Question about dogma / infallible teachings

[whatistrue]

Semantics again - inadmissible is not the same as unjustified.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I think when it comes to abortion, “Thou shalt not kill” is pretty dogmatic.

Murdering a helpless baby in utero cannot be seen as self-defense, a act of “just war”, or protecting society from violent crime.

 

[vsedriver]

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

I think you have a misunderstanding. The given act is always sinful. What has changed is that the current ‘act’ is not the same ‘act’ as the original. That means that usury is ALWAYS sinful. But the financial transactions involving interest in today’s money management systems do not fall under the definition of usury. Basically it isn’t that charging interest is the moral wrong, it is the way interest was charged in a particular monetary system.

The church’s moral teaching did not change. Society’s system changed.

 

[whatistrue]

There you go. Three threes.

None of those are instances where a sin was suddenly not a sin. Try again if you wish.

 

[TMC]

I think you have a misunderstanding. The given act is always sinful. What has changed is that the current ‘act’ is not the same ‘act’ as the original. That means that usury is ALWAYS sinful. But the financial transactions involving interest in today’s money management systems do not fall under the definition of usury. Basically it isn’t that charging interest is the moral wrong, it is the way interest was charged in a particular monetary system.

The church’s moral teaching did not change. Society’s system changed.

This is simply factually incorrect. The way interest is calculated and charged today would absolutely have been forbidden under the old rules. How has interest changed in the last few hundred years? It hasn’t. What has changed is the Church’s understanding of whether and when interest is morally permissible. An act that was once held to be always and everywhere sinful, is now held to me morally permissible.

 

[goout]

Morality doesn’t point to prohibitions for the sake of prohibitions. Can the Church abolish a prohibition? That’s not the question.

Morality points to a good and evaluates human actions in reference to that good.
A human being is made in the image of God.
It is good to be alive.
It is good for human society to protect life and help it flourish.

A mass murderer is a human being who’s life has dignity. But if he threatens the life of others capital punishment is justified due to the circumstances involved in protecting the good of human life.
If he can be incarcerated then capital punishment is inadmissible.

When people get attached to prohibitions for their own sake rather than seeing the good end they serve, we get off track morally.

 

[Rau]

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?

Why do you care to argue this?

 

[Rau]

The Church used to teach that thje 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?

The church taught and still teaches that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, and therefore such acts CAN be good. It further now says that “these days” it would be wrong to pursue it.

 

[vsedriver]

What has changed is the Church’s understanding of whether and when interest is morally permissible. An act that was once held to be always and everywhere sinful, is now held to me morally permissible.

you are wrong.

The church’s teaching on usury has not changed. Usury is still a sin.

What has changed is our understanding of the nature and function of money, neither of which has doctrinal status. Once the understanding of money changed, the sin of usury ceased to be identified in any simple way with charging interest on money.

What part of this do you not get?

 

[TMC]

Can the Church abolish a prohibition? That’s not the question.

No, that is the question. Why is it not?

 

[TMC]

you are wrong.

The church’s teaching on usury has not changed. Usury is still a sin.

What has changed is our understanding of the nature and function of money, neither of which has doctrinal status. Once the understanding of money changed, the sin of usury ceased to be identified in any simple way with charging interest on money .

What part of this do you not get?

I think we actually agree. Once the Church changed its understanding of money, it changed its teaching on the morality of the act of charging interest. It did not change the moral teaching on financial exploitation, but it came to understand that the act of charging interest is not necessarily against that moral teaching. That is what I have been saying, and what you are now saying.

What we may disagree on is whether the Church will ever change its understanding of anything else, such that an act now considered sinful will come to be understood as not sinful. I say that it has happened before, and can happen again. Will it? What will it be? I cannot answer those questions. Is it impossible? No - we have demonstrated that it is not impossible.

 

[goout]

goout:

Can the Church abolish a prohibition? That’s not the question.

No, that is the question. Why is it not?

Because, as they rest of my thoughts alluded to, prohibitions aren’t considered for their own sake in isolation from the good they serve.
?

 

[vsedriver]

I think we actually agree.

yes, now we are saying the same thing. So essentially this is not a good example of the church saying something was sinful yesterday and now it is not sinful anymore. Wouldn’t you agree?

What we may disagree on is whether the Church will ever change its understanding of anything else, such that an act now considered sinful will come to be understood as not sinful.

Yes, I believe the church will never declare an act that has been taught as morally sinful will ever be taught as no longer morally sinful.

so can you name an instance where something has been declared morally sinful and is now OK to do?

Because as you have stated, usury is still sinful but charging interest with our current understanding of money as a fertile product is not a sin.

And I say it is impossible for the church to declare something morally sinful and then to reverse church teaching to declare that it is no longer morally sinful. But if you have a good example I’d like to see it.

 

[Dovekin]

When Benedict XVI explained the need for a hermeneutic of reform, he used religious freedomas the example of change in Church teaching:

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God’s grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all.
…

The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions, but in this apparent discontinuity it has actually preserved and deepened her inmost nature and true identity.

The Church, both before and after the Council, was and is the same Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, journeying on through time; she continues “her pilgrimage amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God”, proclaiming the death of the Lord until he comes
Benedict XVI. To the Cardinals at Christmas 2005

 

[Dovekin]

Example of an infallible statement by a pope

Since I am quoting Benedict XVI, I thought I should post his comments while he was still a cardinal:

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.
Congragation for the Doctrine of Faith. Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem.

 

[vsedriver]

When Benedict XVI explained the need for a hermeneutic of reform, he used religious freedomas the example of change in Church teaching:

this is not the type of change the OP was referring to. The original statement concerned ‘can something be a sin today but not tomorrow?’

 

[TMC]

yes, now we are saying the same thing. So essentially this is not a good example of the church saying something was sinful yesterday and now it is not sinful anymore. Wouldn’t you agree?

No, I think you are changing your position. You agreed that the Church once taught that lending money at interest was sinful. It now teaches that same act is not sinful. How is that not a direct change in the teaching regarding that act?

so can you name an instance where something has been declared morally sinful and is now OK to do?

Yes, I just did and you did,too.

 

[steve-b]

Ad Tuendam Fidem .

steve-b:

Example of an infallible statement by a pope

Since I am quoting Benedict XVI, I thought I should post his comments while he was still a cardinal:

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.
Congragation for the Doctrine of Faith. Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem.

It is an example of an infallible teaching using the language expressed HERE

 

[vsedriver]

No, I think you are changing your position. You agreed that the Church once taught that lending money at interest was sinful.

No I said that the church teaches that USURY is sinful. Usury has a different understanding of money and goods as illustrated in the Bible.

Biblical usury and modern day finance that uses interest charges are NOT THE SAME THING. You keep insisting they are the same and that the church ‘changed’ the sinfulness of usury. It never did!

so can you name an instance where something has been declared morally sinful and is now OK to do?

 

[TMC]

No I said that the church teaches that USURY is sinful. Usury has a different understanding of money and goods as illustrated in the Bible.

Biblical usury and modern day finance that uses interest charges are NOT THE SAME THING. You keep insisting they are the same and that the church ‘changed’ the sinfulness of usury. It never did!

so can you name an instance where something has been declared morally sinful and is now OK to do?

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Are you saying that the Church changed the definition of Usury, and that is the reason that lending money at interest is now not sinful? That can’t be right.

Can you explain how you believe finances have changed such that interest was once sinful but now is not?

I will provide an example that may help. In medieval times if I were to loan you $100 for a year and asked you to repay me $105, that would have been condemned as sinful by the Church as Usury. Do we agree on that? But today, I could do the exact same act - loan $100 for a year and ask for $105 in return, and the Church would say that is not sinful. Right? So what has changed to make that act sinful in the past but not sinful now?