Gay interest: Discussion v campaigning

[ahinton]

Galileo.of course, was himself a Catholic. He got it right about the sun and the earth. The Church authorities had got it hopelessly wrong. Not much change there then.

Fair comment.

If essential Catholic doctrine had 'evolved with the times' (secular) we would hardly be having this discussion now would we?

Where you seem eitherunable or unwilling to get the point, soctty, is that Catholic doctirne 'evolving with the times' signifies les of an abjectly convenient deferment to secularity at all times but a genuine evolution within the faith; himans evolve all the time - even Catholics! - no, sorry, that was out of order and undermines my point anyway, which is that Catholics evovle with the times just like anyone else and that can and do do this without having to give way to secularity all the time. God moves in a mysterious way, we are told; by implication, therefore, He does not stand still...

Please be logical and consistent, French Frank!

Please desist from appearing to be patronising, scotty, especially when your arguments are flawed; neither does you any favours...

[french frank]

Ahhh, I see we are conveniently determined to remain in the early 1600s ...

No, in my previous post I pointed out that in the 21st century the Catholic adoption agencies were not all closing down but quietly getting on with their business, moving with the times.

Some of us can appreciate the difference between ancient mistaken Catholic belief about science and essential religious doctrine.

Who would that 'some of us' be? What else was 'heresy' if not going against essential religious doctrine (bit much to massacre people otherwise) and in what sense is not allowing gays to adopt 'essential religious doctrine' rather than a bit of on the hoof reaction to current affairs?

The Church authorities had got it hopelessly wrong. Not much change there then.

I'm speechless, scotty ...

[scottycelt]

Fair comment.

It was actually meant to be a joke, ahinton ...

Where you seem eitherunable or unwilling to get the point, soctty, is that Catholic doctirne 'evolving with the times' signifies les of an abjectly convenient deferment to secularity at all times but a genuine evolution within the faith; himans evolve all the time - even Catholics! - no, sorry, that was out of order and undermines my point anyway, which is that Catholics evovle with the times just like anyone else and that can and do do this without having to give way to secularity all the time. God moves in a mysterious way, we are told; by implication, therefore, He does not stand still...

Logically unsound, ahinton!

If God moves in mysterious ways we are therefore quite unable to conclude that He may actually move at all?

Please desist from appearing to be patronising, scotty, especially when your arguments are flawed; neither does you any favours...

Good, sound advice, ahinton!

[jean]

If God moves in mysterious ways we are therefore quite unable to conclude that He may actually move at all?

Eppur si muove.

[ahinton]

It was actually meant to be a joke, ahinton ...

Then it backfired loudly.

Logically unsound, ahinton!

If God moves in mysterious ways we are therefore quite unable to conclude that He may actually move at all?

Since you don't know any better than I do how He moves, who are you to pronounce on what should or should not move with the times?

Good, sound advice, ahinton!

Then please do us all a favour and take it!

[Pabmusic]

Never mind about that! You didn't actually respond to my point other than to make a comparison between Prestonpans and Scottish Independence now.

On Galileo, " ... the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "gravely suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. This was subsequently commuted to house arrest, under which he remained for the rest of his life [about nine years]." That was because Catholic belief ws convinced that the sun revolved around the earth. Catholic belief was wrong as it eventually conceded. I'm not sure what your own position is on this.

Ergo, firmly held Catholic beliefs are not immutable: they evolve with the times.

And here's an example of continuing doctrinal change (the article's not very good - there are more detailed ones around - but I thought the title was good):

http://www.cathnewsusa.com/2011/08/catholic-church-has-evolving-answer-on-reality-of-adam-and-eve/

[scottycelt]

And here's an example of continuing doctrinal change (the article's not very good - there are more detailed ones around - but I thought the title was good):

http://www.cathnewsusa.com/2011/08/c...-adam-and-eve/

Interesting article, Pab ...

Although it's a Catholic website I see it refers to a debate involving Evangelical Christians and not one particularly involving Catholics though the writer does go on to talk about the historical debate within the Catholic Church.

Catholics ... whilst retaining essential moral doctrines ... are not Biblical Fundamentalists. They are not required to believe that everything they read in the Bible is to be taken literally. Of course, they are perfectly free to do so if they so wish! As I've said before on this forum the Vatican has its own internationally-renowned scientific division staffed by not only Catholics but people of other religions and even atheists! It is a learning church as well as an interpretative and teaching one and always has been. Controversy has raged within the church over many things in its long, often torturous history. It is an institution for humans, after all.

However, there is a clear difference between established Church moral doctrine and evolving Church views on other matters. Science is an important and essential part of human learning and the Church has always recognised that. However, its moral teachings are a quite separate issue and cannot change.

The fact that we have now gone from the 1600s way back to Adam & Eve searching for examples where any form of Church teaching may have been proven to be redundant in the light of evolving scientific knowledge rather strikes me as a quite astonishing achievement on the part of the Church!

Still, we're all way off-topic again, aren't we? :winkeye:

[ahinton]

The fact that we have now gone from the 1600s way back to Adam & Eve searching for examples where any form of Church teaching may have been proven to be redundant in the light of evolving scientific knowledge rather strikes me as a quite astonishing achievement on the part of the Church!

But some of us here are not accusing the Church of redundancy per se - and even you would surely accept that the Chruch has moved with the times to the extent that it serves - and otherwise occupies a place in - a very different society now to what it did in its infancy, the 17th century or the 1950s! That at times it falls short of doing that is what we've discussed here, albeit, as you say, on an off-topic basis in this thread!

[Pabmusic]

...Still, we're all way off-topic again, aren't we? :winkeye:

Always my failing!

[french frank]

However, there is a clear difference between established Church moral doctrine and evolving Church views on other matters. Science is an important and essential part of human learning and the Church has always recognised that. However, its moral teachings are a quite separate issue and cannot change.

Selected quotes from A Church That Can and Cannot Change

"Theologians joked that when a pope or other official circuitously introduced a modification of church teaching, he would begin, ''As the church has always taught. . . .''

Such denial, still widespread, means that examining change in official teaching -- or what became known in the 19th century as ''development of doctrine'' -- poses two challenges: first, to establish that alterations -- some more than minor -- have unquestionably occurred; and second, to show how they can be reconciled with the church's claim to preach the same essential message Jesus and his disciples did 2,000 years ago, presumably deriving criteria that can help distinguish legitimate evolution in the future from deviations or betrayals.

"In ''A Church That Can and Cannot Change,'' Noonan drives home the point that some Catholic moral doctrines have changed radically. History, he concludes, does not support the comforting notion that the church simply elaborates on or expands previous teachings without contradicting them.

Exhibit A - slavery

"It was at the urging of Protestant Britain that the papacy condemned the slave trade in 1839. In 1888, after every Christian nation had abolished slavery, the Vatican finally condemned it -- with a kind of historical rewriting and self-congratulation that palpably offends Noonan's sense of honesty.

"In certain cases, modern popes have claimed the power to dissolve marriages once considered indissoluble.

"NOONAN'S four case studies demonstrate beyond question the fact and the extent of change. But do they offer insights that might aid Catholics in distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate developments in doctrine? In a negative sense, yes. Noonan believes in an unchanging element in Catholic teaching, a core continuity from Jesus to today. But from his cases he can deduce no rules of thumb to determine what falls within this continuity. His cases contravene the organic image of a gradual unfolding of latent truth. Nor does he find that categories like ''unnatural'' or ''intrinsic evil,'' meant to sort out the immutable from the mutable, make solid sense of past changes."

[ahinton]

Selected quotes from A Church That Can and Cannot Change

"Theologians joked that when a pope or other official circuitously introduced a modification of church teaching, he would begin, ''As the church has always taught. . . .''

Such denial, still widespread, means that examining change in official teaching -- or what became known in the 19th century as ''development of doctrine'' -- poses two challenges: first, to establish that alterations -- some more than minor -- have unquestionably occurred; and second, to show how they can be reconciled with the church's claim to preach the same essential message Jesus and his disciples did 2,000 years ago, presumably deriving criteria that can help distinguish legitimate evolution in the future from deviations or betrayals.

"In ''A Church That Can and Cannot Change,'' Noonan drives home the point that some Catholic moral doctrines have changed radically. History, he concludes, does not support the comforting notion that the church simply elaborates on or expands previous teachings without contradicting them.

Exhibit A - slavery

"It was at the urging of Protestant Britain that the papacy condemned the slave trade in 1839. In 1888, after every Christian nation had abolished slavery, the Vatican finally condemned it -- with a kind of historical rewriting and self-congratulation that palpably offends Noonan's sense of honesty.

"In certain cases, modern popes have claimed the power to dissolve marriages once considered indissoluble.

"NOONAN'S four case studies demonstrate beyond question the fact and the extent of change. But do they offer insights that might aid Catholics in distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate developments in doctrine? In a negative sense, yes. Noonan believes in an unchanging element in Catholic teaching, a core continuity from Jesus to today. But from his cases he can deduce no rules of thumb to determine what falls within this continuity. His cases contravene the organic image of a gradual unfolding of latent truth. Nor does he find that categories like ''unnatural'' or ''intrinsic evil,'' meant to sort out the immutable from the mutable, make solid sense of past changes."

Many thanks for this excellent post, FF! No mention of Tchaikovsky, though...

[scottycelt]

The 'exhibits' provided by Noonan have nothing to do with Church 'doctrine' but Church 'attitude' . The former is immutable the latter is not and has always been open to change.

For example, many Catholics today including Cardinals and Bishops are divided over things like the death penalty. Some see it as a contradiction of the Church's teaching about the 'sanctity of life' and is morally wrong, while others (mostly older traditionalists) take the official Church view that the state alone has a 'right' to decide to use it as a last resort if it is deemed absolutely necessary. This has nothing to do with doctrine or dogma. Although the Church has an official position on the matter (as always!) Catholics are not obliged to accept it and can believe capital punishment is wholly wrong and misguided.

So the Church's official position could be amended in the future on the issue of the state death penalty. That's conceivable. Yet it will never, ever change on the issue of murder!

[french frank]

The 'exhibits' provided by Noonan have nothing to do with Church 'doctrine' but Church 'attitude' . The former is immutable the latter is not and has always been open to change.

You are introducing a new definition: 'attitude'. Previously you said 'moral teachings', moral doctrine, didn't change, you said. JT Noonan, a jurist and unswerving Catholic, specialising in moral and ethical questions as they affected Catholic teaching says that moral teachings of the Church have changed: slavery being an issue of basic human morality to most people.

For example, many Catholics today including Cardinals and Bishops are divided over things like the death penalty. Some see it as a contradiction of the Church's teaching about the 'sanctity of life' and is morally wrong, while others (mostly older traditionalists) take the official Church view that the state alone has a 'right' to decide to use it as a last resort if it is deemed absolutely necessary. This has nothing to do with doctrine or dogma.

But morality is not an issue?

Although the Church has an official position on the matter (as always!) Catholics are not obliged to accept it and can believe capital punishment is wholly wrong and misguided.

Noonan stresses that Catholic doctrine stems from the teachings of Christ - according to Catholic claims. Christ said nothing about same-sex marriage, nor gay adoption. Who invented this immutable Catholic doctrine, and when?

So the Church's official position could be amended in the future on the issue of the state death penalty. That's conceivable. Yet it will never, ever change on the issue of murder!

Yet even Catholics could disagree on the definition of 'murder'. If it means no one can ever, ever kill someone - how do you account for the Crusades, or the massacres of Albigensians and Waldensians? Or the burning of Joan of Arc? The hanging of Savonarola?

[Padraig]

Yet even Catholics could disagree on the definition of 'murder'. If it means no one can ever, ever kill someone - how do you account for the Crusades, or the massacres of Albigensians and Waldensians? Or the burning of Joan of Arc? The hanging of Savonarola?

ff, I think you are not correct in the assertion of your first sentence. Murder is murder, Catholics believe. However, they probably would disagree with the definition that you provide in your second sentence and so would not feel that they had to account for wars, massacres and killings, other than to regret that they ever took place.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

However, they probably would disagree with the definition that you provide in your second sentence and so would not feel that they had to account for wars, massacres and killings, other than to regret that they ever took place.

Savonarola? (Or Giordano Bruno, for that matter?)