Question about dogma / infallible teachings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Torquemada72
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
Where on earth did you get that idea? The church has in recent times addressed prudential factors surrounding CP, and concluded that these days, CP is uncalled for; that it does more harm than good. It has always been open to the supreme civil authority to make that judgement, and the church now calls upon them to make it. The supreme authority may in good conscience come to a different decision and in so doing does not sin if acting with good intention.
Click to expand...
That is not the Church’s current teaching. The current teaching is that the death penalty is inadmissible. Period. There are no prudential exceptions for a supreme authority to decide otherwise:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...h_doc_20180801_catechismo-penadimorte_en.html
 
TMC said:
That is not the Church’s current teaching. The current teaching is that the death penalty is inadmissible. Period. There are no prudential exceptions for a supreme authority to decide otherwise:
Click to expand...
The church’s statements, for example, about the effectiveness of alternatives sentences, (or the rights or wrongs of various immigration policies…) are themselves prudential judgements. No matter how earnestly Pope after Pope holds such a view and exhorts the people to accept it, we are not bound. In a hundred years time, the church may hold the reverse judgement. Such Judgements are for the times, (and they more normally fit into social teachings than into catechisms). Note that the Church has not ever nor does it now deem CP intrinsically evil. Should that change, then your view of a reversal would be correct.

The death penalty is “inadmissible” in our current times - in that context, not intrinsically. This statement is inherently a prudential judgement.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
In my view, the Church teaches on moral issues, and applies those moral issues to the material world as best as the Church can, given the Church’s understanding of the material world, including the moral implications of physical acts and material issues.
Click to expand...
The Church has no special capacity to understand the material world. If it strays into that field, it is error-prone.
 
Well, right, the magisterium of the Church has a special capacity to teach on faith and morals. It’s not even in the Magisterium’s scope to teach on the material world i.e. science, medicine, industry. But there is no special capacity required to teach on anything material, other than the proper academic standards. It’s well within the capacity and ability of the Church to teach on subjects of science, art, architecture, social sciences etc. And the Church can do so without being any more error prone than any other institution. So why wouldn’t the Church’s instruction on sciences and other things which aren’t faith and morals be called into question. Is there some institution out there that I don’t know about which has a special capacity to promulgate infallible teachings on science and materials?
 
Not sure if you’ve been following the thread. Don’t really know where you’re going with this…
 
I don’t think that the separation, or distinction, of “faith and morals” from everything else is as unmistakable as I think you appear to think it is.
 
Rau said:
The Church has no special capacity to understand the material world. If it strays into that field, it is error-prone.
Click to expand...
Hmm. So how does the Church decide the morality of material acts, if the Church lacks that capacity? Your statement would seem to call into question the Church’s teaching on a wide range of topics.
 
Rau said:
The death penalty is “inadmissible” in our current times - in that context , not intrinsically. This statement is inherently a prudential judgement.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

Unjustified killing is intrinsically sinful. Can we agree on that? So the Church taught in the past that capital punishment can be justified killing, and therefore an exception to the Fifth Commandment. The Church now teaches that the death penalty is not justified killing. Which means application of the death penalty is a violation of the Fifth Commandment and sinful.

Given that the Church has changed its mind on this in the past, it could change in the future. But right now, the Church’s teaching is that the death penalty is a violation of the Fifth Commandment.
 
TMC said:
So how does the Church decide the morality of material acts, if the Church lacks that capacity? Your statement would seem to call into question the Church’s teaching on a wide range of topics.
Click to expand...
No. The church teaches about what it terms “human acts”. Of course, they have material content, but at every step the focus is on the moral component. The moral meaning is not always discernible from the physical acts alone.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
So the Church taught in the past that capital punishment can be justified killing, and therefore an exception to the Fifth Commandment.
Click to expand...
…can be… is a statement that remains true. Because it invokes circumstances. “Can be” is compatible with “but not nowadays”. The church is addressing “nowadays”. Has the church reversed doctrine and declared CP intrinsically evil? No.
 
Rau said:
No. The church teaches about what it terms “human acts”. Of course, they have material content, but at every step the focus is on the moral component. The moral meaning is not always discernible from the physical acts alone.
Click to expand...
Then what are you talking about? I thought you were saying the Church lacks competence to determine the morality of the death penalty as it is a material act. So you agree the Church is competent to condemn as sinful the human act of capital punishment? And charging interest? Or is it not?
 
TMC said:
Then what are you talking about?
Click to expand...
If you need to ask that question, the disconnect between us is large and perhaps I will leave the discussion there.

But you may be interested to take a look at another thread where CP is being discussed (though the thread will soon be closed).

I give my take on how the church’s current teaching is to be understood (and not as a reversal of anything in the past):
40.png
Why does the US and so many of its citizens continue to support the death penalty? Moral Theology
Some may reject what the church is saying and some do read a reversal of what came before. I’m in neither of those camps. And I’m familiar with the letter, though you’ve referenced it quite selectively. I assume you agree that CP is not intrinsically evil? If you are familiar with catholic moral theology, you’ll know this is not some minor side issue. Because what it means is that (given proper intentions), an act of CP can be good in appropriate circumstances (and evil in other circumsta…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So now that we’re deep in the weeds - let me reiterate the original question: is there a specific infallible source to point to in an argument with a self-identified Catholic that conclusively demonstrates that the Church has always condemned homosexual sex acts and/or abortion and always will?

I accept tradition and the common-sense idea that development for these two specific areas are completely impossible due to the following fact:

Sex and abortion aren’t like CP - I can understand why the Church would want to see CP dis-allowed as a matter of public policy…as it is now possible to incarcerate prisoners for long periods of time in a way that had never existed in the past.

Sex however, doesn’t change. There’s no new development possible - because the fundamentals haven’t changed - sex acts oriented towards life (of the individual, their offspring and a non-degenerate society) remain oriented toward life - and those oriented toward death remain the same as well.

Likewise, the morality of killing of an innocent human life in the womb remains identical across space and time - regardless of the means used to perform the killing.
 
Last edited:
Torquemada72 said:
is there a specific infallible source to point to in an argument with a self-identified Catholic that conclusively demonstrates that the Church has always condemned homosexual sex acts and/or abortion and always will?
Click to expand...
The Bible which underpins these teachings.
  1. Let me know if you want me to provide the many references to homosexuality in scripture.
  2. Abortion - the 5th Commandment says you shall not kill.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that I agree with you - but the argument I’m seeing is that this either not explicitly articulated enough in the scriptures you reference or has never been tagged as being “infallible” by the Pope

I suppose if someone is dead-set on agitating for changes to moral teachings, no evidence will be strong enough - as they refuse to take “no” for an answer.
 
Torquemada72 said:
So now that we’re deep in the weeds - let me reiterate the original question: is there a specific infallible source to point to in an argument with a self-identified Catholic that conclusively demonstrates that the Church has always condemned homosexual sex acts and/or abortion and always will?
Click to expand...
The answer is “no.” The issue of what is infallible and not in Catholic teaching is complex and nuanced and the Church declines (probably for that reason, among others) to put out lists of what is “infallible” and what is not. Catholics are all called to follow ALL of the Church’s teachings, not merely those flagged as “infallible.” It is absolutely clear that the Church condemns both abortion and homosexual acts in the strongest terms. Many Catholics disagree with those teachings (and others), but those Catholics can only admit that they are in dissent on those teachings (or any others)- and should take little solace in the hope that they may one day change.

If your friends are trying to say that it is somehow “OK” for them to disagree with the Church on those teachings (because they might change), my own strategy would to tell them that they are clearly dissenting from Church teaching (right now, which is what matters) and that they must square that with their own conscience and their own confessor. There is no list of supercharged teachings that can convince those dissenting based on conscience to change, merely because the teaching is on that list.

If I can rant for just a line or two - it bugs me that this discussion only comes up with regards to sexual related sins. What I said above is equally true about ALL the teachings of the Church, including the teachings on social justice, the new teaching on the death penalty, and so on. Catholics may find that their conscience leads them to dissent from time to time, but you can’t just shrug that off and decide it doesn’t count because the teaching relates to social issues.
 
I already posted a disclaimer message regarding these sins and how my own don’t make me morally superior to those that sin differently.

The fact of the matter is that we live in 2020 and there is a large contingent of people that want to see every aspect of the culture of death accepted and approved by any and all religious authority.

This is most obvious with regards to moral teaching related to sexuality and abortion.

They are hot-button issues for a reason.
 
Last edited:
Torquemada72 said:
This is most obvious with regards to moral teaching related to sexuality and abortion.

They are hot-button issues for a reason.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion, but I couldn’t disagree more. I see many, many people who are practicing Catholics and other Christians, claiming to be devout, who reject the social teachings of the Church. But for some reasons, most Catholics seem to be OK with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top