Question about dogma / infallible teachings

[TMC]

I am saying what I said - it does need paraphrasing. The church has no authority beyond what it claims for itself. And your claims exceed hers.

Where did the Church deny it has the authority to teach about the morality of specific material acts? And if the Church errs when it teaches about immigration and the death penalty, then why does it not also err when it teaches about contraception?

 

[Rau]

And if the Church errs when it teaches about immigration and the death penalty, then why does it not also err when it teaches about contraception?

Ive not said it errs. I have said it can err when outside it’s sphere of competence. The church has authority in a matter such as murder, abortion or contraception or theft etc because these and others are the moral tenets of the faith entrusted to the church.

The church has authority to recognise (as it’s done) what is not murder (Eg CP) and what is murder. But when the church opines on matters such as immigration policy, it is attempting to weigh up the future outcomes and or judge the degree of good. Often she advocates for what she believes will lead to the best outcomes. We can and should listen, but ultimately these are judgements only.

 

[TMC]

Ive not said it errs. I have said it can err when outside it’s sphere of competence. The church has authority in a matter such as murder, abortion or contraception or theft etc because these and others are the moral tenets of the faith entrusted to the church.

The church has authority to recognise (as it’s done) what is not murder (Eg CP) and what is murder. But when the church opines on matters such as immigration policy, it is attempting to weigh up the future outcomes and or judge the degree of good. Often she advocates for what she believes will lead to the best outcomes. We can and should listen, but ultimately these are judgements only.

I can’t see the distinction you are drawing. It seems you are saying that the Church can make a moral judgment that the material act of abortion is an unjustified taking of a life, but cannot make a moral judgment that the material act of the death penalty is an unjustified taking of a life. Why is the Church qualified to make one judgment, but not the other? Why is the Church qualified to say that the material act of taking hormone-based oral contraceptives is immoral, but is not qualified to comment on other material issues, such as immigration policy, or care of the poor? Why can the Church condemn Socialism as a form of government, but not support universal health care? What general principle makes the Church authoritative in some of these matters, but not in the others?

Its almost as if you are saying the Church is qualified and authoritative when it agrees with you, and unqualified when it does not.

 

[Rau]

I can’t see the distinction you are drawing. It seems you are saying that the Church can make a moral judgment that the material act of abortion is an unjustified taking of a life, but cannot make a moral judgment that the material act of the death penalty is an unjustified taking of a life.

Abortion is intrinsically evil and CP is not. Therefore the evil or otherwise of instances of the latter depends not on any absolute, but on matters which need to be judged - the Intention of the actor and the balance of good and evil that flows from the act (the latter being a prudential judgement). The church authoritatively teaches what is intrinsically evil or not. While considerable respect and consideration ought be given to its judgement, it does not have the same capability to make these judgements as it does to proclaim eternal moral truths.

Its almost as if you are saying the Church is qualified and authoritative when it agrees with you, and unqualified when it does not.

I’m glad you said “almost” . I can only suggest you read a little more on moral theology and on the authority the church herself claims.

 

[TMC]

We simply see the Church’s teachings differently. I don’t see how you justify limiting the Church’s authority to teach in certain areas, and you have not pointed to anything that suggests the Church agrees with the limits you put on it (other than snide suggestions that I must be uneducated). I can see that you are committed to your position on this, and I am tiring of the condescension, so perhaps we leave it there.

 

[Rau]

I can see that you are committed to your position on this, and I am tiring of the condescension, so perhaps we leave it there.

There is no condescension, but as you do not engage on the relevant issues (which are the principals of moral theology, what it means for an act to be intrinsically evil, the nature of prudential judgement) - then your conclusion that the discussion is not viable is agreed.

 

[AlNg]

therefore could “develop” into levels of acceptance for homosexual sex acts (for example.)

I think they already have developed into acceptance by some Catholics for SS marriage at least in a local Roman Catholic college which congratulates Catholic SS couples on their marriage and publishes photos endorsing their weddings.

 

[Torquemada72]

Wheat and chaff etc.