No, practice has changed. There is a difference between Newman’s idea of the development of doctrine and outright changing doctrine. The two are not reconcilable.
Infallible teachings have never changed. Objective truth doesn’t bend to man’s ego
Let’s be clear and use precise words. Infallible teachings can be defined more clearly and be refined as time goes on. They cannot be perverted or repudiated because they are infallible; once a doctrine is defined, it will not reverse course.rosejmj:
Infallible teachings have never changed. Objective truth doesn’t bend to man’s ego
How it is defined and refined over time is not disputed however teaching on this clear on any attempt to legitimize same sex relationships through any union. As for Church teaching about same sex adoption, surely we can use our own head to understand why this would be unacceptable, we don’t need it to be defined when it is already as obvious as day, to nuture and develop a child in an environment where same sex attraction is normalised and promoted through the behavior of their adopted parents?Paddy1989:
Let’s be clear and use precise words. Infallible teachings can be defined more clearly and be refined as time goes on. They cannot be perverted or repudiated because they are infallible; once a doctrine is defined, it will not reverse course.rosejmj:
Infallible teachings have never changed. Objective truth doesn’t bend to man’s ego
Chuch teaching on contraception is a case in point. The underlying, eternal moral truth about it has always been the same. It will not change or be repudiated, ever, unto the ages of ages. The Church teaching has been refined, as technology and culture progresses and morphs into new challenges for moral theologians. Once modern contraception became easily available in hormone-pill form, Pope St. Paul VI spoke out clearly, defining the teaching further and explaining the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital embrace.
I am not sure if civil unions are a part of Church teaching, per se. It seems to me that civil unions can be used for chaste purposes and so may be considered entirely morally neutral. If the members of a union wish to commit sodomy, that is on them, and the presence or absence of a civil union would not really prevent them from doing that sin when they are determined to do it.
As for adoption by same-sex couples, that is a travesty against the child’s right to a mother and father, but come on, weird parenting arrangements are not solely a function of LGBT couples, they can happen any which way, and so I don’t see de fide Church teaching as preventing “gay adoption” as a blanket prohibition either.
So a potential couple embroiled in drink and drug addiction is perfectly suitable to adopt a child? Usually when the sins of the parents effect the child in a substantial way creating a hostile and dangerous environment social services will interfere. We therefore are called to be holiness and to bring children up in such an environment.
Why should it hesitate to baptize a child of God? I don’t get your point here, this doesn’t mean the Church is legitimizing homosexual acts and relationships anymore than baptizing a child of a couple engaged in fortification legitimizes the act of fornicationThe Church has made it abundantly clear that her ministers will not hesitate to baptize children of same-sex couples… sooo…
Not mentioning sex per se, but I cannot think of a single country where someone can enter into a civil union with, say, their mother, brother or granddaughter, or with someone who is still legally married to another person.HopingforGodtohelp:
That’s a religious belief. YOUR religious belief.
There’s nothing in these laws about cohabitation. That’s an assumption you are making.
They’re geared towards rights, not sex. Certain people may take advantage of it, and certain groups might see the advantages of it. But feel free to show me in any of these state laws anything concerned with sex.
Joint property = cohabitation? I’m sure we all know people who hold property in common without living together. My spouse and his mother. Two brothers in business together. Again, nothing in the laws themselves about this. At all.
Baptism is only for those who either hold Catholic Faith (adults) or there is reasonable hope they will be raised in it (children). Priests, according to Canon Law, can’t baptise anyone else.
I agree with youPaddy1989:
Baptism is only for those who either hold Catholic Faith (adults) or there is reasonable hope they will be raised in it (children). Priests, according to Canon Law, can’t baptise anyone else.