What's wrong with change?

[Dominus Fidelis]

It seems a lot of Catholics are afraid of the idea that the Church has ever changed Her opinion on matter of faith and morals...as if this would make Her claim to infallibility suspect.

Am I right?

But circumstances of our world change, don't they? What is morally correct in one era may be incorrect in another, given changing circumstances.

If things couldn't change, why would Jesus give the Church the authority to "bind" and "loose." This implies change by its very nature, no?

Sometimes I think our inability to admit things have changed due to circumstantial change creates a stumbling block when people come across changes.

Am I totally off here?

 

[ChiRho]

It seems a lot of Catholics are afraid of the idea that the Church has ever changed Her opinion on matter of faith and morals...as if this would make Her claim to infallibility suspect.

Am I right?

But circumstances of our world change, don't they? What is morally correct in one era may be incorrect in another, given changing circumstances.

If things couldn't change, why would Jesus give the Church the authority to "bind" and "loose." This implies change by its very nature, no?

Sometimes I think our inability to admit things have changed due to circumstantial change creates a stumbling block when people come across changes.

Am I totally off here?

"What is morally correct in one era may be incorrect in another, given changing circumstances."

Before I answer, could you explain this a bit more?

Pax

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

For example, usury, the taking of interest on a loan. In one set of economic circumstances it may be wrong, and it was taught as being wrong, but in another, it may be morally permissible, as it is now.

 

[ChiRho]

"If things couldn't change, why would Jesus give the Church the authority to "bind" and "loose." This implies change by its very nature, no?"

If it was ever-evolving (morality) what would they appeal to, to know how to rightly bind and loose?

 

[ChiRho]

For example, usury, the taking of interest on a loan. In one set of economic circumstances it may be wrong, and it was taught as being wrong, but in another, it may be morally permissible, as it is now.

When and by what authority was collecting interest ever sinful?

Realizing that I am still in OBOB, I will graciously bow out of this conversation and let members answer...

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

 

[seebs]

If I may chip in a little...

I think what DF's trying to get at is the distinction between a moral principle (which will presumably be unchanging) and the application of that principle. For instance, in the early church, a couple got married. That was it. There wasn't necessarily a formal ceremony in the liturgy, and it certainly wasn't required. But, by about 1000-1100, there was a real problem; people would declare that they'd actually not been married, if it wasn't working out. So, rules for ensuring that people wouldn't claim to be married, if they weren't, were developed. With that in mind, the rule about which people are and aren't married appears to have changed... But the underlying moral principle seems to be the same.

I think a reasonable case can be made for some progression or development in the Church. Harder is the case for actual change; that at least some teachings have been altered. I think DF's question is whether it would be unacceptable for such a thing to have happened.

Speaking as a non-Catholic, I'd say that I'd honestly think it would be easier for me to trust the Church if there were a known history of correction; not just refinement, but saying "actually, what was being taught at this time was not an infallible claim of the Magisterium, which later corrected it". (I'm afraid a detailed defense of my position would cross the line into debating, so just take it as one onlooker's perspective.)

I find the question fascinating, though, and I'm looking forward to the answers.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Here's a little something I wrote a while back regarding this topic....
.
.
.
.
37. Does the Church change?
Yes and no. At her core, the Church does not change, but neither does she remain stagnant. The Church can be thought of as a living organism in the sense she continually grows through time to greater maturity and a deeper revelation of truth. As Jesus said, the Church is the bride of Christ and the “pillar and foundation of truth”. So, as a bride loves and seeks to further unite with her spouse, so too does the Church seek to grow and further unite with Christ.

So it's not that the Church does not change, because she does, but only in the sense that a baby changes as it grows. It is still the same person as it gets older, with the same chemical makeup, DNA, and basic structure, but it obviously takes on a truer form of itself as it matures. The same holds true for the Church.

 

[Letalis]

I'm really failing to see how something can be immoral one day, and moral the next. If something is immoral one day, it's always gonna be immoral.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

If it was ever-evolving (morality) what would they appeal to, to know how to rightly bind and loose?

The idea is that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth. Protestants typically believe something similiar, except they believe the Holy Spirit guides them individually into all truth.

When and by what authority was collecting interest ever sinful?

The Old Testament forbid it among Jews. The Catholic Church forbid it outright in the past. On whose authority? Gods, according to our beliefs.

 

[seebs]

I'm really failing to see how something can be immoral one day, and moral the next. If something is immoral one day, it's always gonna be immoral.

Perhaps I can give you an example, not so much of change in time, as change in place or culture.

If I were to drive on the left side of the road, on a two-way street, I would be driving recklessly and endangering those around me. By contrast, if Defens0rFidei were to drive on the left side of the road, he would be merely obeying the traffic laws.

In some cases, a social convention can create the potential for people to be harmed by its flouting; what is immoral, then, is the callous disregard for others, not the specific social convention.

For another example, the question of what manner of dress might be "too salacious to be reasonable in church" is clearly very dependent on our cultural upbringing. Regular, or even fairly conservative, dress for a woman in 21st century America might well cause people to faint outright in 17th century France.

So. Is "wearing pants" immoral? I don't think so... But there have been times and places where perhaps it was.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I'm really failing to see how something can be immoral one day, and moral the next. If something is immoral one day, it's always gonna be immoral.

Circumstances can change though. I think some moral choices can't ever be effected by circumstance, such as torturing babies. That is always going to be immoral. But is slavery always immoral? St Paul said for masters to be kind to their slaves, but didn't say it was wrong, because in that culture it meant something different.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Perhaps I can give you an example, not so much of change in time, as change in place or culture.

If I were to drive on the left side of the road, on a two-way street, I would be driving recklessly and endangering those around me. By contrast, if Defens0rFidei were to drive on the left side of the road, he would be merely obeying the traffic laws.

In some cases, a social convention can create the potential for people to be harmed by its flouting; what is immoral, then, is the callous disregard for others, not the specific social convention.

For another example, the question of what manner of dress might be "too salacious to be reasonable in church" is clearly very dependent on our cultural upbringing. Regular, or even fairly conservative, dress for a woman in 21st century America might well cause people to faint outright in 17th century France.

So. Is "wearing pants" immoral? I don't think so... But there have been times and places where perhaps it was.

Brilliant point seebs, thanks for contributing to the thread!

 

[Michael G]

Circumstances can change though. I think some moral choices can't ever be effected by circumstance, such as torturing babies. That is always going to be immoral. But is slavery always immoral? St Paul said for masters to be kind to their slaves, but didn't say it was wrong, because in that culture it meant something different.

Slavery is always immoral because it is the usurpation of another's free will. Free will and the Law of Non-Contradicition (x can't be x and not x at the same time without contradicting itself) are the basis for all moral ethics.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

So was St Paul lax in not condemning slavery in the Bible? Was God immoral for telling the Hebrews to take war captives as slaves?

 

[Rising_Suns]

Slavery is always immoral because it is the usurpation of another's free will. Free will and the Law of Non-Contradicition (x can't be x and not x at the same time without contradicting itself) are the basis for all moral ethics.

Not all forms of slavery are immoral, Michael.

 

[Benedicta00]

It seems a lot of Catholics are afraid of the idea that the Church has ever changed Her opinion on matter of faith and morals...as if this would make Her claim to infallibility suspect.

Am I right?

But circumstances of our world change, don't they? What is morally correct in one era may be incorrect in another, given changing circumstances.

If things couldn't change, why would Jesus give the Church the authority to "bind" and "loose." This implies change by its very nature, no?

Sometimes I think our inability to admit things have changed due to circumstantial change creates a stumbling block when people come across changes.

Am I totally off here?

Boy, are you ever.

It isn’t that anyone has an aversion to change it’s just the Church can’t change- she is powerless to do so. It is what Christ taught her, she can not change His teachings.

I really think you have trouble seeing the difference between opinion and teaching and what is of the faith and what isn’t. The Church does have the keys of authority to teach us, not to make stuff up. The Church has keys to protect, preserve, transmit, and to enforce the deposit of faith that Jesus left long ago. No other faith has the authpority to do this. That is what having keys means.

The Church has the keys also, to make Church laws and change them is she chooses but she can not/never can she change the deposit of faith left by Christ.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

I know she can't change certain basic tenets of the faith, but do you know what binding and losing means? Its the authority to permit or forbid certain things and make laws. Those can be changed, by the definition of bind and loose.

 

[Benedicta00]

I know she can't change certain basic tenets of the faith, but do you know what binding and losing means?

Yes I do… just what I said it means.

 

[Michael G]

Not all forms of slavery are immoral, Michael.

In what case is slavery ever acceptable?

 

[Michael G]

I know you may think this as sounding strange coming from an Orthodox, but the Church may not change matters of faith because those matters of faith having been believed for 2000 years have infact become infallible and unchangable.