When does development of doctrine become reversal of doctrine?

[Tom_of_Assisi]

When does the legitimate development (or deepening understanding of doctrine) go too far? If a moral doctrine is developed to the point where it now stands in opposition of previous Church teachings what are we to think about it?

example: the death penalty. Since the 1st century the Church, the Popes, most of the doctors of the Church–they have held that the death penalty is a legitamate means of punishment. One of the reasons it was legitimate was considered to be performing justice or retribution.

The early versions of our most recent Catechism (written in the 80s and early 90s) confirmed this, however the final edition put out in 1997 said that the death penalty was only appropriate for security issues. If a prisonor could not be jailed safely then the state could execute them? So capital punishment was reduced to and confounded with self-defence.

So that one part (dealing with the reasons for the death penalty) of the Catechism (I understand) is considered by cannon lawyers a prudential judgement–while the rest of the Catechism is Church doctrine. This causes a lot of confusion.

The **BIG **problem is: if the Church is perceived (correctly?) as reversing doctrine on the death penalty…doesn’t that mean that Church doctrine can be reversed on abortion, cloning, the Trinity…etc…People in society say “the Church changed its mind on the death penalty, so it can change its mind on other things too.”

Bottom line–retribution was always considered a reason for legitimate state/government executions…now only security is. Since security would not seem to be a reason for ever executing someone in state custody…then (even though it’s not forbidden) the circumstances that would allow for the death penalty have seemingly disappeared.

Could other Church teachings go the same way? Is Church opposition to abortion and birth control as secure as we think?

 

[ralphinal]

I thought there were three conditions in which the death penalty was acceptable. Barring the possibility of an unfair trial, if the person could not be safely incarserated (#1), if the excecution of the individual is needed for society to heal (#2), or if there was absolutely no means to incarcerate or rehabilitate the person. IN America, #1 and 3 do not exist. #2 can in a very few, rare instances. Anyway, I think you might be reading a little too much into it. Other than this example, I cannot think of any time that the Church seemed to change so much. It is possible to develop a doctrine to the point that it seems to contradict church teachings, but it never really does.

 

[Sherlock]

Tom of Assissi,

I don’t think that the death penalty example provides evidence of what you are concerned about. The Church has NOT changed her position: look at the Catechism. It is true that this pope and other Church leaders feel that, in the West, the death penalty should be avoided or eliminated (for a number of reasons, such as the fact that we do have the means to keep someone incarcerated), but this has not come down as an infallible teaching, but as prudential judgements. (And, it should be pointed out, their reasons are in keeping with Church teaching.) The state (legitimate public authority) is acknowledged as having the right and duty “to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, NOT EXCLUDING, IN CASES OF EXTREME GRAVITY, THE DEATH PENALTY”–CCC 2266. It is the OPINION of this pope and others that the death penalty should be eliminated in the West. Although I think that the pope’s opinion should be given respect and considered, the fact remains that good Catholics can disagree on this issue and remain good Catholics.

I don’t think you have made your case for doctrine eveolving into a reversal. So, no, I don’t think you need worry about the Church’s teaching regarding abortion and birth control being secure.

 

[JimG]

The church teaching on the death penalty hasn’t been reversed. The teaching is the same as always. The development is in the prudential judgment of when it should be applied.

JimG

 

[Matt16_18]

When does development of doctrine become reversal of doctrine? Never.

The false idea that Catholic doctrine can evolve to the point that it has reversed itself is the heresy of Modernism.

 

[Nate]

Matt16_18:

When does development of doctrine become reversal of doctrine? Never.

The false idea that Catholic doctrine can evolve to the point that it has reversed itself is the heresy of Modernism.

I think your statement is way too broad. The “Never” part applies to defined de fide dogma, but the term doctrine covers a lot more than that. The teaching of a geocentric universe could be considered (and was by many) a Church doctrine. That is why Galileo was convicted of “suspicion of heresy.” That “doctrine” has pretty much evaporated.

Most people would say that that the understanding of usury has undergone enough development so that its practical effects have been reversed.

The real question is not whether non dogmatic doctrines can be changed, but what our duty and response should be if they do. When such things are more clearly defined by Church authority it is my understanding that we are obliged to respect that authority and obey it. The mere possibility of change does not modify our obligation to follow the current Church teachings, because that is what we will be judged on, not some past or future authority’s rulings.

 

[Catholic2003]

The teaching of Evangelium Vitae included two points relative to the death penalty:

• First, there is the development of doctrine that explicitly states the death penalty is only moral provided that bloodless means are insufficient to protect human lives from the criminal. This was implicit in prior Church teachings, due to the primitive nature of medieval penal systems.
• Second, there is the prudential judgment that in modern society, actual circumstances where bloodless means are insufficient to protect human lives from the criminal are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

The secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that this teaching is infallible by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

 

[jeffreedy789]

it seems to me that there is a difference between saying ‘so and so can be done under these circumstances’ and then later saying ‘so and so can be done under slightly different circumstances’, and saying that something the church has declared an evil, a great wrong, to be declared acceptable. it seems like a difference of kind to me.

however, i like the question, as long as it truly is one, looking for answers. seeking reaffirmation that our church isn’t going to suddenly (ha! suddenly? the RCC?) reverse itself on a major issue is certainly understandable. i’d like to hear examples of the impossibility of this, too. if they’ve already been posted, and i’ve missed it, kindly point me in the right direction.

 

[fix]

Nate:

I think your statement is way too broad. The “Never” part applies to defined de fide dogma, but the term doctrine covers a lot more than that. The teaching of a geocentric universe could be considered (and was by many) a Church doctrine. That is why Galileo was convicted of “suspicion of heresy.” That “doctrine” has pretty much evaporated.

Most people would say that that the understanding of usury has undergone enough development so that its practical effects have been reversed.

The real question is not whether non dogmatic doctrines can be changed, but what our duty and response should be if they do. When such things are more clearly defined by Church authority it is my understanding that we are obliged to respect that authority and obey it. The mere possibility of change does not modify our obligation to follow the current Church teachings, because that is what we will be judged on, not some past or future authority’s rulings.

You make some fair arguments. Is it not true that development can never contradict the original intent? Usury is still wrong, only the meaning of money has changed. The Galileo incident seems complicated. I have read the Church accepted Galileo’s theory, only he wanted it taught as not only science, but as a theologic principle. That is why he got into trouble.

Slavery is another topic. Not all slavery is intrinsically evil. Only chattel slavery would be wrong in every instance. So, can we agree that intrinsically evil actions may never be done? Can we agree that doctrines may never be reversed?

These issues are used as weapons aginst the Church to “prove” She is not infallible. We must have a proper understanding of these issues to defend her against false charges and misunderstandings.

 

[Fidelis]

Nate:

The teaching of a geocentric universe could be considered (and was by many) a Church doctrine. That is why Galileo was convicted of “suspicion of heresy.” That “doctrine” has pretty much evaporated…

This is a poor example and the perpetuation of a historical distortion. The theory of geocetrism was never a defined Church doctrine. In the Galileo case, the theory itself was not the issue. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds. For a full treatment of this, see the Catholic Answers article found here:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

“When does the legitimate development (or deepening understanding of doctrine) go too far? If a moral doctrine is developed to the point where it now stands in opposition of previous Church teachings what are we to think about it?”

It doesn’t. It would never stand in opposition of previous Church teachings.

“example: the death penalty. Since the 1st century the Church, the Popes, most of the doctors of the Church–they have held that the death penalty is a legitamate means of punishment. One of the reasons it was legitimate was considered to be performing justice or retribution.”

The Death penalty was never justified as retribution.

"The early versions of our most recent Catechism (written in the 80s and early 90s) confirmed this, however the final edition put out in 1997 said that the death penalty was only appropriate for security issues. If a prisonor could not be jailed safely then the state could execute them? So capital punishment was reduced to and confounded with self-defence. "

The earliest version of the current Catechism was printed in 1993. The Church has always taught that the State had the right (and still does) to put a person convicted beyond any doubt of a grave crime to death as punishment, if necessary.

What the Pope and the Church say today is that in most of the developed world that it is no longer necessary!

 

[robertaf]

Good Morning Church

Is the death penalty part of Church Doctrine?

I don’t think so.

Can someone explain?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

robertaf:

Good Morning Church

Is the death penalty part of Church Doctrine?

I don’t think so.

Can someone explain?

I didn’t use the word Doctrine, at least I hope I didn’t. It is a Social/Moral teaching of the Church. You won’t find anything called “The Doctrine of the Death Penalty”.

 

[transfinitum]

You write:

"Usury is still wrong, only the meaning of money has changed. "

I reply:

The Church indeed infallibly teaches that usury is, and ever shall be, wrong. The Church has never, ever taught anything whatsoever about this alleged “change in the nature of money” which appears to be an article of faith in a certain magisterium of apologists.

 

[Nate]

transfinitum:

You write:
The Church indeed infallibly teaches that usury is, and ever shall be, wrong. The Church has never, ever taught anything whatsoever about this alleged “change in the nature of money” which appears to be an article of faith in a certain magisterium of apologists.

I agree that the nature of money probably hasn’t changed, but the definition of usury seems to have changed. My reading of the Encyclical Vix Pervenit is that any interest taken on a monetary loan was at one time called usury. Now the Church regularly takes (and gives) interest on loans without any moral qualms.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

"
The Death penalty was never justified as retribution.

"!

You are mistaken, my little closet aristocrat. I am sure your misunderstanding is well-intended, but you know what they say about good intentions

 

[Jennifer_J]

Tom of Assisi:

You are mistaken, my little closet aristocrat. I am sure your misunderstanding is well-intended, but you know what they say about good intentions

Pretty unChristian response, I’d say.
Jennifer

 

[dream_wanderer]

Tom of Assisi:

You are mistaken, my little closet aristocrat. I am sure your misunderstanding is well-intended, but you know what they say about good intentions

Insteand of making snide comments…how about telling us how he is mistaken?

dream wanderer

 

[fix]

Nate:

I agree that the nature of money probably hasn’t changed, but the definition of usury seems to have changed. My reading of the Encyclical Vix Pervenit is that any interest taken on a monetary loan was at one time called usury. Now the Church regularly takes (and gives) interest on loans without any moral qualms.

From EWTN:

The Church used to forbid anyone’s taking of interest from money. The reason was this = since money is inert, dead, it can’t reproduce itself. E.g. a cow can be bred and can produce a calf. Money is dead, can’t produce anything. Then with modern business practices, the Church began to recognize the danger a money lender faces at times when he loans money to others. The Church decided that, in these instances, interest can be charged lest the loaner lose his money. Usury is the lending of money at very high rates of interest and this still remains a sin. The Church has not changed its teaching on usury, which is always a sin, but simply recogized the modern dangers in money exchange. Usury remains unjust as always. Fr. Bob Levis

I think that sums it up nicely.

 

[uncleauberon]

Tom,
Tom of Assisi:

You are mistaken, my little closet aristocrat. I am sure your misunderstanding is well-intended, but you know what they say about good intentions

… there are no bad things but only bad thoughts; and especially bad intentions. Only Calvinists can really believe that hell is paved with good intentions. That is exactly the one thing it cannot be paved with

— G. K. Chesterton .
St. Thomas Aquinas “The Dumb Ox”

My point, if the intention is truly a “good” intention, it cannot lead to Hell.

The problem is always defining the Good.

The questions on the Death Penalty are

"In what circumstance is it “good” to use the death penalty? "
“In what circumstance is it “good” to withhold the death penalty?”

"We agree about the evil; it is about the good that we should tear each other’s eyes out. "
— G.K. Chesterton

• What’s Wrong with the World ?*