Liberal Catholicism & the Falsification of the Magisterium

[Glaurung]

Afraid to return to Mass

The above thread by Pearl has me thinking about Catholicism and the divide between progressives/liberals and the conservatives/traditionalists and their respective visions for the Church. I have always been open in regards to my sympathy for the traditionalist wing of the Church but for this thread I want to focus on the liberal side of things and consider just what exactly this side of the Church wants. Then I want to ask a question.

So if I understand this wing of the Church their main demands consist of the following:

1. Renounce the teaching on the immorality of contraception, sodomy, fornication and masturbation. ​
2. Accept abortion as a human right.​
3. Endorse homosexuality (and transgenderism) as a positive good to be affirmed and celebrated. ​
4. Open the sacrament of matrimony to same sex couples. ​
5. Open holy orders to women.​
6. Abolish clerical celibacy.​

There may be more, but reading the comments on various forums of Catholic discussion the aforementioned seems to me to cover the main items which liberal Catholics desire. So here is my question.

If the Catholic Church were to accept and implement all of the above; would that not falsify the Church's claim to teaching authority? Catholic doctrine states that the Church's teaching authority on questions of faith and morals is divinely guaranteed to be free from error. But if the Church has been in error this whole time especially in regards to sexual ethics then in what meaningful way can the Church's teaching authority be said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit?

It seems to me that without a credible answer to this question Catholicism would cease to make sense. The only item which could be implemented without the Church falsifying its own claims would be the abolishing of clerical celibacy. Which the Church has always admitted is not requirement of divine law but a disciplinary ideal of the Roman Rite. Everything else is a question of morals and doctrine. I do not see how the Church can budge on any of these issues without effectively renouncing the Catholic faith.

 

[rational experiences]

The first Catholic order was once open to women equally. In service as no throne was implemented. As nature God earth the throne in creation rock.

Both chosen celibacy. Both healers serving community. Taught the churches founding as an association.

Only celibate human's allowed in the city living as Vatican plus churches serving.

Hence to allow entry into church healing building humans promise was abstinence by confessing non masturbation practiced prayer instead....no sodomy performed etc.

A promise to enter holy grounds for healing church sound therapy oils etc services.

As outside civilisation owned all those practices as humanity had been star fall irradiated by gas spirits of heavens...fallout.

To serve they believed the highest spiritual mannerisms assisted anyone in their presence. A form of spiritual human identification as we are all psychic aware.

As pure as possible to resonate human purity.

Known.

So to be a healer you owned the practice first of highest natural mutual first body status.

Which was before a human parent was the exact known teachings of the churches founding.

When you realise why those choices were made it had its ancient purpose.

Today life lived does not meet its human non nuclear healing promise mutual inherited idealism. Hence you now need to realise that changing ideals is current to human living conditions as we Inherited conscious behaviour naturally.

Your own choice how any organisation represents its community as it always was.

2012 promise you worked towards not met.

Human self control was a taught purpose as brother sister were first not chosen sex.

Yet life human continuance is by sex.

Serving humanity was hence based on personal human morality as non sex first.

Therefore most humans know it's an impossible ask today when the heavens attack of our brain chemistry disturbs your sexuality itself.

Without your permission.

 

[Brian2]

Afraid to return to Mass

The above thread by Pearl has me thinking about Catholicism and the divide between progressives/liberals and the conservatives/traditionalists and their respective visions for the Church. I have always been open in regards to my sympathy for the traditionalist wing of the Church but for this thread I want to focus on the liberal side of things and consider just what exactly this side of the Church wants. Then I want to ask a question.

So if I understand this wing of the Church their main demands consist of the following:

1. Renounce the teaching on the immorality of contraception, sodomy, fornication and masturbation. ​
2. Accept abortion as a human right.​
3. Endorse homosexuality (and transgenderism) as a positive good to be affirmed and celebrated. ​
4. Open the sacrament of matrimony to same sex couples. ​
5. Open holy orders to women.​
6. Abolish clerical celibacy.​

There may be more, but reading the comments on various forums of Catholic discussion the aforementioned seems to me to cover the main items which liberal Catholics desire. So here is my question.

If the Catholic Church were to accept and implement all of the above; would that not falsify the Church's claim to teaching authority? Catholic doctrine states that the Church's teaching authority on questions of faith and morals is divinely guaranteed to be free from error. But if the Church has been in error this whole time especially in regards to sexual ethics then in what meaningful way can the Church's teaching authority be said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit?

It seems to me that without a credible answer to this question Catholicism would cease to make sense. The only item which could be implemented without the Church falsifying its own claims would be the abolishing of clerical celibacy. Which the Church has always admitted is not requirement of divine law but a disciplinary ideal of the Roman Rite. Everything else is a question of morals and doctrine I do not see how the Church can budge on any of these issues without effectively renouncing the Catholic faith.

It was just in 1869-70 that the first Vatican Council decided that the Pope was infallible when he spoke “ex Cathedra” – or from the papal throne – on matters of faith and morals.
It might be just a matter of saying that decision was wrong. But saying that would mess with the reputation of the Catholic Church also.
The RCC seems to have painted itself into a corner on a number of issues and imo this was from a desire to be THE authority in the Christian faith to which all others would have to come for unity because the Catholic Church has decided that it cannot budge in doctrine and moral teaching and come to other denominations because of those things that have been pronounced as infallible in the past.
I am probably wrong about it's motives but the effect of infallibility means that it ends up in the same place anyway.

 

[Glaurung]

It was just in 1869-70 that the first Vatican Council decided that the Pope was infallible when he spoke “ex Cathedra” – or from the papal throne – on matters of faith and morals.
It might be just a matter of saying that decision was wrong. But saying that would mess with the reputation of the Catholic Church also.
The RCC seems to have painted itself into a corner on a number of issues and imo this was from a desire to be THE authority in the Christian faith to which all others would have to come for unity because the Catholic Church has decided that it cannot budge in doctrine and moral teaching and come to other denominations because of those things that have been pronounced as infallible in the past.
I am probably wrong about it's motives but the effect of infallibility means that it ends up in the same place anyway.

This is not about papal infallibility specifically. It is about the teaching authority of the Church in general which claims to be infallible on matters of faith and morals. Divine revelation is meaningless without some mechanism to guarantee its integrity from human error. The Catholic Church claims to be that mechanism. Individual bishops may err, but nothing the Church as the Church teaches as binding on faith and morals can be in error because that would falsify God's own revelation to humanity.

It is not that the Catholic Church is in a corner in regards to its moral teachings about sexuality. The real dispute is that the Catholic Church has yet to capitulate to the secular orthodoxy of unrestrained sexual activity as the summum bonum of human life. Liberal Catholics want a full capitulation to all the demands of the sexual revolution even if it would utterly discredit the Church's claims to divine truth. Because people's feelings have become the supreme consideration even at the cost of truth.

If the Catholic Church's claims to be the church founded by Christ are correct then that fact that other denominations have drifted away from orthodoxy and embraced the spirit of the age to varying degrees is not surprising. Because non-Catholic Christianities are false religions that lack the protection of the Holy Spirit. If the Catholic Church does ultimately capitulate as most mainline Protestant denominations have, then the faith espoused by the Catholic Church would be exposed as just as false as Protestantism for the reason I laid out in my original post.

 

[rational experiences]

Pope a celebate father.

Isn't really a father. Brother sister are mutual.

Who did a human Catholic celibate father as brother and sister confess to if they hadn't kept their orders promise celibacy?

A pretend father. Not a king.

As the teacher wasn't a King either he was a brother in society a healer who taught.

Hence a teacher owned a leadership role as a brother a pretend father not really a father. But acting as a brother.

Hence he has to own the highest moral purity.

The brother hood therefore owned a study of the man they agreed suited the role of the father.

Like any organisation rich humans always thought they could buy father's forgiveness. Just one of many of life's lessons.

If a human theist said I believe as an adult man that my human thinking only human had stated caused created creation.

They thesis only using human thoughts human's calculus as maths and words. How could that belief possess his thoughts?

As a natural human knows a human believing such statements is an absurdity.

If you believe the eternal first exists. Separated ooooo gods body mass from its own. It burnt. Then space is the separation.

If we came out first as physical spirit beings not grounded but physical capable and introduced science wouldn't that advice state......

if you were the being who sung God away from your presence then wouldn't you on Inheritance as first man a brother...claim I created creation?

And have never not believed your own involvement by how you think!

Without it being a belief but a natural actuality! Before grounding as life. Biological life. Chosen then as brother sister sex? To holy first father and mother.

Nothing like our science mutated then healed human life mind body is today.

Wouldn't your own human science satanisms cloud your origin mind memories?

 

[PearlSeeker]

So if I understand this wing of the Church their main demands consist of the following:

1. Renounce the teaching on the immorality of contraception, sodomy, fornication and masturbation.
2. Accept abortion as a human right.
3. Endorse homosexuality (and transgenderism) as a positive good to be affirmed and celebrated.
4. Open the sacrament of matrimony to same sex couples.
5. Open holy orders to women.
6. Abolish clerical celibacy.

These are liberal attitudes regarding moral teaching. What about questions of faith? What if I agree with conservative moral teaching but don't agree with dogmatic teachings? Does this make me a liberal Christian?

Catholic doctrine states that the Church's teaching authority on questions of faith and morals is divinely guaranteed to be free from error. But if the Church has been in error this whole time especially in regards to sexual ethics then in what meaningful way can the Church's teaching authority be said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit?

Guided is not the same as moved as a puppet. Moses for example was also guided by God. He was even supposed to talk with God face to face. But still he made mistakes. And he wasn't allowed to enter the promised land.

 

[exchemist]

Afraid to return to Mass

The above thread by Pearl has me thinking about Catholicism and the divide between progressives/liberals and the conservatives/traditionalists and their respective visions for the Church. I have always been open in regards to my sympathy for the traditionalist wing of the Church but for this thread I want to focus on the liberal side of things and consider just what exactly this side of the Church wants. Then I want to ask a question.

So if I understand this wing of the Church their main demands consist of the following:

1. Renounce the teaching on the immorality of contraception, sodomy, fornication and masturbation. ​
2. Accept abortion as a human right.​
3. Endorse homosexuality (and transgenderism) as a positive good to be affirmed and celebrated. ​
4. Open the sacrament of matrimony to same sex couples. ​
5. Open holy orders to women.​
6. Abolish clerical celibacy.​

There may be more, but reading the comments on various forums of Catholic discussion the aforementioned seems to me to cover the main items which liberal Catholics desire. So here is my question.

If the Catholic Church were to accept and implement all of the above; would that not falsify the Church's claim to teaching authority? Catholic doctrine states that the Church's teaching authority on questions of faith and morals is divinely guaranteed to be free from error. But if the Church has been in error this whole time especially in regards to sexual ethics then in what meaningful way can the Church's teaching authority be said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit?

It seems to me that without a credible answer to this question Catholicism would cease to make sense. The only item which could be implemented without the Church falsifying its own claims would be the abolishing of clerical celibacy. Which the Church has always admitted is not requirement of divine law but a disciplinary ideal of the Roman Rite. Everything else is a question of morals and doctrine. I do not see how the Church can budge on any of these issues without effectively renouncing the Catholic faith.

It is striking that this list is entirely preoccupied with sex. I have to say this relentless and unhealthy fixation with sex-related matters is what irritates and rather repels me - about the state of the US Catholic church in particular. I do not believe the debate between liberal and traditional wings of the church is all about sex.

It also strikes me as rather absurd that the teaching of the church is supposedly guaranteed to be free from error. It's an arrogant and quite implausible idea, that risks painting the church into a corner on doctrinal matters - as has indeed happened on some of the sex teaching - so that it cannot take account of changes in the condition of humanity.

Your post suggests that Catholicism would cease to exist if it were admitted that the church - a human institution, after all - can make mistakes. That strikes me as pretty ridiculous. No authority is free from error. That does not mean there cannot be any respected authorities. After all, the bible itself contains obvious mistakes, which we are taught to treat as incidental artifacts of the culture of the time and to overlook in pursuit of the underlying messages.

In the case of sexuality, however, I am not sure it is even necessary to admit error in order to change the teaching. The fact is that science, technology and society have moved on considerably, over the centuries. The biggest practical change in the everyday lives of people in this arena since 1900 has been the advent of cheap and reliable contraception. That completely alters the risks and associated social prohibitions and stigmas around sexual activity. There have also been great advances in psychology, which have, or ought to have, given us all a lot more insight into what normal sexuality entails and the pressures people can experience if they are made to feel guilty for responding to perfectly normal instincts. Lastly, there has been the emancipation of women, who now, freed by technology from the drudgery of permanent childcare that was previously forced on them by inability to control their fertility, expect the same opportunities in life as men. They also have, for the first time in history, an equal voice.

So the church ought, in my view, to be able to acknowledge the effect of these changes on traditional teaching about sexual matters, and adapt. There are plenty of past practices that are now regarded as cultural, rather than essential elements of the faith.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I do not see how the Church can budge on any of these issues without effectively renouncing the Catholic faith.

This is also a very common dividing issue for many protestants, and while I don't perfectly equate Roman Catholics and Protestants I see some very striking similarities between them. This is one issue where each seems to reflect the other. Your group which you consider the catholic church is headed towards another church split if the protestant experience is any indication. I think you are all being a bit too prideful of your institution. Maybe accept that if your institution can err then it can err dogmatically, and leave some room for God to do things. The concept is that God does things, but its like you aren't leaving room for that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the Catholic Church were to accept and implement all of the above; would that not falsify the Church's claim to teaching authority?

Not on #6. Priestly celibacy is considered discipline, not doctrine. There are churches in communion with Rome that allow married priests.

The Vatican could change that rule today without implying that it's changing its mind on doctrine.

Edit: #1, #2 & #3 are all reasonably possible as well, IMO. They don't require changing doctrine, only changing the lens through which doctrine is viewed.

I mean, the Catholic Church still officially holds the position of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," but ecumenism is pretty non-controversial and widespread in the Catholic Church today. If the Pope can invite Muslim clerics to the Vatican for respectful dialogue, he can do the same with, say, leaders of various LGBTQ communities.

Edit 2: #4 and #5 are probably the only ones that are real sticking points, since those are the ones that go against what the Church has proclaimed makes the respective sacrements valid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the Catholic Church were to accept and implement all of the above; would that not falsify the Church's claim to teaching authority? Catholic doctrine states that the Church's teaching authority on questions of faith and morals is divinely guaranteed to be free from error. But if the Church has been in error this whole time especially in regards to sexual ethics then in what meaningful way can the Church's teaching authority be said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit?

Do you think the Church lost its claim to teaching authority when it did a 180 on suicide?

Its position used to be - not long ago - that suicide is a heinous mortal sin. These days, the Church proclaims that it isn't necessarily a mortal sin at all.

I think a similar 180 could happen on many of the issues you listed. The reason they don't do this isn't really doctrinal consistency - they could spin it as if it isn't really a doctrinal change just like they did on suicide - I think it's more about brand consistency for the Church.

 

[exchemist]

Do you think the Church lost its claim to teaching authority when it did a 180 on suicide?

Its position used to be - not long ago - that suicide is a heinous mortal sin. These days, the Church proclaims that it isn't necessarily a mortal sin at all.

I think a similar 180 could happen on many of the issues you listed. The reason they don't do this isn't really doctrinal consistency - they could spin it as if it isn't really a doctrinal change just like they did on suicide - I think it's more about brand consistency for the Church.

I'm afraid I think there is more to it. The church basically disapproves of sex, lip service to the idea of it being a gift from God etc., notwithstanding. This is a very ancient and ingrained prejudice that runs through the whole of Christianity. In the Catholic church, it is hardly surprising that a celibate clergy, that has renounced sex for itself, will tend to take a rather negative view of sex and its various consequences and manifestations.

 

[Glaurung]

It is striking that this list is entirely preoccupied with sex. I have to say this relentless and unhealthy fixation with sex-related matters is what irritates and rather repels me - about the state of the US Catholic church in particular. I do not believe the debate between liberal and traditional wings of the church is all about sex.

It also strikes me as rather absurd that the teaching of the church is supposedly guaranteed to be free from error. It's an arrogant and quite implausible idea, that risks painting the church into a corner on doctrinal matters - as has indeed happened on some of the sex teaching - so that it cannot take account of changes in the condition of humanity.

Your post suggests that Catholicism would cease to exist if it were admitted that the church - a human institution, after all - can make mistakes. That strikes me as pretty ridiculous. No authority is free from error. That does not mean there cannot be any respected authorities. After all, the bible itself contains obvious mistakes, which we are taught to treat as incidental artifacts of the culture of the time and to overlook in pursuit of the underlying messages.

In the case of sexuality, however, I am not sure it is even necessary to admit error in order to change the teaching. The fact is that science, technology and society have moved on considerably, over the centuries. The biggest practical change in the everyday lives of people in this arena since 1900 has been the advent of cheap and reliable contraception. That completely alters the risks and associated social prohibitions and stigmas around sexual activity. There have also been great advances in psychology, which have, or ought to have, given us all a lot more insight into what normal sexuality entails and the pressures people can experience if they are made to feel guilty for responding to perfectly normal instincts. Lastly, there has been the emancipation of women, who now, freed by technology from the drudgery of permanent childcare that was previously forced on them by inability to control their fertility, expect the same opportunities in life as men. They also have, for the first time in history, an equal voice.

So the church ought, in my view, to be able to acknowledge the effect of these changes on traditional teaching about sexual matters, and adapt. There are plenty of past practices that are now regarded as cultural, rather than essential elements of the faith.

Psalm 2 is instructive here, specifically:

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. ​

The debate is preoccupied with sex because sexual morality is the issue of the times. It is the issue by which Catholicism is judged and attacked by the world. (In the west). Which is what Sr. Lucia predicted. It is not that our times are so fundamentally unique that the moral law as far as sexual issues are concerned no longer apply to us. It is simply that our wealthy, hedonistic culture (the west) no longer has the stomach for a message of self-denial and mortification. We no longer have the will to bear the cross by which we earn the eternal crown.

This is also a very common dividing issue for many protestants, and while I don't perfectly equate Roman Catholics and Protestants I see some very striking similarities between them. This is one issue where each seems to reflect the other. Your group which you consider the catholic church is headed towards another church split if the protestant experience is any indication. I think you are all being a bit too prideful of your institution. Maybe accept that if your institution can err then it can err dogmatically, and leave some room for God to do things. The concept is that God does things, but its like you aren't leaving room for that.

If the Church can err in the most fundamental questions of morality then Christianity is bogus. Protestantism is bogus anyway, so I expect those churches to more or less capitulate to the secular culture. The fundamentalists (although they have long accepted contraception) will hold out for a while but the mainline churches have already given in on just about every issue. Their truth is whatever the culture tells them. There is no reason to be a liberal Protestant. Liberal Protestantism is just secular humanism with a pretense of Christianity. ​

 

[Glaurung]

Do you think the Church lost its claim to teaching authority when it did a 180 on suicide?

As far as I am aware, suicide is still a mortal sin. That does not mean every person who commits suicide is culpable of the full guilt of mortal sin as consent of the will has always been a prerequisite of mortal sin. My actual faith in Catholicism has become quite shaky since Pope Francis has taken over. Precisely because I think his systematic empowerment of leftist dissent undermines the credibility of the Catholic Church's authority. It is as if the Church no longer has the courage of the convictions it claims to hold. As if it is desperate for the world to praise it. In that regards, the modern Church is a simpering shadow of its former self. I'd tell the Church to stop being wussies and enthrone a new Pius X. (Pius XIII?)

 

[Glaurung]

Not on #6. Priestly celibacy is considered discipline, not doctrine. There are churches in communion with Rome that allow married priests.

I know that. My post states as much.

Edit: #1, #2 & #3 are all reasonably possible as well, IMO. They don't require changing doctrine, only changing the lens through which doctrine is viewed.

I disagree. It would be a blatant repudiation of previous teaching.

I mean, the Catholic Church still officially holds the position of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus," but ecumenism is pretty non-controversial and widespread in the Catholic Church today. If the Pope can invite Muslim clerics to the Vatican for respectful dialogue, he can do the same with, say, leaders of various LGBTQ communities.

I've always maintained that ecumenism is a waste of time.

 

[exchemist]

Psalm 2 is instructive here, specifically:

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. ​

The debate is preoccupied with sex because sexual morality is the issue of the times. It is the issue by which Catholicism is judged and attacked by the world. (In the west). Which is what Sr. Lucia predicted. It is not that our times are so fundamentally unique that the moral law as far as sexual issues are concerned no longer apply to us. It is simply that our wealthy, hedonistic culture (the west) no longer has the stomach for a message of self-denial and mortification. We no longer have the will to bear the cross by which we earn the eternal crown.

If the Church can err in the most fundamental questions of morality then Christianity is bogus. Protestantism is bogus anyway, so I expect those churches to more or less capitulate to the secular culture. The fundamentalists (although they have long accepted contraception) will hold out for a while but the mainline churches have already given in on just about every issue. Their truth is whatever the culture tells them. There is no reason to be a liberal Protestant. Liberal Protestantism is just secular humanism with a pretense of Christianity. ​

If sexual morality is the issue of the times, how is it that the subject has almost never come up in the last 20 odd years I have been attending mass, in fairly traditional parishes in London and The Hague?

It may loom large in the vision of an American verkrampte culture warrior I suppose, but for normal people in Europe, it is definitely a sideshow.

Secondly, what you say about the whole of Christianity being bogus if the church can make a mistake in its teaching on faith and morals just does not seem reasonable. Any human institution can make a mistake, even if guided by the Holy Spirit. Men are men and make errors. Teaching also needs to be appropriate for the time and condition of humanity. What happened to the teaching about charging interest on loans, for instance? That was a matter of morals. Or Galileo's supposed "heresy"? That was a matter of faith.

While there obviously are things that must be regarded as basic to Christianity and thus timeless, there is no reason why sexual practices should be classed in that category, seeing as Christ said barely a word on the subject and a lot of Catholic teaching rests on an invented construct called "natural law".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm afraid I think there is more to it. The church basically disapproves of sex, lip service to the idea of it being a gift from God etc., notwithstanding. This is a very ancient and ingrained prejudice that runs through the whole of Christianity. In the Catholic church, it is hardly surprising that a celibate clergy, that has renounced sex for itself, will tend to take a rather negative view of sex and its various consequences and manifestations.

... to an extent. Even though it's technically not allowed, plenty of unmarried people who are sexually active will attend mass without ever having to worry about being called out or denied communion. IIRC, something like 80% of Catholics see birth control as acceptable, and many take it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the Church would take the same attitude to same-sex sexuality that it does with opposite-sex sexuality it officially disapproves of.

I don't think there's anything in church doctrine that says that same-sex sexual relationships are inherently "worse" than opposite-sex sexual relationships out of marriage, so I can see the day coming when nobody bats an eye at a guy bringing his boyfriend to church, just as nobody will generally bat an eye at a young woman bringing her boyfriend to church today.

 

[exchemist]

... to an extent. Even though it's technically not allowed, plenty of unmarried people who are sexually active will attend mass without ever having to worry about being called out or denied communion. IIRC, something like 80% of Catholics see birth control as acceptable, and many take it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the Church would take the same attitude to same-sex sexuality that it does with opposite-sex sexuality it officially disapproves of.

I don't think there's anything in church doctrine that says that same-sex sexual relationships are inherently "worse" than opposite-sex sexual relationships out of marriage, so I can see the day coming when nobody bats an eye at a guy bringing his boyfriend to church, just as nobody will generally bat an eye at a young woman bringing her boyfriend to church today.

Indeed and I am sure that in fact happens in many parishes. The local parish priests will have a good idea of what happens, but won't make a pointless stand on it that alienates half their flock. Those with any experience will be well aware that they are dealing with imperfect humanity and they will just be grateful that so many show up on a Sunday, especially given all the recent scandals. Which, I need hardly repeat........are all about sexual perversion in the priesthood [cue circus music and clowns] !

 

[metis]

So much of one's viewpoints on this will likely be influenced by how one views the scriptures as far as inerrancy and literalism is concerned.

Also, let me just say that the Church does change but all so s-l-o-w-l-y, which can be a plus or a minus depending on how one looks at this.

Gotta go for now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree. It would be a blatant repudiation of previous teaching.

Changing teaching isn't something that the Catholic Church necessarily has a problem with. If they can spin the change in teaching in a way that they can say there's no change in doctrine, they're generally open to it.

We saw this with the Church's about-face on the issue of suicide. We saw it with their repudiation of the idea of "limbo."

And #3 - the abortion issue - doesn't need any action from the Church at all. It can just stop putting effort into pushing back against abortion... something that I think we'll see more and more as it becomes clearer that these efforts won't effect change anyhow.

I've always maintained that ecumenism is a waste of time.

Is this thread about your personal views or about what the Catholic Church is likely to do in future?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as I am aware, suicide is still a mortal sin. That does not mean every person who commits suicide is culpable of the full guilt of mortal sin as consent of the will has always been a prerequisite of mortal sin.

For something to be a mortal sin, there are three elements:

• A grave matter
• Full knowledge
• Deliberate consent

They haven't backed away from the idea that suicide concerns a "grave matter," but lately, the standard approach in the Church is that the suicide itself is evidence of a state of mind where something in the other two elements was likely lacking.