When does development of doctrine become reversal of doctrine?

[transfinitum]

Thank you for your reply.

You write:

I agree that the nature of money probably hasn’t changed, but the definition of usury seems to have changed.

There has been no change in the definitive, infallible teaching of the magisterium on usury. I have checked exhaustively. It simply isn’t there.

My reading of the Encyclical Vix Pervenit is that any interest taken on a monetary loan was at one time called usury.

Your reading is correct, except the implication “at one time”, which might as well be employed to argue that the Church “at one time” believed that the bread and wine actually became the Body and Blood of Christ. In fact, both doctrines are infallible teachings of the ordinary and supreme magisterium (Lumen Gentium 25).

Now the Church regularly takes (and gives) interest on loans without any moral qualms.

Exactly. The Church is not impeccable, alas. Merely infallible. The taking of interest is sinful, always, everywhere, without exception. It constitutes grave matter. The other two conditions necessary for personal, mortal sin, are probably not present, even among the drafters of the relevant Codes of Canon Law.

 

[fix]

transfinitum:

Thank you for your reply.

You write:

I agree that the nature of money probably hasn’t changed, but the definition of usury seems to have changed.

There has been no change in the definitive, infallible teaching of the magisterium on usury. I have checked exhaustively. It simply isn’t there.

My reading of the Encyclical Vix Pervenit is that any interest taken on a monetary loan was at one time called usury.

Your reading is correct, except the implication “at one time”, which might as well be employed to argue that the Church “at one time” believed that the bread and wine actually became the Body and Blood of Christ. In fact, both doctrines are infallible teachings of the ordinary and supreme magisterium (Lumen Gentium 25).

Now the Church regularly takes (and gives) interest on loans without any moral qualms.

Exactly. The Church is not impeccable, alas. Merely infallible. The taking of interest is sinful, always, everywhere, without exception. It constitutes grave matter. The other two conditions necessary for personal, mortal sin, are probably not present, even among the drafters of the relevant Codes of Canon Law.

So who is the authority on Church teaching? You or the Church?

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

New thoughts on this thread???

Consider the Church teaching in the 1950s:

"Pope Pius XII provided a full doctrinal defense of capital punishment. Speaking to Catholic jurists, he explained what the Church teaches about the authority of the State to punish crimes, even with the death penalty: The Church holds that there are two reasons for inflicting punishment, namely “medicinal” and “vindictive.” The medicinal purpose is to prevent the criminal from repeating his crime, and to protect society from his criminal behavior. The vindictive is to expiate for the wrongdoing perpetrated by the criminal. Thus reparation is made to an offended God, and the disorder caused by the crime is expiated.

Equally important is the Pope’s insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).

Consider this with the NEW thory, put forth recently, that capital punishment can only be used if there are no jails for the criminal or for defense.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The “Never” part applies to defined de fide dogma, but the term doctrine covers a lot more than that.

I disagree. *De fide definita *is but one kind of infallible immutable dogma. Fides catholica is also infallible and immutable, and is pronounced by the ordinary universal magisterium.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

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

Hmmm… “most people.” The opinion of “most people” is 1) difficult to discern and 2) rather worthless in matters pertaining to dogmatic theology. Nevertheless, the arguments I’ve read that attempt to show doctrinal reversal with regard to usury are poor and unconvincing.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Tom of Assisi,

This is what the Catholic Church taught under St. Pius X’s papacy (ca. 1909):

The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations. (Catholic Encyclopedia - Capital Punishment)

It seems what is doctrinal is that capital punishment is not inherently evil. What is advisable is something all together different, which remains as debateable in Catholic theology today as it was 100 years ago.

From the same article,

The punishment of death, universal in his day, was declared by the famous Marquess Beccaria to be absolutely without justification. In his famous work, “Crime and Punishment”, he says (chapter 28):The punishment of death is not authorized by any right; for I have demonstrated that no such right exists. It is, therefore, ***a war of a whole nation against a citizen, whose destruction they consider as necessary or useful to the general good. ***But, if I can further demonstrate that it is neither necessary nor useful, I shall have gained the cause of humanity. The death of a citizen can be necessary in one case only: when, though deprived of his liberty, he has such power and connections as may endanger the security of the nation; when his existence may produce a dangerous revolution in the established form of government. But even in this case, it can only be necessary when a nation is on the verge of recovering or losing its liberty; or in times of absolute anarchy, when the disorders themselves hold the place of laws. But in a reign of tranquillity; in a form of government approved by the united wishes of the nation; in a state fortified from enemies without, and supported by strength within; . . . where all power is lodged in the hands of the true sovereign; where riches can purchase pleasure and not authority, there can be no necessity for taking away the life of a subject.The learned marquess makes a most impressive argument in favour of penal servitude for life as a substitute for the judicial killing of criminals. (ibid, emphasis added)

What has reversed, doctrinally speaking, in your opinion? Or does it not appear that what is still being debated is the adviseability of such a practice, and the conditions upon which it may be justly implemented?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Tom of Assisi,

Let me quote further from the article you quoted from above, written by Fr. John Hardon, which shows the continuity of Catholic doctrine with regard to capital punishment:

Capital Punishment
by Fr. John Hardon
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5805

Behind this declaration of the Vicar of Christ is a principle of our Catholic faith. Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium. There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. ***Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. ***

Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.

Certainly Christianity, like Christ, is to be merciful. Certainly Christians are to be kind and forgiving. But Christ is God. He is, indeed loving and in fact is love. But He is also just. As a just God, He has a right to authorize civil authority to inflict capital punishment.

You said:

Consider this with the NEW thory, put forth recently, that capital punishment can only be used if there are no jails for the criminal or for defense.

How is this a new theory? It seems more an example of the same consideration. The consideration seems to be "the security of the nation" as it has always been. Just as Fr. John Hardon taught in accord with current Catholic doctrine:

St. Thomas Aquinas made the classic defense of capital punishment. He reasoned that “if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good” (Summa Theologica II, II, 64, 2). Certainly the crime had to be very serious, and the welfare of society was at stake. But there was no question about the moral validity of capital punishment. (ibid)

The Catholic Church today teaches,

***the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. ***(CCC 2267)

Certainly, if non-lethal means are sufficient to protect the security of the society, then St. Thomas Aquinas’ conditions for capital punishment no longer apply, as the man is no longer “dangerous … ***to the community” ***such that “he be killed in order to safeguard the common good” (Summa Theologica II, II, 64, 2).

I think you are arguing about the conditions and adviseability of implementing capital punishment justly. The conditions presented by St. Thomas Aquinas seem as true today as they were in his day, and I don’t see where the Catholic Church today contradicts the moral theology with regard to captial punishement presented by St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica (Is it lawful to kill a sinner? )