develop” into approval by the Church?

 

[Torquemada72]

How did it happen? What previously classified sin is now non-sin?

 

[whatistrue]

Its happened before

Has it? Name three times that it has happened.

 

[TMC]

The bottom line is that the Church has never officially published a list of what teachings are infallible and which are not. And it likely never will. Lots of commentators, some knowledgeable and others less so, have opined as to what specific teachings are infallible, but those lists are certainly not themselves infallible.

What is certain is that the Church does not hold that any teachings are “optional,” so opining that something is not infallible does not mean its OK to dissent from it.

 

[TMC]

Has it? Name three times that it has happened.

Why three? I am sure there are many examples, some good others less so. In my view, the best example is usury, but merely having said the word “usury” is now going to divert this thread into approximately the eight millionth argument over whether the Church going from condemning interest as always sinful to allowing interest in most situations is a “change” or not.

 

[whatistrue]

One can be like this - a matter of definition. Three shows a pattern and would bolster your argument.

 

[steve-b]

Torquemada72:

If I were a lawyer making a claim to that infallible truth exists on these matters - what document would I cite as a source? I mean specifically, abortion and sexual morality…

Legitimate forms of argument in Law are based upon text, intent, precedent, tradition, and policy.

Re: papal infallible statements

It has to do with the language used by the pope.

For example

From: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm scroll down to
Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

Definition of papal infallibility, From Vat I,

KEY WORDS (emphasized)

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

● he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
● that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

Example of an infallible statement by a pope

1. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis = a definitive papal pronouncement that confirms or reaffirms a teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium of a male only priesthood. JPII definitively states that his pronouncement is a confirmation (“in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren”). Finally, affirming that he is acting to remove all doubt on the matter, the Pope adds that his “judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

From the doc.

“4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

Also

for clarity

A matter must be on faith and morals. Not on anything else.

 

[thistle]

Yes, it doesn’t make sense to me that something that had previously been classified as an actual sin - homosexual sex acts for instance - could “develop” into a non-sin.

It can’t. Homosexual acts will always be gravely disordered and a sin.

Developing into a non-sin would be a change, not a development. There have NEVER been changes to Church doctrine.

 

[TMC]

One can be like this - a matter of definition . Three shows a pattern and would bolster your argument.

I completely disagree. If the argument is that X has never happened and can never happen, then one is sufficient. If I were arguing that it happens all the time, then more than one would be required. That is not my argument.

Usury is the best argument because it is so clean, and such an obvious reversal. To be clear - the underlying moral teaching has not changed - i.e. don’t abuse people financially. But the practical teaching has changed in a dramatic way - from interest is always sinful, to interest is mostly acceptable. 1,000 years ago the vast majority of Catholics would have said they could not imagine the Church ever allowing interest, but today no one is troubled by that change because we understand the reasons for it.

The Church went through similar, but less dramatic and clear, changes in other teachings. It happened in a less clear way with slavery. Its happening right now with the death penalty. It could happen in the future with other issues.

 

[vsedriver]

Usury is the best argument because it is so clean, and such an obvious reversal. To be clear - the underlying moral teaching has not changed - i.e. don’t abuse people financially.

so usury is not a good argument since it is still wrong. What is and isn’t usury is up to development because how money was handled has changed into a different system.

homosexual acts will always be part of human sexuality. It will never be part of a ‘different system’ and therefore will never be allowable because the underlying moral teaching will never change either.

 

[whatistrue]

Usury is the best argument because it is so clean

Nope. Your argument was in reply to someone asking

What previously classified sin is now non-sin?

And by your own statement, Usury is still a sin. What actually happened was that, for the first time, the Church actually defined usury in the Fifth Lateran Council, in the 10th session. “For, that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk”

 

[vsedriver]

what document would I cite as a source? I mean specifically, abortion

The bible is the source for abortion being sinful in the 5th commandment.

Thou shalt not murder (take an innocent human life)

Abortion takes an innocent human life therefor it is dogmatically held that it is a grave sin since it violates a commandment from God.

 

[TMC]

so usury is not a good argument since it is still wrong. What is and isn’t usury is up to development because how money was handled has changed into a different system.

And by your own statement, Usury is still a sin .

Yes, absolutely correct. The Church once taught that all interest was usury. Period. And pretty much everyone believed that would always be the teaching. Now the Church teaches that charging interest is not usury, but still teaches that other kinds of financial exploitation are sinful. We all agree on that.

That means that we also agree it is possible for the Church to decide that a given act, once considered always gravely sinful because it violates a moral standard, can be understood not to be a sinful act because we now understand that act does not violate that moral standard. Charging interest is now understood not to violate the moral teaching against financial exploitation. So, clearly, the teaching about the sinfulness of specific acts can change, even though the underlying moral teaching does not change.

Will the teaching about specific acts change in the future? It seems likely that some will, I cannot say which ones. It has changed for the death penalty in our lifetimes. Others will likely come as the Church’s understanding of the proper application of the underlying moral teachings continues to grow.

 

[whatistrue]

The Church once taught

What usury was was generally understood, but not actually defined by the Church. Not the same thing as changing the teaching. Granted that is a matter of semantics, but when we are talking about definitions of sin, semantics are quite important. As for the death penalty, the Church has not changed it to a sin, but rather stated that, given modern penal systems, it can and should no longer be actually applied.

You are perfectly free to believe as you like, but as far as I am concerned, you are 0 for 2.

 

[TMC]

What usury was was generally understood, but not actually defined by the Church.

What do you base this on? Why did Catholics refrain from lending money at interest all those years, if it was not really banned by the Church? The Church operated courts in medieval times and prosecuted people for the religious crime of lending money at interest. Why would the Church do that if if were not really the rule?

As for the death penalty, the Church has not changed it to a sin, but rather stated that, given modern penal systems, it can and should no longer be actually applied.

This is simply incorrect. The Church used to teach that the death penalty was justified killing, and therefore an exception to the fifth commandment. The Church now teaches that the death penalty is not justified killing and not an exception to the fifth commandment. How is that not a sin?

 

[goout]

Is there a specific passage in the catechism that conclusively demonstrates that the teachings on sexuality and abortion are dogmatic and therefore not open to re-interpretation or “development?”

Back story: I argue with a Catholic that claims that these teachings aren’t necessarily infallibly defined or dogma in the Church - and therefore could “develop” into levels of acceptance for homosexual sex acts (for example.)

At the heart of this question is another:
“What is revelation?”
Revelation is not limited to Church dogmas. Nor is revelation limited to scripture. (lots of progressive Christians will cry “the bible is unclear on abortion!”)

Revelation is contained in and summed up in Christ. Christ is a person. In him are sourced and summed up the bible, the Tradition, the Magisterium, the power to observe nature and reason well, the natural law etc…
These things all contribute to the Church’s teaching, and none of them in isolation.
Theology of the Body probably has the best reasoning in the area of sexual morality, as sexuality is expressed in God’s creation of human beings.

TOB is first class scripture exegesis, it is first class philosophy, and in my opinion above all it is utterly simple and sane observation of creation as it is revealed.

 

[whatistrue]

What do you base this on?

Research.

The Church now teaches that the death penalty is not justified killing

That is simply an incorrect interpretation of the actual statement.

I am done; this equine is well and truly deceased.

 

[TMC]

That is simply an incorrect interpretation of the actual statement.

OK, maybe we can let the Church have the last word. I would invite anyone who is interested to see what the Catechism says on the topic:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...h_doc_20180801_catechismo-penadimorte_en.html