Yep. Explanation/adaptation of a dogma without addressing the dogma itself, decades behind the times.
But the Catholic church is a behemoth and not to be expected to change course quickly. I'm glad it is changing at all and usually into the right direction. The future will tell if the changes are fast enough to keep it alive.
It should be remembered that "
development of doctrine" happens to be dogmatic in Catholic theology.
As the decree of the Second Vatican Council explained:
“The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down.
This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.
For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her”
(Dei Verbum 8)
This is the Catholic way of being, as Cardinal and saint John Henry Newman noted in the nineteenth century: "
a true development retains the essential idea of the subject from which it has proceeded" (241)
Tradition is organic, it grows from the same and eternal source which is it's seed. If I may quote St.Vincent of Lérins who wrote concerning doctrinal development in the fifth century:
“
Therefore, let there be growth and abundant progress in understanding, knowledge, and wisdom, in each and all, in individuals and in the whole Church, at all times and in the progress of ages, but only with the proper limits".
This is not a new-fangled phenomenon in Catholicism. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in his 13th century
Summa:
https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/st1-2-q19-aa5-6.pdf
For it is not only what is indifferent that can take on the character of goodness or badness per accidens; it is likewise the case that, because of reason’s apprehension, what is [objectively] good can take on the character of badness and what is [objectively] bad can take on the character of [subjective] goodness. For instance, abstaining from fornication is a certain good, and yet the will is not directed toward this good except insofar as it proposed by reason.
Therefore, if it is proposed as something bad by reason when reason is mistaken, then an act of willing will be directed toward it under the notion of badness. Hence, the act of willing will be bad, since it wills something bad—not, to be sure, something that is bad per se, but something that is bad per accidens because of reason’s apprehension. Similarly, believing in Christ is per se good and necessary for salvation, but an act of willing is directed toward this good only insofar as it is proposed by reason. Hence, if believing in Christ is proposed as something bad, then an act of willing will be directed toward it as something bad—not because it is bad in its own right, but because it is bad per accidens in light of reason’s apprehension
This is an excerpt from the volume 1 of the four volumes work on moral theology by Germain Grisez. Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William E. May were some notable figures who helped Grisez in the making of his book entitled The Way of the Lord Jesus. Grisez was a key figure in the drafting of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor.
He writes:
2. According to common Christian teaching, one must follow one’s conscience even when it is [objectively] mistaken. St. Thomas explains this as follows. Conscience is one’s last and best judgment as to the choice one ought to make. If this judgment is [objectively] mistaken, one does not know it at the time. One will follow one’s conscience if one is choosing reasonably. To the best of one’s knowledge and belief, it is God’s plan and will. So if one acts against one’s conscience, one is certainly in the wrong (see S.t., 1–2, q. 19, aa. 5–6).
Thomas drives home his point. If a superior gives one an order which cannot be obeyed without violating one’s conscience, one must not obey. To obey the superior in this case would be to disobey what one believes to be the mind and will of God (see S.t., 1–2, q. 19, a. 5, ad 2; 2–2, q. 104, a. 5). It is good to abstain from fornication. But if one’s conscience is that one should choose to fornicate, one does evil if one does not fornicate. Indeed, to believe in Jesus is in itself good and essential for salvation; but one can only believe in him rightly if one judges that one ought to. Therefore, one whose conscience is that it is wrong to believe in Jesus would be morally guilty if he or she chose against this judgment.
συνείδησιν δὲ λέγω οὐχὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀλλὰ τὴν τοῦ ἑτέρου. ἵνα τί γὰρ ἡ ἐλευθερία μου κρίνεται ὑπὸ ἄλλης συνειδήσεως
"Why should my freedom be determined/judged by someone else’s conscience?"
(
1 Corinthians 10:29)
According to St. Paul, conscience is a principle of freedom and freedom should not be subject to the judgement of another person's conscience. For this would amount to allowing another person's scruples to undermine our own personal liberty. Elsewhere, he says that we must each live according to whatever convictions we hold before God.
IMHO it is possible for a religion to have dogmas without being dogmatic about those dogmas, as applied to complicated individual ethical situations and judgements in a world which deviates far from our ideals (just as the church itself often deviates far from it's ideals, being run by flawed people), because the duty of the church is to walk with and support people in the formation of conscience, not to replace their consciences.
Pope Francis expressed this well his 2015 exhortation
Amoris Laetitia:
https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/f...sortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf
It is reductive simply to consider whether or not an individual’s actions correspond to a general law or rule, because that is not enough to discern and ensure full fidelity to God in the concrete life of a human being. Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits
We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them...
This is not a 'gradualness of law' but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law