Unchanging?

[bakhita]

In a broader sense, my question is “Has Catholic teaching on morals ever changed?”

I have a friend who states that the Catholic Church could (and should) re-think the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. I told her that was impossible. She said that Catholic teaching has been changed many times and as an example she pointed toward how usury once was a mortal sin and now is not.

She also said that before the late 20th century it was nearly impossible for a Catholic to get an annulment and now the church allows annullments all the time so as not to alienate divorced Catholics and keep them from donating money to the Church.

I’m having trouble combatting her arguments. Can anyone help me out?

 

[kell0618]

Before the 20th century, divorce was a rarity.

No, let us be very clear. The Church teachings, dogma & canon, WILL NEVER CHANGE. Practice may change, but the foundational beliefs will not.

An example of a practice changing: the Holy Father asking that the sign of peace during Mass be moved to the beginning of Mass. That is not a change in belief or canon law; simply a change in practice.

Why would divorce and homosexual relations never be acceptable? Because they go directly against the teachings of Jesus Christ, the foundation of our Church.

Divorce in the Bible

Homosexuality in the Bible

Nearly every protestant church has strayed from the same teachings and beliefs in order to pander to the secular and sinful world. The Catholic Church does not compromise:thumbsup:. That is why some decide to leave Her. They would rather find a church that makes them feel good than belong to a Church that expects them to have strong moral values and practices.

God bless you, and of course, good luck with your friend!

Kelly

 

[kell0618]

as an example she pointed toward how usury once was a mortal sin and now is not.

The practice of usury historically was an offense taken at the flagrant ‘shaking down’ of people and the charging of unfair fees. The Church is not against a business charging a fair amount of money as a service in order to make money. She still does not approve of taking advantage of those in hardship and asking for more than what is fair from those seeking a loan. Usury in that sense is considered a lack of charity and that is certainly against Christian beliefs.

 

[catholicmessage]

The teaching on homosexuality will not change. It cannot change. It is based on the natural law, which is not made by man, but by God Himself.

Usury can still be a mortal sin if the amount of interest is sufficiently steep.

 

[Brendan]

In a broader sense, my question is “Has Catholic teaching on morals ever changed?”

She said that Catholic teaching has been changed many times and as an example she pointed toward how usury once was a mortal sin and now is not.

The Church did not object to a reasonable interest rate at any point in it’s history.

She also said that before the late 20th century it was nearly impossible for a Catholic to get an annulment and now the church allows annullments all the time so as not to alienate divorced Catholics and keep them from donating money to the Church.

Nope, the criteria for an annulment has not changed.

A Marriage is only valid, or real, when both parties involved.

1. Give free, unimpeded consent
2. Understand that they are ministering a Sacrament
3. If Catholic, follow the Form of the Sacrament.

If a Catholic 100 years ago got married in a Protestant Church or at a courthouse, the Church would have recognized then that the marriage was invalid ( Form is invalid)

If a Catholic 100 years ago did not have an understanding of what the Sacrament entails, then the Church would have recognized the marriage was invalid.(Sacramental Intent is invalid)

The difference is that far more Catholics now-a-days will go get married infront of a Justice of the Peace. That was almost unheard of prior to the 50’s.

There are also FAR more Catholics who are poorly Cathechized on the Sacrament.

One other factor is a better recognition of mental impairments that would also impede free consent.

 

[cialovesyou]

Bahkita,
I can not find anything readily I could point to and say was an infallible teaching on this. The only document referred to in the Catechism was the document is from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, titled Persona humana. Note, the CDF is incapable of making an infallible declarations.

Having said that, I really only gave this a quick look, so there may be other documents I missed at first glance.

On the topic as a whole? I think your friend is dreaming. The consistant teaching of the Church on this matter is quite clear throughout the ages. It has never accepted it as anything other than morally wrong. It would be implicitly supported as by the Bishops of the world. If there is a statement to be made on this matter, it will be to formally declare it as intrinsically disordered.

On top of this, even modern theology moves clearly in the same consistant direction.

I suggest your friend back another horse, because this one is not going to come home a winner.

I would consider this matter irreformable, even though I can not, at first glance, find a definitive infallible statement.

 

[JimG]

At one time, money was not productive in itself, but simply a medium of exchange. Excess money could not be used to produce more money; it could only be used to buy other things. It was in itself an unproductive commodity. That was the basis of the usury laws. You borrow an unproductive commodity–money, sugar, milk–you pay it back.

Now of course, we all draw interest on our savings; we put excess money to work; money can earn more money. It has become a productive commodity. What has changed is the nature of money.

(To see just how productive money can be, take the principal & interest portion of your house payment, and multiply it by 360, [for a 30 yr loan]. Substract the original principal borrowed, and all the rest is profit.)

 

[JimG]

At one time, money was not productive in itself, but simply a medium of exchange. Excess money could not be used to produce more money; it could only be used to buy other things. It was in itself an unproductive commodity. That was the basis of the usury laws. You borrow an unproductive commodity–money, sugar, milk–you pay it back.

Now of course, we all draw interest on our savings; we put excess money to work; money can earn more money. It has become a productive commodity. What has changed is the nature of money.

(To see just how productive money can be, take the principal & interest portion of your house payment, and multiply it by 360, [for a 30 yr loan]. Substract the orignal principal borrowed, and all the rest is profit.)

 

[otjm]

The whole of economics changed, starting somewhere in the 17th to 18th centuries as commerce changed and banking changed. Usury is still immoral; what constitutes usary has changed.

As to annulments, it is correct that divorce was very rare prior to the changes in civil law which brought in no-fault divorce and made the civil laws much more relaxed in terms of actually being able to obtain one. When the civil law made it so difficult to obtain a divorce, then it was not possible to get an annulment as there was no divorce.

Coupled with that was the developement of the science of psychology; previously someone might intuit that some individuals simply “didn’t get it”, but it was the organized study of psychology that finally answered some of the “why” they didn’t get it. That lead to the Church understanding more clearly what constituted intent, and what constituted an impediment to intent (for example, narcissitic personality disorder). With a greater understanding of what constituted an impediment, the Church was and is able to look at the marriage as of the day of the wedding, and make a clearer determination of whether the requisite intent was there on the wedding day.

Your friend seems not to really want to know the why of the issues they are focusing on; there is probably an issue much deeper which is driving this discussion. In short, I wouldn’t get too wound up trying to convince them, as you will be talking about the symptoms, not the problem.

 

[Digger71]

I think your friend will be found to be right. The early Christians took a lot from the Stoics, who claimed procreation was the only justification for sex, the unitive function didnt count at all. The unitive function didnt have a showing. Later it became elevated, and the second Vatican council elevated the unitive factor to an equal status with the procreative element.

I think that indicates change, though some might just calll it the development of an idea, but even development is change.

In 1997 the 1992 Catechism changed from “They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.” to “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial”.

Suddenly an condition is downgraded to a ‘inclination’, a much weaker word. The former reflecting the most widespread and modern understanding of homosexuality as part of thier core being, the latter making it no more than an ‘urge’, like the urge to eat cake.

That certainly is not a development of an idea, it is a complete change on what constitutes sexual orientation, and it looks like the earlier statement was just inviting a re-interpretation of scripture in the light of current knowledge.

 

[otjm]

Perhaps the biggest issue is how we define the word “change”.

Early in the Church, abortion was condemned. However, it was condemned from the “quickening”, and some have sought to say "See, your Church changed!’

The Church did not change it’s position on abortion, because it did then and continues today to condemn abortion as the taking of an innocent life. It was not understood that the child was alive prior to quickening. Once science showed what was occuring in the womb, the Church continued to protest the taking of innocent life; prior to that neither the Church nor anyone else knew there was innocent life prior to quickening.

Too often the issue is muddied by someone trying to make a point rather than understand what the issue actually is. It is along the same line with the change in economics; as economic life changed radically, the issue of what usury was changed. the whole world of banking as it is today simply didn’t exist 2 centuries ago; talking about what economic life was like 10 centuries ago makes even less to compare to.

Beware of people who attempt to make simple examples out of complex issues. It makes for muddled thinking.

 

[larry85704]

I certainly hope not.

Our Church has the Holy Spirit, the Pope and the Bishops. Somewhere in there is the Apostolic function, just as in Jesus’s time. If God continues to reveal Himself to us, which He does, we had better be ready to listen. To say that the Church is static just is too Baptist for my taste.

 

[Genesis315]

The Fifth Lateran Council defined usury as this:

“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.”

Here’s a great article on the teaching of usury throughout history:

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709fea3.asp

 

[rwoehmke]

The Church did not object to a reasonable interest rate at any point in it’s history.

Brendan, I have some qualms about the factual nature of this statement. My understanding has always been that even through a good part of the Middle Ages charging interest on a loan to a fellow Christian was considered wrong. That was why banking and money lending was left up to the Jews. Do you have any way of checking this?

 

[StCsDavid]

In a broader sense, my question is “Has Catholic teaching on morals ever changed?”

I have a friend who states that the Catholic Church could (and should) re-think the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. I told her that was impossible. She said that Catholic teaching has been changed many times and as an example she pointed toward how usury once was a mortal sin and now is not.

She also said that before the late 20th century it was nearly impossible for a Catholic to get an annulment and now the church allows annullments all the time so as not to alienate divorced Catholics and keep them from donating money to the Church.

I’m having trouble combatting her arguments. Can anyone help me out?

Since usury is an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money (Webster’s Dictionary), what source does your friend have to prove her point that the Catholic Church believes this to be okay?

As to annulments, in the late 20th century up to and including today in the 21st century, many people do not give themselves freely in marriage. Their intent for marriage is more self-absorbed versus self-donation. As a result way more people marry with no intent of participating in its sacramental nature. The increase in annulments is proportional to the increase of invalid marriages. Secondly, in the United States, there was a period of lessor stringency to the guidelines on annulments, but that is starting to change. The Church didn’t change, simply the folks that were to enforce the Church teachings were too lax.

Ask your friend to show you the source of her information or clarify if she is just expressing her opinion. Then you can do some research and show her exactly what the Church really teaches and why.

 

[Genesis315]

Pope Benedict XVI specifically condemns usury in this general audience:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20051123_en.html

I then greet the representatives of the *Italian National Anti-Usury Council, *which is commemorating its 10th anniversary. Dear friends, the presence of so many of you gives me the opportunity to express my deep appreciation for the courageous and generous work you do for families and individuals affected by the deplorable social scourge of usury. I hope that many people will rally to support your praiseworthy commitment to its prevention, to solidarity and to education in the legal issues involved.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… she pointed toward how usury once was a mortal sin and now is not.

Usury is still a sin. What she needs is someone to politely tell her that she doesn’t know what she is talking about.

She also said that before the late 20th century it was nearly impossible for a Catholic to get an annulment…

If the matter, form, or intent of the marriage were not valid at the time of the marriage, either before or after the late 20th century, the marriage was null.

…as not to alienate divorced Catholics and keep them from donating money to the Church.

Hmmmm…the friends I know whose annulments have been denied would be amused by this theory.

 

[Genesis315]

I certainly hope not.

Our Church has the Holy Spirit, the Pope and the Bishops. Somewhere in there is the Apostolic function, just as in Jesus’s time. If God continues to reveal Himself to us, which He does, we had better be ready to listen. To say that the Church is static just is too Baptist for my taste.

Catholics believe public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. But, the Holy Spirit does guide the Church into all truth, coming to a deeper and more precise understanding of that once and for all deposit of revealed truth–but the truth never changes.

 

[jmcrae]

In a broader sense, my question is “Has Catholic teaching on morals ever changed?”

No. Disciplinary practices have changed (we no longer require public sinners to wear sackcloth and ashes for at least one year as a sign of their repentance) but the list of possible sins has not changed.

Usury is still a mortal sin, as others have pointed out above.

She also said that before the late 20th century it was nearly impossible for a Catholic to get an annulment and now the church allows annullments all the time so as not to alienate divorced Catholics and keep them from donating money to the Church.

If there is a profit motive, it would actually make more sense for the Church to force incompatible couples to remain together, since after the divorce, the entire family will be living at a lower standard of living than they were prior to the divorce, since the same income that they were bringing in before will be used to provide for two households, instead of only one, and thus, there will be less money available for them to donate to the Church.

Instead, the Catholic Church permits couples who find that they can no longer live together to divorce, while requiring that they go through the Marriage Tribunal process to see whether their marriage was valid or not, before attempting to marry again.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I’d like to see the Church document that states usury is no longer a sin. Some have made claims about Catholic teaching which they simply cannot support.

John Paul II called usury as being “idols [which] are evoked and rejected as contrary to human dignity and to social coexistence.” (General Audience, November 10, 2004)

John Paul II also taught “not to practise usury, a scourge that is also a reality in our time and has a stranglehold on many peoples’ lives” (General Audience, February 4, 2004)