Catholics and NFP--really struggling

[*Michelle*]

I think you are misinformed about what is doctrine and what is discipline. The things you reference were never doctrine. If you would like a resource for researching the Church's doctrines, this one is in an easy to use format: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/index.htm

[albeto]

I think you are misinformed about what is doctrine and what is discipline. The things you reference were never doctrine. If you would like a resource for researching the Church's doctrines, this one is in an easy to use format: http://www.ewtn.com/...hings/index.htm

 

Is there a reference to artificial birth control through that link? If not, does that mean it's not a doctrine? As I recall, the church makes certain pronouncements as needed. For example, until Martin Luther's popular "heresy," the beleifs concerning the eucharist and the priestly order did not make public waves. Other heresies were successfully stamped out, but this protestant one was big enough to inspire a council (Trent, some 10 or 20 years later, IIRC). It was in that council, for the first time, that the doctrine of the eucharist was formalized. Another example is the doctrine of the assumption of Mary. That wasn't formalized until the middle of the 19th century. Before then, it was either assumed, or not worried about. Artificial Birth Control doesn't have a history in the church much before last century ("Onanism," or "pulling out," maybe, but that's no more "artificial" than NFP). My point is, unless ABC is declared a doctrine (and if so, where?), it's not considered a doctrine. It's not problematic for this belief to change in time. I suspect it will because with increased knowledge comes evolution of society. With evolution of society comes evolution, or death, of any particular religion. I'd be interested in understanding why you think this belief is not likely to change in time.

[*Michelle*]

Yes, it is a doctrine.

 

http://www.catholic....ts/birth-contro

The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).

 

Eta, sorry, I don't know why it's darkened like that.

[albeto]

Yes, it is a doctrine.

 

http://www.catholic....ts/birth-contro

 

 

Eta, sorry, I don't know why it's darkened like that.

 

 

 

Thanks for that. I'd forgotten conception is considered to be doctrine. Here's where I'm coming from, fwiw. In the link you provided (that one didn't work, but I think this is the one you meant: http://www.catholic....s/birth-control), the following excerpt is provided:

 

 

"The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable."

 

I understand that only two times has papal infallibility been used. Teachings that are not formally pronounced infallible, are not to be considered infallible, even if the pope (or any priest) speaks with great passion and eloquence. Take for example, again, the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. In here, the pope affirms the same idea - a teaching held to be definitive and irreformable. He didn't use those words, but can we assume there is no particular catch phrase necessary (other than, "papal infallibility" or some variation thereof)? In the Fourth Lateran Council, we read:

 

 

67. Jews and excessive Usury

 

The more the Christian religion is restrained from usurious practices, so much the more does the perfidy of the Jews grow in these matters, so that within a short time they are exhausting the resources of Christians. Wishing therefore to see that Christians are not savagely oppressed by Jews in this matter,

we ordain by this synodal decree that if Jews in future, on any pretext, extort oppressive and excessive interest from Christians, then they are to be removed from contact with Christians until they have made adequate satisfaction for the immoderate burden. Christians too, if need be, shall be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, without the possibility of an appeal, to abstain from commerce with them.

We enjoin upon princes not to be hostile to Christians on this account, but rather to be zealous in restraining Jews from so great oppression. We decree, under the same penalty, that Jews shall be compelled to make satisfaction to churches for tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the churches were accustomed to receive from Christians for houses and other possessions, before they passed by whatever title to the Jews, so that the churches may thus be preserved from loss.

 

 

68. Jews appearing in public

 

A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces, but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable. Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with Christian women.

In order that the offence of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every Christian province and at all times, are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress

— seeing moreover that this was enjoined upon them by Moses himself, as we read. They shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday; because some of them on such days, as we have heard, do not blush to parade in very ornate dress and are not afraid to mock Christians who are presenting a memorial of the most sacred passion and are displaying signs of grief.

What we most strictly forbid however, is that they dare in any way to break out in derision of the Redeemer. We order secular princes to restrain with condign punishment those who do so presume, lest they dare to blaspheme in any way him who was crucified for us, since we ought not to ignore insults against him who blotted out our wrongdoings.

 

 

69. Jews not to hold public offices

 

It would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians. We therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter : we forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians.

If, however, anyone does commit such an office to them let him, after an admonition, be curbed by the provincial council, which we order to be held annually, by means of an appropriate sanction. Any official so appointed shall be denied commerce with Christians in business and in other matters until he has converted to the use of poor Christians, in accordance with the directions of the diocesan bishop, whatever he has obtained from Christians by reason of his office so acquired, and he shall surrender with shame the office which he irreverently assumed. We extend the same thing to pagans.

 

 

70. Jewish converts may not retain their old rite

 

Certain people who have come voluntarily to the waters of sacred baptism, as we learnt, do not wholly cast off the old person in order to put on the new more perfectly. For, in keeping remnants of their former rite, they upset the decorum of the Christian religion by such a mixing. Since it is written, cursed is he who enters the land by two paths, and a garment that is woven from linen and wool together should not be put on, we therefore decree that such people shall be wholly prevented by the prelates of churches from observing their old rite, so that those who freely offered themselves to the Christian religion may be kept to its observance by a salutary and necessary coercion.

For it is a lesser evil not to know the Lord's way than to go back on it after having known it.

 

Keep in mind, this isn't a single encyclical, a letter from the Bishop of Rome. This is a formal Council of the Church, like the ones that cannonized certain books to be preserved in the bible, and the ones that formalized such doctrines as transubstantiation and the office of the pope. These pronouncements were understood to be infallible by virtue of the authority of the Church itself. Today no one talks about the necessity of setting apart Jews by some identification on their clothing unless they're referencing Nazi Germany. No one talks about the necessity of keeping Jews and Christians separated for professional and social business. The idea that such a union between a Jew and a Christian is "damning," identifies it as a grave sin. Let that sink in for a moment. The Church, the repository of the faith of Christ, taught that a union between a Jew and a Christian is a mortal sin. Hell. Forever and ever for having sex with a Jew. So... where did that belief go? Why is that no longer taught? Is it because the words, "This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable," are not found? And why is the greatest evil ever known to the repository of faith, going back on it (the faith of Christ) after having known it? Is that the greatest evil known today? If not, what changed? If so, why is it not taught with due importance?

 

Do you see what I mean here? One of the comforts I had when I wrestled with this problem was a letter to the Bishops regarding confession and contraception in a marriage when one spouse is Catholic and the other is not. That was a huge relief for me (although the damage to our marriage had already been done), but no such relief is forthcoming for Moxie, who trusts the RCC to accurately represent the faith of Christ. How interesting, I thought, to finally find one authoritative resource in my favor. I don't know that Moxie will find such a thing, and because her desire to be faithful to her church seems very genuine to me, I suspect she'll not make the decision most (something like 98% of American Catholics anyway) do.

 

What I'm suggesting is that doctrine does change. Because there is no stamp of infallibility (with two exceptions in the 19th century), and because information changes and society evolves, we have seen the church change in her history. I expect we will see it change again. It seems to me that Moxie's choice is to trust her local priest or trust her conscience and assume she's ahead of the Vatican, or at least the formalized teachings of the Vatican. The idea that she can be miserable (and I don't say that lightly) for many years to come in hopes of gaining some unknown reward after death is quite a gamble to ask someone to take. When that gamble doesn't make sense and red flags abound, what's a person to do? Of course the bible teaches to lay down one's rational thought and just trust God anyway, but yeowch. That's asking a lot of a person already worn down. When that goes directly against that person's conscience (something the RCC teaches is God-approved), that just adds to the confusion.

[*Michelle*]

You raise good questions. First, to clear up the issue of papal infallibility. I think you may be confusing infallibility with the pope speaking ex cathedra. Yes, there are only two times when the pope has spoken ex cathedra and both times had to do with Marian doctrine. However, as you pointed out, infallibility also comes from the ecclesiastical community speaking in unison. However, there are ways to determine if a teaching is infallible:

 

Tests for whether a definition has been made include: (a) if a pope is writing, does he use the phrase "I define"? and (B) if a council is writing, does it use the phrase "let him be anathema"? If either of these is the case, it’s probably an infallible definition, especially as this language has been used in recent centuries. There are other ways popes and councils can issue definitions, but these are phrases commonly used to do so.

 

So, within the text of the Fourth Lateran Council, does the second phrase appear? Yes.

 

First:

 

Furthermore, since corsairs and pirates greatly impede help for the holy Land, by capturing and plundering those who are travelling to and from it, we bind with the bond of excommunication everyone who helps or supports them. We forbid anyone, under threat of anathema, knowingly to communicate with them by contracting to buy or to sell; and we order rulers of cities and their territories to restrain and curb such persons from this iniquity. Otherwise, since to be unwilling to disquiet evildoers is none other than to encourage them, and since he who fails to oppose a manifest crime is not without a touch of secret complicity, it is our wish and command that prelates of churches exercise ecclesiastical severity against their persons and lands. We excommunicate and anathematize, moreover, those false and impious Christians who, in opposition to Christ and the Christian people, convey arms to the Saracens and iron and timber for their galleys. We decree that those who sell them galleys or ships, and those who act as pilots in pirate Saracen ships, or give them any advice or help by way of machines or anything else, to the detriment of the holy Land, are to be punished with deprivation of their possessions and are to become the slaves of those who capture them. We order this sentence to be renewed on Sundays and feast-days in all maritime towns; and the bosom of the church is not to be opened to such persons unless they send in aid of the holy Land the whole of the damnable wealth which they received and the same amount of their own, so that they are punished in proportion to their offence. If perchance they do not pay, they are to be punished in other ways in order that through their punishment others may be deterred from venturing upon similar rash actions. In addition, we prohibit and on pain of anathema forbid all Christians, for four years, to send or take their ships across to the lands of the Saracens who dwell in the east, so that by this a greater supply of shipping may be made ready for those wanting to cross over to help the holy Land, and so that the aforesaid Saracens may be deprived of the not inconsiderable help which they have been accustomed to receiving from this.

 

Second:

 

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above... Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person.

 

Third:

 

Moreover, since the soul is much more precious than the body, we forbid any physician, under pain of anathema, to prescribe anything for the bodily health of a sick person that may endanger his soul.

 

Fourth:

 

The Lateran council, wishing to provide for the immunity of the church against officials and governors of cities and other persons who seek to oppress churches and churchmen with tallages and taxes and other exactions, forbade such presumption under pain of anathema.

 

And that's it for that document. Those were the only infallible decrees laid out by that council. The other things were disciplines. Now, I don't think there are any people conveying arms to Saracens anymore, but heretics are still excommunicated today, and the Catholic Church is currently involved in multiple lawsuits over certain prescriptions being mandated. Seeing as the fourth would only apply to the Church/government structure of the day, I don't think it's thrown about much.

 

Okay, so were Jews and Christians allowed to marry? I don't think the council addressed this at all. Here are the mentions of marriage:

 

Those clerics who have not renounced the marriage bond, following the custom of their region, shall be punished even more severely if they fall into sin, since for them it is possible to make lawful use of matrimony.

 

It should not be judged reprehensible if human decrees are sometimes changed according to changing circumstances, especially when urgent necessity or evident advantage demands it, since God himself changed in the new Testament some of the things which he had commanded in the old Testament. Since the prohibitions against contracting marriage in the second and third degree of affinity, and against uniting the offspring of a second marriage with the kindred of the first husband, often lead to difficulty and sometimes endanger souls, we therefore, in order that when the prohibition ceases the effect may also cease, revoke with the approval of this sacred council the constitutions published on this subject and we decree, by this present constitution, that henceforth contracting parties connected in these ways may freely be joined together. Moreover the prohibition against marriage shall not in future go beyond the fourth degree of consanguinity and of affinity, since the prohibition cannot now generally be observed to further degrees without grave harm.

 

Since the prohibition against marriage in the three remotest degrees has been revoked, we wish it to be strictly observed in the other degrees. Following in the footsteps of our predecessors, we altogether forbid clandestine marriages and we forbid any priest to presume to be present at such a marriage.

 

The "damnable mixing," as far as I can tell, was not about marriage. It was about wanting to be able to distinguish Catholics from Jews and Saracens by their dress. Which is all around awful to our sensibilities, certainly. However, this was not an infallible teaching.

 

From the introduction:

 

The seventy constitutions would seem to give proof of the council's excellent results. The work of Innocent appears clearly in them even though they were probably not directly composed by him. He regarded them as universal laws and as a summary of the jurisdiction of his pontificate. Few links with earlier councils survive, those with the third Lateran council being the only relevant ones of which we know.

 

Thus,

 

—the first constitution is regarded as a new profession of faith.

—The second and third constitutions, which deal with heretics and contain dogmatic statements, are new.

—The remainder, which deal with the reform of the church, appear for the most part to be new either in form or in content. They deal with

—the church's discipline (6-13) ,

—the reform of clerical morals (14-22) ,

—episcopal elections and the administration of benefices (23-32) ,

—exaction of taxes (33-34) ,

—canonical suits (35-49) ,

—matrimony (50-52) ,

—tithes (53-61) ,

—simony (63-66) , and

—Jews (67-70) .

[Trish]

 

 

What I'm suggesting is that doctrine does change. Because there is no stamp of infallibility (with two exceptions in the 19th century), and because information changes and society evolves, we have seen the church change in her history. I expect we will see it change again. It seems to me that Moxie's choice is to trust her local priest or trust her conscience and assume she's ahead of the Vatican, or at least the formalized teachings of the Vatican. The idea that she can be miserable (and I don't say that lightly) for many years to come in hopes of gaining some unknown reward after death is quite a gamble to ask someone to take. When that gamble doesn't make sense and red flags abound, what's a person to do? Of course the bible teaches to lay down one's rational thought and just trust God anyway, but yeowch. That's asking a lot of a person already worn down. When that goes directly against that person's conscience (something the RCC teaches is God-approved), that just adds to the confusion.

 

You're talking about her "gamble" while discounting your own. What reason do you see down the road for the church changing this teaching, beyond, "almost everyone is using birth control, therefore it must be okay?" (or perhaps that should be worded, "Everyone Is Ahead of the Formalized Teachings of the Vatican.") There's no problem just doing whatever you think is right, of course. Catholicism is still considered optional by most.

[*Michelle*]

And to add, please keep in mind that interfaith marriage was not something that Jews of antiquity were seeking and being denied by the Church. Jewish beliefs also prohibited interfaith marriage. The issue for both sides was that the children would not be raised in the faith, either one.

[stripe]

I have yet to see an entire country over there accept total abstinence as the alternative.

Indeed, I have yet to see any non-African country promote total abstinence for its population. Well, except the Vatican! ;) I don't see this as an "African" issue. Most married adults expect to at least occasionally have intercourse.

 

I think the reality is, for a lot of religious people, one may know one should /should not be doing something but just not feel capable of doing/not doing this action. I think on some level, and especially on the internet, it can be easy to let that one thing push you away entirely, so that the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Without trying to dissuade you from your faith and your pious actions, I think you cannot lose hope if you are not able to do everything perfectly.

[albeto]

You raise good questions. First, to clear up the issue of papal infallibility. I think you may be confusing infallibility with the pope speaking ex cathedra. Yes, there are only two times when the pope has spoken ex cathedra and both times had to do with Marian doctrine. However, as you pointed out, infallibility also comes from the ecclesiastical community speaking in unison. However, there are ways to determine if a teaching is infallible:

 

Pope Emeritus Benedict changed the goalposts recently when he spoke about condom use being acceptable in certain circumstances. Either contraception is intrinsically evil, or it's not. Or it is until it's understood to not be. That's what I think will continue to change - the understanding of what is "intrinsically evil."

 

Okay, so were Jews and Christians allowed to marry? I don't think the council addressed this at all. Here are the mentions of marriage:

 

What do you think was meant by the words: "Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with Christian women." Do you interpret this "joining" between Christians (men assumed) and Jewish or Saracen women to be a business joint venture? And how can ideas like "It would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians," or "we ought not to ignore insults against him who blotted out our wrongdoings," to have been transiently true? Either a Jew blasphemes Christ and it is absurd for him to exercise power over a Christian and these insults must never be ignored, or it is not absurd and these insults can be ignored. This isn't the Mormon church where revelation is understood to be changing. It's understood to be constant, unchanging, and an accurate representation of the faith of Christ. If a Roman Catholic Council can't get it right in a formal Council, then which pronouncements are trustworthy? Only the ones formally declared infallible? There's a major problem with credibility here if a church authority has to say, "I really mean it this time," when they claim to be the repository of the faith of Christ on earth.

 

The link you provide is a nice suggestion, but note that there is no official stance. This leaves Moxie in a terrible dilemma. Either she decides what's rational and considerate and compassionate (contracept for family planning, with no loss of love to or from her husband), or she bites her tongue and accepts increased suffering. This is the position her church has placed her in. For what reason should someone continue to trust an organization that asks them to embrace undue oppression without explanation? This is a big, glaring, red flag for many people who genuinely want to be faithful to their religious beliefs, for those who do want to trust their religious authorities.

 

The "damnable mixing," as far as I can tell, was not about marriage. It was about wanting to be able to distinguish Catholics from Jews and Saracens by their dress. Which is all around awful to our sensibilities, certainly. However, this was not an infallible teaching.

 

It sounds awful to our sensibilities because it formalizes bigotry and oppression, which we know today to be a morally corrupt policy. Why do you think Jews were coerced to identify themselves as Jews in public? They were considered a threat, and this was the solution to the problem (there were many "solutions" throughout history). If these things are important to God, if they are part of the faith of Christ, why are they ignored today? If they aren't, why did the church, which claims to be the repository of that faith, say they were? If this can be changed without so much as a tip of the hat to the old ways, why too not birth control?

[albeto]

You're talking about her "gamble" while discounting your own.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

 

What reason do you see down the road for the church changing this teaching, beyond, "almost everyone is using birth control, therefore it must be okay?" (or perhaps that should be worded, "Everyone Is Ahead of the Formalized Teachings of the Vatican.")

 

I think that as the knowledge of human sexual behavior increases, artificial birth control won't be seen as intrinsically evil. For example, if contracepting is understood to be not giving of yourself fully to your spouse, but we gain greater understanding how sex is a behavior like any other behavior - internally and externally conditioned to each person subjectively and uniquely - then we know that the idea of "giving of yourself" is equally subjective, and not dependent upon birth control. We also recognize gynecological issues better, making birth control not evil in and of itself, but evil when used in a certain way. But wait, when used in that very way in Africa between two legally married spouses, one of which has HIV, it's not evil after all. Do you see what I mean? The more we know, the more fuzzy the line between "good" and "evil" becomes. I suspect eventually, birth control itself will be no more "evil" than any other tool. It will be understood that the personal intent behind the use of the tool will determine if it's morally sound or not.

 

There's no problem just doing whatever you think is right, of course. Catholicism is still considered optional by most.

 

For many a Catholic, doing whatever you think is right, when it is in opposition to what the church teaches is equivocally right, is a grave sin. This is a matter of eternal damnation, eternal torment and pain and punishment (however you understand that to be). An eternity is hardly worth 15 years of convenience. So, yeah, there is a problem with just doing whatever you think is right. It comes with a potentially horrifying price tag.

[*Michelle*]

Again, doctrine and discipline. They are not the same.

[albeto]

And to add, please keep in mind that interfaith marriage was not something that Jews of antiquity were seeking and being denied by the Church. Jewish beliefs also prohibited interfaith marriage. The issue for both sides was that the children would not be raised in the faith, either one.

 

"It would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians. We therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter : we forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians."

 

This has all the buzzwords: "We therefore renew in this canon," "what the council of Toledo providently decreed..." That's some serious stuff here. Eternal ramifications.

 

This isn't a matter of not knowing whether to raise your kids to look forward to Santa, or setting lighting the Menorah This is about Jews being willful, public blasphemers, and the dangers therein. This is about identifying evil and and protecting society from it. This has absolutely changed. The church no longer professes this kind of "truth."

[albeto]

Again, doctrine and discipline. They are not the same.

 

I understand that. I'm suggesting these goalposts are moved more frequently than you recognize.

[*Michelle*]

If a Roman Catholic Council can't get it right in a formal Council, then which pronouncements are trustworthy? Only the ones formally declared infallible? There's a major problem with credibility here if a church authority has to say, "I really mean it this time," when they claim to be the repository of the faith of Christ on earth.

 

I'm not sure I understand how having specific guidelines for defining doctrine creates a credibility problem. There are things that Catholics must believe and there are things that Catholics may believe and there are things that Catholics must not believe.

[*Michelle*]

 

"It would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians. We therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter : we forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians."

 

This has all the buzzwords: "We therefore renew in this canon," "what the council of Toledo providently decreed..." That's some serious stuff here. Eternal ramifications.

 

This isn't a matter of not knowing whether to raise your kids to look forward to Santa, or setting lighting the Menorah This is about Jews being willful, public blasphemers, and the dangers therein. This is about identifying evil and and protecting society from it. This has absolutely changed. The church no longer professes this kind of "truth."

 

 

No, it doesn't.

[Catwoman]

Not trying to be the forum police or anything, but the discussion seems to be veering away from Moxie's original question. She seemed pretty distressed and I thought she was getting a lot of interesting ideas and perspectives, so I hope we can get back on-track for her benefit.

[Orthodox6]

 

This is a huge difference!! As someone said earlier, the Catholic church is black and white on this issue. It is forbidden in all cases, everywhere, no matter what. There is a difference between being asked to not use birth control and being taught that you will be damned to Hell if you do. I'm really stuggling with that.

 

Not Catholic, but startled to read that you have been taught so drastic an automatic punishment will result from using birth control. I'm thinking that there maybe is a spectrum of viewpoint, even when remaining within the boundaries of "conservative Catholicism". -- ?

 

Your concerns are real, and do not sound selfish, in the way that you present them. :grouphug:

 

Like Milovany, I am Eastern Orthodox, and I feel right at home with the [EO] traditional, historical non-use of birth control. At the same time, though, we (EO) have the "marital fast", which is a part of the very many fasting days that occur all throughout the year. (Abstinence does not harm a marriage when done with a blessing, and with the required harmony between spouses.) My family is not large (only four living children), and undoubtedly would be even smaller, if we had used NFP in addition to the routine abstinence.

 

Again, :grouphug:

[Moxie]

 

 

Not Catholic, but startled to read that you have been taught so drastic an automatic punishment will result from using birth control. I'm thinking that there maybe is a spectrum of viewpoint, even when remaining within the boundaries of "conservative Catholicism". -- ?

 

Your concerns are real, and do not sound selfish, in the way that you present them. :grouphug:

 

Like Milovany, I am Eastern Orthodox, and I feel right at home with the [EO] traditional, historical non-use of birth control. At the same time, though, we (EO) have the "marital fast", which is a part of the very many fasting days that occur all throughout the year. (Abstinence does not harm a marriage when done with a blessing, and with the required harmony between spouses.) My family is not large (only four living children), and undoubtedly would be even smaller, if we had used NFP in addition to the routine abstinence.

 

Again, :grouphug:

 

 

Catholics believe that any ABC is a mortal sin as long as the conditions for mortal sin are met. So, since most American Catholics who use ABC have never been taught that it is wrong, it isn't a mortal sin for them. Lucky me, I was taught by the nuns all the ways in which I am a horrible sinner.

[Catwoman]

Catholics believe that any ABC is a mortal sin as long as the conditions for mortal sin are met. So, since most American Catholics who use ABC have never been taught that it is wrong, it isn't a mortal sin for them. Lucky me, I was taught by the nuns all the ways in which I am a horrible sinner.

 

If you'd like, I can konk you on the head with something heavy and we can hope you get amnesia. ;)

 

Always here to help... :D

[albeto]

I'm not sure I understand how having specific guidelines for defining doctrine creates a credibility problem. There are things that Catholics must believe and there are things that Catholics may believe and there are things that Catholics must not believe.

 

 

I'll use that one portion as an example to make my point:

 

 

"It would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians. We therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter : we forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians."

 

Jews are "blasphemers of Christ." That is, they do not accept Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. That hasn't changed, but the "absurdity" of exercising "power" over a Christian has. So, was it truly absurd, and morally justified to make it criminal for a Jew to "exercise power" over a Christian or not? If it once was, what's changed? If it never was, why was it declared in a formal council? If it once was because "everyone thought so," then why did the repository of the faith of Jesus fail to make correction, especially when millions upon millions of Jews were systematically exiled and killed for their "blasphemy" over the centuries?

 

This statement renews a canon. Canonical decisions are Big League decisions. They include things like which letters and historical texts are considered to have been "divinely inspired." Only, this canonical decision was... what? Wrong? Mistaken? Temporary? Which canons are legitimate and why are some forgotten?

 

This statement mentions the council of Toledo and its providential decree. Well, was it providential or not? If so, why is it forgotten? If not, why was it stated in the first place?

 

I hope this makes sense. I'm not trying to put you on the spot to defend the Catholic faith, but explain how this kind of thing raises questions about the credibility of the claim of the RCC. We can assume something that is today considered evil might likely to not be considered evil in the future, precisely because we can see how something considered intrinsically evil at one time is no longer considered so. Same church, same claim to be the repository of the faith of Christ on earth. Very different beliefs, not disciplines, but beliefs, including what constitutes as grave sin. I think a similar kind of change with beliefs of what is a grave sin is especially likely when it comes to the issue of human sexual behavior. As we learn more objective information, the church will have no option to but to incorporate this information into their doctrines just like they've done this whole time.

 

But where does that leave Moxie today? What kind of assurance does she have that, like the blaspheming Jews of old, what was once considered absurd will in the future be forgotten, and the opposite advocated? See what I mean about credibility? Now she has to decide what's right, because her church can't be counted on knowing. Not really.

[*Michelle*]

I understand the point you are making, but I believe you are starting with an incorrect premise. The portion you quote was not declared as doctrine. Our original discussion was over my statement that the Church would not change her stance on contraception because it is doctrine. Quoting a rule or regulation that is no longer in effect as proof that doctrine changes is invalid.

 

There are also several definitions for canon. A canon can be a simple rule. A canon can also be a dogmatic definition, but then it would need an anathema attached. The examples I quoted before were dogmatic because they had anathemas attached; this regulation does not.

[PrairieSong]

Hi Moxie,

 

I am coming late to this conversation and have not read every post, though I read many of them. I am Catholic also, and I do accept the Church's teaching on this topic. Our children were spaced mostly by pregnancy and bfing. We have seven children living and two that we miscarried.

 

I am so sorry you are struggling with this. You say your two choices are either to have many children or to severely limit times of marital intimacy. It seems to me there is a third option, which has been suggested by some other posters. Have you looked into WHY your cycles are so erratic? I would definitely be making an appointment to see a doctor who works with NFP, or maybe an NFP teacher. Surely they can point you in a direction that will offer answers. I would also make an appointment to talk to a good and holy priest.

 

I am not here to judge you or anyone else, but I did want to assure you of my prayers. God bless you and your family!

[albeto]

I understand the point you are making, but I believe you are starting with an incorrect premise.

 

I think it's more accurate to say I'm not starting with your premise. I am starting with a historically accepted premise, however. I know it's not in fashion today, but when one reads the pope (the very "Vicar of Christ Himself") talking about Jews being oppressive, blasphemous infidels worthy of criminalization if they don't wear a gold Star of David or whatever on their sleeves, it's far worse to try and defend that position. The only socially acceptable option is to sweep it under the rug, suggest it never really "counted" as the "real faith" in the first place. That's an understandable position to take, but it's not traditional, and it doesn't make my premise incorrect.

 

The portion you quote was not declared as doctrine. Our original discussion was over my statement that the Church would not change her stance on contraception because it is doctrine. Quoting a rule or regulation that is no longer in effect as proof that doctrine changes is invalid.

 

Benedict XVI already changed it, unless he was mistaken, in which case what the pope says is no more valuable than what anyone's Catholic aunt says because without the important buzzwords accompanying any announcement, they may or may not reflect the faith.

 

The question is, what will the official belief be in the future?

 

There are also several definitions for canon. A canon can be a simple rule. A canon can also be a dogmatic definition, but then it would need an anathema attached. The examples I quoted before were dogmatic because they had anathemas attached; this regulation does not.

 

I suggest the examples you quoted before are dogmatic because they're acceptable today. Other things that had the official Seal of Approval of the Day are not. Providence, canon, dogma, doctrine, infallible... whatever words you want to use to legitimize the church's view today are fine, but it doesn't represent the church throughout history. Regardless of whether or not these are satisfactory arguments for you, for men and women who desperately don't want to willfully engage in known grave sin, and yet desperately don't want to follow official teaching for genuinely compassionate reasons, these are shallow platitudes. Ask me how I know.

[gardenmom5]

 

If you'd like, I can konk you on the head with something heavy and we can hope you get amnesia. ;)

 

Always here to help... :D

years ago I read an article on the brain in NG. a woman was in a car accident, and the only injury was basically permanent amnesia of her life before. her daughter frequently told her that why yes, all moms take their teen age daughters clothes shopping after school.

[Catwoman]

years ago I read an article on the brain in NG. a woman was in a car accident, and the only injury was basically permanent amnesia of her life before. her daughter frequently told her that why yes, all moms take their teen age daughters clothes shopping after school.

 

So maybe this whole amnesia thing really could work for Moxie!!! :w00t:

[*Michelle*]

I think it's more accurate to say I'm not starting with your premise. I am starting with a historically accepted premise, however. I know it's not in fashion today, but when one reads the pope (the very "Vicar of Christ Himself") talking about Jews being oppressive, blasphemous infidels worthy of criminalization if they don't wear a gold Star of David or whatever on their sleeves, it's far worse to try and defend that position. The only socially acceptable option is to sweep it under the rug, suggest it never really "counted" as the "real faith" in the first place. That's an understandable position to take, but it's not traditional, and it doesn't make my premise incorrect.

 

Well, no, because what I am discussing has nothing to do with that. I'm talking about doctrine and whether or not it changes. That was not doctrine. The Pope or a council speaking about something does not make it doctrine. It never has. So, you can't use that as an example of a doctrine that has changed.

 

 

Benedict XVI already changed it, unless he was mistaken, in which case what the pope says is no more valuable than what anyone's Catholic aunt says because without the important buzzwords accompanying any announcement, they may or may not reflect the faith.

 

The question is, what will the official belief be in the future?

 

Again, the pope can say many things but this was not doctrine. He was not speaking ex cathedra regarding contraception. Also, his comments were exaggerated.

 

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2010/11/23/pope-benedict-and-condoms-what-he-did-and-did-not-say.htm

 

What Pope Benedict Did Not Say

 

To begin with, Pope Benedict did not change one iota of Catholic teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception. In fact, elsewhere in his interview with Peter Seewald, Pope Benedict declares that Humanae vitae, Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical on birth control and abortion, was "prophetically correct." He reaffirmed the central premise of Humanae vitae—that the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of the sexual act (in the words of Pope Paul VI) "contradicts the will of the Author of life."

Moreover, Pope Benedict did not say that the use of condoms is "morally justified" or "permissible" in order to stop the transmission of HIV. In fact, he went to great lengths to reaffirm his remarks, made at the beginning of his trip to Africa in 2009, "that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms." The problem is much deeper, and it involves a disordered understanding of sexuality that places sexual drives and the sexual act on a higher level than morality. Pope Benedict makes this clear when he discusses the "so-called ABC Theory":

Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalisation of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the exp

ression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves.

So why have so many commentators, including the usually perceptive Damian Thompson, claimed that Pope Benedict has decided that "condoms may be justified, or permissible, in circumstances where not using them would spread HIV"? Because they have fundamentally misunderstood the example that Pope Benedict offered.

What Pope Benedict Did Say

 

In elaborating on his point about the "banalisation of sexuality," Pope Benedict stated:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where

this can be a first step in the direction of a moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility

[emphasis added], on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.

He followed that up immediately with a restatement of his earlier remarks:

But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanisation of sexuality.

The problem here is that very few commentators seem to understand two important points:

1. The Church's teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception is directed at married couples.
   
2. "Moralisation," as Pope Benedict is using the term, refers to a possible result of a particular action, which does not say anything about the morality of the action itself.
   

These two points go hand-in-hand. When a prostitute (male or female) engages in fornication, the act is immoral. It is not made less immoral if he does not use artificial contraception during the act of fornication; nor is it made more immoral if he uses it. The Church's teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception takes place entirely within the appropriate use of sexuality—that is, within the context of the marriage bed.

 

 

I suggest the examples you quoted before are dogmatic because they're acceptable today. Other things that had the official Seal of Approval of the Day are not. Providence, canon, dogma, doctrine, infallible... whatever words you want to use to legitimize the church's view today are fine, but it doesn't represent the church throughout history. Regardless of whether or not these are satisfactory arguments for you, for men and women who desperately don't want to willfully engage in known grave sin, and yet desperately don't want to follow official teaching for genuinely compassionate reasons, these are shallow platitudes. Ask me how I know.

 

You cannot say something is dogmatic unless it actually is. Those words mean something within the Church. I am truly sorry for the hurt you have experienced and I can tell that you have a lot of pain from it. I hope that you can find peace.

[UrbanSue]

 

 

 

Benedict XVI already changed it, unless he was mistaken, in which case what the pope says is no more valuable than what anyone's Catholic aunt says because without the important buzzwords accompanying any announcement, they may or may not reflect the faith.

 

The question is, what will the official belief be in the future?

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why you keep claiming that B16 changed anything. I assume you know that not every word that a Pope says is infallible, right? He is infallible when he "intends to teach, on issues of faith and morals, for the good of the whole church." Not when he's just chatting. Which was the case with condoms. He was talking to a reporter on a plane ride to African and said that if a male prostitute were to use a condom to prevent the spread of HIV it could be a first step in reducing some of the evil of his immoral action.

 

This was not any kind of official teaching. Yes, I know the papers went crazy with headlines that the Pope had "dropped the ban on birth control" but that's not at all what happened in this case. He was speaking as a person, as a professor. Thinking aloud. Should the Pope do that "on the record"? Well, probably not. Nevertheless, no teaching was changed.

[UrbanSue]

Well, no, because what I am discussing has nothing to do with that. I'm talking about doctrine and whether or not it changes. That was not doctrine. The Pope or a council speaking about something does not make it doctrine. It never has. So, you can't use that as an example of a doctrine that has changed.

 

 

 

 

Again, the pope can say many things but this was not doctrine. He was not speaking ex cathedra regarding contraception. Also, his comments were exaggerated.

 

http://catholicism.a...did-not-say.

 

 

 

You cannot say something is dogmatic unless it actually is. Those words mean something within the Church. I am truly sorry for the hurt you have experienced and I can tell that you have a lot of pain from it. I hope that you can find peace.

 

Sorry, Michelle, cross posting with you!

[JumpyTheFrog]

I have to say, as a non-Cathlolic, all the posts about "but that's not doctrine, they only changed a discipline" sound like weasel words to me. It comes across as Catholics consider obeying church tradition just as important as obeying the Bible, except when people point out past atrocities. Then it turns into "No, no. You misunderstand. That never was doctrine! People haven't been catechized properly." Except somehow I bet, that at the time, if a Catholic had disagreed with the "discipline" regarding the Jews (or not eating meat on Fridays, or any other issue), they would have been seen as a terrible Catholic.

 

I'm not trying to bash Catholics. I'm very relieved to not be Catholic. What would happen if a manuscript in Greek was found that showed the translation or interpretation of a rarely used word in the Bible was wrong? The New Testament has some rarely used Greek words that scholars look at non-Biblical texts to try and learn what the word means. If they discovered the traditional translation of some of these words was wrong, it sounds like the Catholic church would be stuck. They couldn't admit the error if the wrongly translated text involved "doctrine." I'm glad I am a non-Catholic because then there doesn't need to be a crisis of faith over it.

[Orthodox6]

I have to say, as a non-Cathlolic, all the posts about "but that's not doctrine, they only changed a discipline" sound like weasel words to me. It comes across as Catholics consider obeying church tradition just as important as obeying the Bible, except when people point out past atrocities. Then it turns into "No, no. You misunderstand. That never was doctrine! People haven't been catechized properly." Except somehow I bet, that at the time, if a Catholic had disagreed with the "discipline" regarding the Jews (or not eating meat on Fridays, or any other issue), they would have been seen as a terrible Catholic.

 

I'm not trying to bash Catholics. I'm very relieved to not be Catholic. What would happen if a manuscript in Greek was found that showed the translation or interpretation of a rarely used word in the Bible was wrong? The New Testament has some rarely used Greek words that scholars look at non-Biblical texts to try and learn what the word means. If they discovered the traditional translation of some of these words was wrong, it sounds like the Catholic church would be stuck. They couldn't admit the error if the wrongly translated text involved "doctrine." I'm glad I am a non-Catholic because then there doesn't need to be a crisis of faith over it.

 

It is good that you have worked out your personal belief system. I gently wish to note, however, that your post does, despite your stated intentions, "bash Catholics" and does not belong in this thread.

[PrairieSong]

I hate all the bickering I have read here. If you are not Catholic and have some other belief system or philosophy, fine, but please don't put us down. I will give you the same courtesy.

 

I don't see the Catholic faith as being "a list of rules to follow", but a Person to follow. Jesus told the apostles, "He who hears you, hears Me." The Church is my family, the pope and bishops and priests are our spiritual fathers. The pope is not king of the world. He is defender of the faith and servant of the servants of God.

 

Can we get back to giving Moxie our support now?

[Murphy101]

Sigh

 

There is Tradition and there is tradition. The vast majority of society does not know the difference and I haven't had enough coffee to explain it politely.

 

No one is claiming that there have not been wrongs done by (insert any religion) persons in history. Tho why anyone would persist in claiming that means the entire religion is wrong seems bogus logic to me. (And I notice it tends to be bad form to do with any religion other than Catholicism.)

 

Through all those times and people, the core of the church founded by Christ himself as stood. And much like Christ when asked what one must do to follow him, many people will say the price is too high. And like Christ, the church doesn't lower the price or try to bargain with them. We sadly watch as they walk away. Maybe some day they will return. It's their choice.

 

Christ was left on the cross with just 2 people that stayed with him. Likewise, if necessary, the Catholic Church someday might be left with just 2 people who stay. That's certainly sad to contemplate but changes nothing of the value of the church. It's never been a popularity contest.

[albeto]

Well, no, because what I am discussing has nothing to do with that. I'm talking about doctrine and whether or not it changes. That was not doctrine. The Pope or a council speaking about something does not make it doctrine. It never has. So, you can't use that as an example of a doctrine that has changed.

 

Ironically, you maintain that the church's teachings don't "count" without the label "doctrine," and yet there exist no doctrine that declares this. Essentially, this concept of "only doctrinal teachings count" doesn't count.

 

But more relative to the point of this thread, I'm interpreting from this exchange with you that nothing the RCC says is legitimate unless particular buzz words identify it as For Real It Counts This Time (words like "declare" and "anathema"). This was not the case for most of Catholic Church history, but it is now. So the question remains, what good is any church teaching if it's so easily dismissed according to current trends? Why should Moxie, or millions like her, trust what the church teaches is "doctrine" today (less than a century old) when it is likely to be modified, as other seemingly "authoritative" pronouncements in the past were?

 

Again, the pope can say many things but this was not doctrine. He was not speaking ex cathedra regarding contraception. Also, his comments were exaggerated.

 

http://catholicism.a...did-not-say.htm

 

I understand he was speaking informally and not in persona christi. However, he holds the office of the Vicar of Christ, with some assurances that the faith will never be thwarted (Matthew 16:18). What assurance does any Catholic have if the Holy See itself can be so confused with regard to what is intrinsically evil? I understand it doesn't confuse you, and many faithful Catholics. I hope you can understand how it does confuse many faithful Catholics. These faithful Catholics, who were baptized, received the sacrament of confirmation, denounced the works of Satan and vowed to be faithful to the teachings of the church (so, lots of spiritual protection here), are confused enough to leave the church over this kind of thing. It sounds like Moxie doesn't want to, but she's not in the position to just trust it anyway, simply because it's not trustworthy (not for the reasons I'm giving, but for the reasons of her personal situation, a situation Christ is supposed to be aware of).

 

You cannot say something is dogmatic unless it actually is. Those words mean something within the Church.

 

Today. Two hundred years ago this kind of conversation would never have happened. In two hundred years this kind of idea will likely be forgotten.

 

I am truly sorry for the hurt you have experienced and I can tell that you have a lot of pain from it. I hope that you can find peace.

 

Interesting perspective. I'm not sure what I said to give that impression, and although I thank you for your sympathies, I can assure you they are not necessary. There is no "pain" or "hurt" experienced with the RCC. It was my adopted church and I embraced it with open arms. I felt a very strong affection to it and its teachings for many years. Those years hold many good memories for me, not pain.

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why you keep claiming that B16 changed anything. I assume you know that not every word that a Pope says is infallible, right? He is infallible when he "intends to teach, on issues of faith and morals, for the good of the whole church." Not when he's just chatting. Which was the case with condoms. He was talking to a reporter on a plane ride to African and said that if a male prostitute were to use a condom to prevent the spread of HIV it could be a first step in reducing some of the evil of his immoral action.

 

Yeah, I understand that, but the issue remains the same. Namely, if the Vicar of Christ Himself can understand condom use as not intrinsically evil in some circumstances, then birth control is not a black and white issue of good v. evil. It's the first step in a long series of steps likely to be taken. As diseases like AIDS ravish places like Africa, as information and education is more quickly shared via media like the internet, people are going to be modifying their spiritual beliefs against the backdrop of increasingly available practical knowledge. Even in the Vatican.

 

 

 

 

I hate all the bickering I have read here. If you are not Catholic and have some other belief system or philosophy, fine, but please don't put us down. I will give you the same courtesy.

 

The exchange between *Michelle* and I is not "bickering." We're discussing the finer details of some of the broader ideas and comments made in this thread, ideas and comments that are exchanged throughout the world among Catholics and non Catholics. Discussing details isn't bickering, and it isn't putting anyone down. It's simply discussing details. Michelle has been quite polite and helpful in her part. I can only hope my intent to do the same is also recognized.

 

I don't see the Catholic faith as being "a list of rules to follow", but a Person to follow. Jesus told the apostles, "He who hears you, hears Me." The Church is my family, the pope and bishops and priests are our spiritual fathers. The pope is not king of the world. He is defender of the faith and servant of the servants of God.

 

Can we get back to giving Moxie our support now?

 

I hear you with the idea of following Jesus, not a set of rules. It was my sincere belief as well. I never thought of my church as promoting legalism, and had no problems with scrupulosity myself. Further, I was most attracted to the mystic saints like St. Catherine of Sienna, and St. John of the Cross. I adored the mystical side of the faith, and there is precious little room for "lists of rules to follow" in those traditions. This exchange began when I disagreed with Michelle's comment that "The Church will not change to keep people from leaving." I suggest it will, and has. It's changed its views on the solar system when the facts revealed their prior belief was inaccurate (a belief held so strongly that both Copernicus and Galileo had to officially declare their allegiance to the scripture in opposition to the facts or face theological prosecution). It's changed its views on biology when the facts revealed the theory of evolution accurately describes the biodiversity we see on earth. It's changed its views on the "Jewish problem" when antisemitism was no longer socially acceptable. I suggest it will change its views on birth control in the same way. There are too many things that will support the idea that artificial birth control is in and of itself a morally neutral tool, and not intrinsically evil. There's just so much yet to be learned about human sexual behavior that to refuse to incorporate new information into an evolving faith will render it obsolete. The church exists to survive, it won't throw itself under the bus to make a point. It will survive just like it did in the past - by modifying beliefs as society evolves.

[albeto]

 

It is good that you have worked out your personal belief system. I gently wish to note, however, that your post does, despite your stated intentions, "bash Catholics" and does not belong in this thread.

 

For future reference, can you explain to me how that post is considered "bashing"? I'm not seeing it and I'd like to avoid giving the impression myself.

 

Thanks.

 

:)

[unfrumpable.]

 

For future reference, can you explain to me how that post is considered "bashing"? I'm not seeing it and I'd like to avoid giving the impression myself.

 

Thanks.

 

:)

 

 

I don't see it as bashing either.

[*Michelle*]

But it does exist.

 

Okay, there is a lot of confusion about dogma, doctrine, and theology. Some of the confusion comes from the historical meanings of those terms compared to their modern meanings. We need to define terms.

 

This is a good article on those definitions. The summary is this:

 

Thus for the Church to define a dogma, it must not only infallibly teach that a particular point is true but that it is a divinely revealed truth.

 

To your first question about whether there is a doctrine that defines doctrine:

The term of art that is used to express the idea of a dogma is that it is a truth which must be believed with “divine and catholic faith†(Latin, fides divina et catholica). This formulation is found in the First Vatican Council, which held:

 

Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are [a] contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and B) which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium [Dei Filius 3:8].

 

Note the two criteria [a] and B) which identify the propositions that must be believed with divine and catholic faith. These are the same two conditions, expressed in slightly different words, as those found in the glossary to the Catechism.

 

We find a similar formulation in the Code of Canon Law, which provides:

 

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things [a] contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and B) at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

 

And what may be contributing to confusion is sloppy definition on my part, using doctrine and dogma interchangeably:

 

In the Catechism’s glossary it seemed to suggest that the terms “doctrine†and “dogma†can be used synonymously, but a look at other documents reveals that this is not always the case. For example, the Code of Canon law provides:

 

Can. 749 §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

 

This indicates a wider use of the term “doctrine,†because all dogmas are infallibly defined. Yet here it is indicated that there are doctrines which are not to be regarded as infallibly defined.

The same is indicated a few canons later:

 

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

 

The Church’s infallibility is engaged when the pope or the college of bishops proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals by a definitive act (CIC 749 §1-2), so again we have an indication that the Magisterium can proclaim “a doctrine . . . concerning faith or morals†in a non-infallible and thus a non-dogmatic way.

 

It thus appears that there are some doctrines that fall into the realm of dogma and others that don’t, either because they are not infallibly proclaimed by the Church or because they are not infallibly proclaimed as divinely revealed (they might merely be things necessarily connected with revealed truths–see above).

 

On Benedict XVI and the condom issues, I can only requote:

 

The Church's teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception takes place entirely within the appropriate use of sexuality—that is, within the context of the marriage bed.

 

Benedict spoke extemporaneously about condom use by male prostitutes. His words had nothing to do with contraception within the sacrament of matrimony.

 

ETA: I cannot get the bolding right. Hopefully it's fine after my umpteenth modification.

[albeto]

But it does exist.

 

I'm sorry, without a quote I'm forgetful. :o

 

What does exist?

 

Okay, there is a lot of confusion about dogma, doctrine, and theology. Some of the confusion comes from the historical meanings of those terms compared to their modern meanings. We need to define terms.

 

This is a good article on those definitions. The summary is this:

 

Either Akin's summary doesn't count (because it is not a declared doctrine/dogma by the pope himself), or the examples I've provided (solar system, creationism, antisemitism) do count because they have been discussed in such a way as to fit the criteria Akins explains:

 

The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)

 

On Benedict XVI and the condom issues, I can only requote:

The Church's teaching on the immorality of artificial contraception takes place entirely within the appropriate use of sexuality—that is, within the context of the marriage bed.

 

So contraception is only evil between married couples? Between prostitute and customer, it's not? Between girlfriend and boyfriend, or boyfriend and boyfriend, it's not? In those cases, it might or might not be, depending on other circumstances? And you don't see how this logic might apply to the idea of contraception being morally flexible within the confines of a Catholic marriage in time?

 

Benedict spoke extemporaneously about condom use by male prostitutes. His words had nothing to do with contraception within the sacrament of matrimony.

 

Yes, I understand. But he was not the final pope, and what he said is likely to be echoed and expanded on in the future, just as other beliefs have been.

[*Michelle*]

To add:

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

 

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

 

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Aug2004/Wiseman.asp

 

Not all decisions by each ecumenical council are automatically infallible. The Nicene Creed (adopted by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.) states the faith of the Church on a very crucial point: Is Jesus “of the same substance†[nature] as God the Father? The Council of Nicaea said that Jesus is and, therefore, took an existing Profession of Faith and inserted the term homoousious (“of the same substanceâ€) at the proper place. This is an infallible statement of what the Church believes.

 

That same creed was expanded at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., stating more explicitly the Church’s belief in the Holy Spirit’s divinity. If you said the creed adopted in 325 was infallible, you might also argue that it could not be amended. The Catholic Church does not understand infallibility to mean that.

 

Ecumenical councils also make many prudential judgments and issue disciplinary decrees. Back in the 1960s, the world’s bishops asked themselves: Should Vatican II draw up a document on relations with non-Christians? Should the council’s treatment of Mary be a separate document or part of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church? Should Vatican II issue a document explicitly condemning Communism?

Even though councils have given infallible teachings on matters of faith and morals, they have also made some prudential judgments about which there can be very legitimate disagreement.

 

A disciplinary decree approved by an ecumenical council can be binding without being declared infallible. A canon of the Second Lateran Council (1139) forbade Christians to engage in usury (charging any interest on a loan). Usury was later understood as charging excessive interest on a loan.

 

Vatican I taught that the pope is infallible when, as the Church’s supreme pastor and successor of Peter, he solemnly teaches some revealed truth about faith or morals ex cathedra (“from the chairâ€). He must intend to teach infallibly and make this known at the time of that teaching.

 

Most papal and conciliar teachings pertain to the Church’s ordinary teaching authority (magisterium) and are understood as authentic teachings—but not infallible in the sense of Vatican I’s teaching about infallibility.

[albeto]

To add:

 

http://www.catholic....l-infallibility

 

 

 

http://www.americanc...004/Wiseman.asp

 

 

Just as a reminder, I'm not suggesting what Benedict said was ever considered infallible teaching.

[*Michelle*]

I'm sorry, without a quote I'm forgetful. :o

 

What does exist?

 

Doctrine on doctrine/dogma.

 

 

Either Akin's summary doesn't count (because it is not a declared doctrine/dogma by the pope himself), or the examples I've provided (solar system, creationism, antisemitism) do count because they have been discussed in such a way as to fit the criteria Akins explains:

 

The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88)

 

But there is no dogma, no "revealed truth" that Catholics must believe regarding the solar system, creationism, or antisemitism.

 

So contraception is only evil between married couples? Between prostitute and customer, it's not? Between girlfriend and boyfriend, or boyfriend and boyfriend, it's not? In those cases, it might or might not be, depending on other circumstances? And you don't see how this logic might apply to the idea of contraception being morally flexible within the confines of a Catholic marriage in time?

 

The Church is not concerned with contraception use outside of the sacrament of matrimony. She is only concerned with contraception use within the sacrament of matrimony because sex out side of marriage is a sin. Whether or not you use a condom or not while sinning doesn't change the sin. Sex within marriage is not a sin, but using contraception while having sex within marriage is a sin.

 

Yes, I understand. But he was not the final pope, and what he said is likely to be echoed and expanded on in the future, just as other beliefs have been.

 

Yes, it likely will. But that doesn't mean that it will defined as dogma, as a divinely revealed truth that Catholics must believe.

[Orthodox6]

For future reference, can you explain to me how that post is considered "bashing"? I'm not seeing it and I'd like to avoid giving the impression myself.

 

Thanks.

 

:)

 

I'll do my best to reference what stood out to me. (I am not Catholic.)

 

The writer used the derogatory label of "weasel words" to describe other people's thoughts.

 

She implies (I would say clearly, but won't risk being told that I put words into her keyboard) that believing that the Bible is a subset of Church tradition is a false belief (even though this is the position of the Catholic church, the Orthodox Church, and the non-Chalcedonian churches).

 

The writer is "very relieved not to be a Catholic." (There are a lot of religions which Catholics are relieved not to be members of; however, it would be impolitic for them to enter threads hosted by members of those religions and bluntly state that fact.)

 

That's the best I can do to respond quickly.

 

As before, I accepted at face value the writer's expressed intent not to antagonize anybody.

[albeto]

Doctrine on doctrine/dogma.

 

Okay, thanks. :)

 

So looking at one of these doctrines on dogma (LUMEN GENTIUM, Pope Paul VI, Nov 21, 1964), we read (bolding mine),

 

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends

, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act

he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.

(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are

justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.

(43*)

The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium

with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

 

So from this I understand that the pope does not have to declare something dogmatic, he simply has to mean it when it pertains to faith or morals. This holds for the body of bishops as well.

 

But there is no dogma, no "revealed truth" that Catholics must believe regarding the solar system, creationism, or antisemitism.

 

According to Pope Paul VI, revealed truth about the solar system was declared (bolding mine):

 

On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and

formally heretical

since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ...

in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith

."

At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken. On February 26, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered, "to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing." -

The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616

.[29]

 

This satisfies Pope Paul VI's conditions of being declared a matter of faith and morals, and declared by a body of bishops.

 

Revealed truth about creationism was declared by Pope Pius IX (bolding mine):

 

On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, during the papacy of Pope Pius IX, who defined dogmatically papal infallibility during the First Vatican Council in 1869–70. The council has a section on "Faith and Reason" that includes the following on science and faith:

"9.

Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church

; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth." (Vatican Council I)

"10.

Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other

, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds." (Vatican Council I)

 

For Catholics who maintained the knowledge that such scientific ideas are "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture," rejecting evolution was a matter of faith and moral. Either one trusts the church and the bible, or one trusts the scientist. It's only been a matter of decades that the church has modified it's understanding, as more information about how evolution works is made known. Today you and I can see it as not being in conflict at all, but how many good and faithful Catholics were taught, under penalty of eternal damnation, to believe the scriptures over that of secular science?

 

Antisemitism has already been addressed, with a body of bishops with the pope standing at the head, declaring what is known to be truth by providence itself.

 

The Church is not concerned with contraception use outside of the sacrament of matrimony. She is only concerned with contraception use within the sacrament of matrimony because sex out side of marriage is a sin. Whether or not you use a condom or not while sinning doesn't change the sin. Sex within marriage is not a sin, but using contraception while having sex within marriage is a sin.

 

Gotcha.

 

Yes, it likely will. But that doesn't mean that it will defined as dogma, as a divinely revealed truth that Catholics must believe.

 

I'm suggesting this change will eventually be reflected in official, dogmatic pronouncements (after all, it took the church 350 years to formally accept the earth moves around the sun).

[JumpyTheFrog]

I still don't understand the difference between doctrine and discipline, but I appreciate Michelle trying to explain it. Maybe it will make more sense to me when I am feeling more alert.

[*Michelle*]

Okay, thanks. :)

 

So looking at one of these doctrines on dogma (LUMEN GENTIUM, Pope Paul VI, Nov 21, 1964), we read (bolding mine),

 

 

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends

, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166)

by a definitive act

he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.

(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are

justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.

(43*)

The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium

with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

 

So from this I understand that the pope does not have to declare something dogmatic, he simply has to mean it when it pertains to faith or morals. This holds for the body of bishops as well.

 

Except that it has to be by a definitive act (bolded and red). Simply speaking about a matter of faith or morals does not make that speech infallible.

 

 

According to Pope Paul VI, revealed truth about the solar system was declared (bolding mine):

 

 

On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and

formally heretical

since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ...

in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith

."

 

At a meeting of the cardinals of the Inquisition on the following day, Pope Paul V instructed Bellarmine to deliver this result to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions; should Galileo resist the decree, stronger action would be taken. On February 26, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered, "to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing." -

The Inquisition's injunction against Galileo, 1616

.[29]

 

 

http://www.catholic....leo-controversy

 

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

 

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

 

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

 

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

 

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

 

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

 

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

 

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

 

Revealed truth about creationism was declared by Pope Pius IX (bolding mine):

 

 

 

On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, during the papacy of Pope Pius IX, who defined dogmatically papal infallibility during the First Vatican Council in 1869–70. The council has a section on "Faith and Reason" that includes the following on science and faith:

 

"9.

Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church

; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth." (Vatican Council I)

 

"10.

Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other

, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds." (Vatican Council I)

 

For Catholics who maintained the knowledge that such scientific ideas are "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture," rejecting evolution was a matter of faith and moral. Either one trusts the church and the bible, or one trusts the scientist. It's only been a matter of decades that the church has modified it's understanding, as more information about how evolution works is made known. Today you and I can see it as not being in conflict at all, but how many good and faithful Catholics were taught, under penalty of eternal damnation, to believe the scriptures over that of secular science?

 

http://www.catholic....e-and-evolution

 

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

 

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

 

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

 

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

 

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

 

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

 

[albeto]

Except that it has to be by a definitive act (bolded and red). Simply speaking about a matter of faith or morals does not make that speech infallible.

 

http://www.catholic....leo-controversy

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.catholic....e-and-evolution

 

I've read these and many articles like them. They don't change my points - Catholic faith evolves, what was taught as grave sin centuries ago no longer is, and vice versa. What was once taught definitively as obliging the Catholic to an irrevocable adherence of faith and truths contained in divine Revelation no longer is, and vice versa.

[I.Dup.]

what was taught as grave sin centuries ago no longer is, and vice versa.

 

Are you still talking about the solar system here? When has the Church changed its position on grave sin?

[*Michelle*]

Catholic faith does evolve, but infallible doctrines, dogma, have never been contradicted. I know you've provided many examples of things, but you have not provided an example of an infallible, irrevocable truth that has since been contradicted.

 

And by evolve, I mean that there are things like "we believe x" that become "we believe x and we also believe y" but there isn't anything that says "we believe x" and now says, "x is not true, we now believe y."

[albeto]

Are you still talking about the solar system here? When has the Church changed its position on grave sin?

 

It was once considered "formally heretical" to suggest scripture was erroneous, in this case, specifically with regard to the movement of the sun.

 

 

Some acts cause automatic excommunication by the very deed itself e.g. renunciation of faith and religion, known as apostasy,[9] a person who desecrates the Eucharist[10] and "a person who procures a completed abortion".[11] Those mortal sins are so serious that the Church through law has made them crimes, like abortion or heresy, to make their gravity realized. The church excommunicates also so sinners come to repentance quickly when they would not otherwise. Because commission of these offenses is so serious, the Church forbids the excommunicated from receiving any sacrament (not just the Eucharist) and also severely restricts the person's participation in other Church liturgical acts and offices.

wiki/mortal sin

 

Now, not so much. Now Catholics can, in good conscience, read passages as allegorical when for centuries they were taught to be literal. That changes everything. Information does that. I expect the same with regard to human sexual behavior and the moral values assigned to various behaviors (like artificial birth control).

 

So, personally I see Moxie, and others, as in a position of Galileo. She knows the facts of her situation. She knows artificial birth control would not actually reduce her giving of herself to her husband, nor would her husband be giving less of himself. She knows that the most compassionate thing for her entire family is to limit the number of children she has. She also knows it would "frustrate" the marriage by abstaining from sex altogether until she is no longer able to have children, or able to care for another child in the way she thinks is best. Galileo spent the rest of his life knowing he was right while the church taught he was wrong. I hate to see that happen to Moxie. I think that's actually quite cruel to do to a person, especially knowing what we do know. I see no ethical justification for it.

[albeto]

Catholic faith does evolve, but infallible doctrines, dogma, have never been contradicted. I know you've provided many examples of things, but you have not provided an example of an infallible, irrevocable truth that has since been contradicted.

 

You keep saying that, but every time I bring to your attention something that was formally, doctrinally taught to be true, you reject it. So either people centuries ago didn't really know what the real faith of Christ actually was, or it changed. If it hasn't changed, then millions of Christians died learning an inaccurate representation of the faith of Christ.

 

And by evolve, I mean that there are things like "we believe x" that become "we believe x and we also believe y" but there isn't anything that says "we believe x" and now says, "x is not true, we now believe y."

 

 

Of course no one is going to say, "xi so no longer true, we now believe y"! Instead we hear "due to further information, we understand this better now." We hear apologies 350 years later to the one main figure that is a source of embarrassment (Galileo). We hear apologies for antisemitism now that antisemitism is no longer socially acceptable. Where were the apologies two centuries ago? No one thought they were needed, because they didn't go against the faith at the time.

[*Michelle*]

"Formally heretical" were the words used in the investigation of Galileo, but the findings were not infallible. And the issue wasn't that "Scripture says the earth doesn't move and the sun does," it was that Galileo was saying, "Here I've proved that the Sun is fixed so Scripture must be wrong." And in the end, we find that Galileo was only half right. The earth does move, but the Sun moves too.

 

http://www.catholic....hurchs-approval

 

Are Catholics free to interpret Bible verses without the Church's approval?

 

So far as the interpretations of individual scriptural passages go, keep in mind that the Church does not, as a rule, define how specific verses are to be taken. Instead, it defines doctrine, and that definition may eliminate some interpretations of particular verses. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma should answer most of your questions in these areas about the Church’s teaching office.

 

Only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially—but not fully—defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent (see "The Limits of Scriptural Interpretation" in the January 2001 issue of This Rock):

• The reference to being "born of water and the Spirit" in John 3:5 includes the idea of baptism.
  
• In telling the apostles, "Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me" in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
  
• In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus conferred on the apostles the power to forgive sins; everyone does not share this power.
  
• Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
  
• The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained, not merely elder members of the Christian community.
  

 

 

 

http://catholiceduca...ion/re0329.html

 

Traditionally, there are four senses of Scripture, which are outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 115-119:

1. Literal Sense: “[T]he meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture†(Catechism, no. 116), the actual event, person, thing described in the biblical text. The literal sense gives rise to the following three “spiritual senses.â€
    
   
2. Allegorical Sense: How those things, events, or persons in the literal sense point to Christ and the Paschal Mystery.
    
   
3. Moral Sense: How the literal sense points to the Christian life in the Church.
    
   
4. Anagogical Sense: How the literal sense points to the Christian’s heavenly destiny and the last things.
   

 

 

Allegorical readings are not a new thing. They're one of four ways to read the Bible and have been taught from antiquity.

 

From the Catechism:

 

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.â€⁸³ (110-114)

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs. (1101)

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.⁸⁴
    
   
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction.â€⁸⁵
    
   
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leadingâ€). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.⁸⁶