Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[Viking]

Only doctrine there is purgatory and I can't think of any changes to that.

Sorry, Limbo for unbaptized infants.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529&CFID=1886726&CFTOKEN=97239368

The rest are disciplines, they're parts of the Church's teaching which are acknowledged as man-made and could be changed. They're to do with the structures and shapes of practice of the Church, or to some extent to do with individual or communal devotions.

The issue of liturgy for example wasn't even a Catholic teaching it's a teaching of the Roman rite specifically and exceptions were made, for example for Jesuits in the Far East and for Cyril and Methodius. There's a few Roman Catholic dioceses in Croatia that still use, I think Old Slavonic, because they were granted special dispensation by Rome. Pre-Reformation there were a few other European rites that used the Vernacular. Trent generally regularised all of the Roman Catholic Church into Latin but they didn't give any dogmatic reasons for Latin or against the vernacular because it's not an issue of doctrine.

and yet people were excommunicated and "sentenced" to hell for refusing to comply with these "non-doctrines". This was one of the things Luther and some of the Catholic Humanists were condemned for. I note you didn't mention the ecumencism or the clerical celibacy issue.

Edit: basically, each time the church changes "doctrine" it argues that the new doctrine is what was meant all along and they didn't really change their minds they just found out that they had been doing it wrong all along. IMHO that is a pathetic cop-out and a vile abandonment of responsibility. For thousands of years the church has been saying that his was the absolute truth and if you don't believe it you will go to hell and all of a sudden, whoops, we were wrong before, now we are right, this is the real absolute truth and if you don't believe it you will go to hell.

[The Brain]

You're not supposed to take religions seriously.

[Razgovory]

This is always amusing.  It's like a creationist trying to debunk evolution by cherry picking the works of Charles Darwin.

[Camerus]

One advantage of moving into the 21st century and accepting the gays would be the fact that an issue largely irrelevant to most people's every day religious faith would finally disappear from its place of tedious prominence.

[Sheilbh]

Sorry, Limbo for unbaptized infants.

From that referring to the post-Tridentine era:

Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of limbo as a doctrine of faith.

[Limbo was seen as a 'common doctrine', but]

This common doctrine followed upon a certain way of reconciling the received principles of revelation, but it did not possess the certitude of a statement of faith or the same certitude as other affirmations whose rejection would entail the denial of a divinely revealed dogma or of a teaching proclaimed by a definitive act of the magisterium.

...
The affirmation that infants who die without baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the church.

Even that document doesn't declare an explicit teaching, it's more optimistic but the conclusion isn't new teaching, but this:

Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thes 5:18).

...
Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the church.

Prior to Trent there was significant argument among doctors of the Church and no agreed position. You'll note the point made that the Catholic schools were free to wrestle with this issue, that's because they did. The schoolmen disagreed over this. Vatican I considered whether to state doctrine on this and decided not to and again there were some who wanted to decide in Vatican II to close the topic. But it's still open, but the view now is that there should be hope.

I note you didn't mention the ecumencism or the clerical celibacy issue.

They're also disciplines. I took one example but it goes for them all. The attitude on ecumenism is a new shift, yes, but the teaching hasn't changed. The Church has no issue chatting with other clerics but their view is clear, salvation is through Rome.

IMHO that is a pathetic cop-out and a vile abandonment of responsibility. For thousands of years the church has been saying that his was the absolute truth and if you don't believe it you will go to hell and all of a sudden, whoops, we were wrong before, now we are right, this is the real absolute truth and if you don't believe it you will go to hell.

You miss the essential element of the state in this for at least 1500 odd years of Catholic history.

But also I don't think you don't understand your enemy. The Catholic Church has core doctrine that is revealed through tradition and scripture. It is unchangeable, even in the ancient world the Roman Church was known for being ultra-conservative and orthodox. That is Truth, but as Vatican II points out the Catholic Church has always recognised a hierarchy of truths.

Many of the other teachings of the Church are truths based on the best knowledge of the time and doctrine and, no doubt, the social attitudes of the time - I think Church's relations with democracy, freedom of religion and social justice are very good examples of this. Then there's practice, which again is a truth, but can be changed based on the knowledge of the time, if it becomes corrupting or whatever else - currently Francis is warning against trends in the Church including a 'Gnostic drift' and a 'Pelagian trend' which are roughly the ultra-liberals and the ultra-conservatives.

One advantage of moving into the 21st century and accepting the gays would be the fact that an issue largely irrelevant to most people's every day religious faith would finally disappear from its place of tedious prominence.

I feel sorry for Francis. Conservatives have been moaning for ages because he hasn't mentioned gays or abortion or euthanasia for the first 3 months of his Papacy (among other reasons). The second he does, in a refreshing way, it's tediously prominent

[Viking]

But also I don't think you don't understand your enemy. The Catholic Church has core doctrine that is revealed through tradition and scripture. It is unchangeable, even in the ancient world the Roman Church was known for being ultra-conservative and orthodox. That is Truth, but as Vatican II points out the Catholic Church has always recognised a hierarchy of truths.

The thing is that I do understand my enemy. The problem here is that you are making the argument that no "dogma" has ever been changed, while I'm making the argument that "doctrine" has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_dogma

I pointed to doctrines which had changed, you argued that they were not doctrines when what you should have argued was that they were not dogma. The catholic church has been good on not changing dogma, they have just been getting more and more energetic in the theological acrobatics that are required to keep them non-falsifiable.

[Sheilbh]

The thing is that I do understand my enemy. The problem here is that you are making the argument that no "dogma" has ever been changed, while I'm making the argument that "doctrine" has.

Dogma's a subset of doctrine, normally tied to a Church Council. As you say it is unchangeable and something all Catholics must believe - in your link is the equivalent of 'de fide'. It's very closely related to the religious aspect of Catholic teaching. So, for example, the nature of the trinity or the incarnation are dogma.

But doctrine just means the teaching of the Church, there are certain things the Church has taught on definitively. They're established parts of the magisterium and so are infallible and true. They're not normally immediately tied to the faith. But they are definitive and unchangeable, for example a male-only priesthood and teaching on homosexuality. In your link that's 'fides ecclesiastica'.

A rough distinction is that dogma is truth formally and explicitly revealed while doctrine is truth formally revealed (through the magisterium) but not explicitly revealed (scripture and, to a lesser extent, Church councils).

Both of those are doctrine and, as I say, I can't think of any example of them shifting.

Below them you have various things that I'd broadly call disciplines. Teachings of the Church at any time that aren't necessarily in the magisterium, so they're not infallible and necessary; areas of debate among theologians; popular 'common doctrine' beliefs among Catholics; aspects of practice and so on. All of that last category, which is vast, can be changed.

Edit: I suppose a way of putting it is in the name. Dogma is 'of the faith', it includes Catholics but also many high church Anglicans and some Orthodox - it's about the faith itself. Doctrine is 'fides ecclesiastica' which (I don't know Latin) looks like faith of the Church. Dogma makes you Christian, doctrine makes you Roman Catholic.

[jimmy olsen]

Who is he to judge? WTF?

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

[jimmy olsen]

Anyway, on the other side of the spectrum

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/28/zimbabwe_president_robert_mugabe_vows_to_behead_gays.html

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe Vows to Behead Gays

By Daniel Politi
|
Posted Sunday, July 28, 2013, at 1:35 PM

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe is once again speaking about his hatred of homosexuality as he campaigns ahead of the July 31 election. At a rally last week, Mugabe told thousands of supporters that Zimbabwe would never accept homosexuals, whom he descried as "worse than pigs, goats and birds," reports Zimbabwe's Newsday. "If you take men and lock them in a house for five years and tell them to come up with two children and they fail to do that, then we will chop off their heads."

Mugabe went on to say that some African countries had been pressured by Western nations to accept homosexuality in exchange for aid. Homosexuality "seeks to destroy our lineage by saying John and John should wed, Maria and Maria should wed," Mugabe said. "Imagine this son born out of an African father, [President Barack] Obama says if you want aid, you should accept the homosexuality practice. Aah, we will never do that."

This is hardly the first time Mugabe has attacked gays in political speeches. The Gays and Lesbians Association of Zimbabwe recently sent a letter to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission complaining of Mugabe's "continued use of hate speech," noting he had attacked gay people at seven political rallies in July, reports SW Radio Africa.

[Grallon]

Anyway, on the other side of the spectrum

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/28/zimbabwe_president_robert_mugabe_vows_to_behead_gays.html

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe Vows to Behead Gays

...

Ahhh... 3rd World traditionalism is so...  A Propos!





G.

[Tamas]

Regarding whether changes to religious customs/dogma is kosher or not: the problem is that the church, at any given time, claims to be in knowledge on how to lead one's life to have God's seal of approval. And they claim a lot of other knowledge about God (eg. Stuff in the bible)
Now, if they change any of their rules, it should clearly imply to anyone that they may be similarly wrong about any other ruling they take for granted.

I understand such realisation must be avoided for a lot of people, since admitting to have put a great deal of personal trust into a bullshit fairy tale is not something adult people do, but still.

[CountDeMoney]

the problem is that the church, at any given time, claims to be in knowledge on how to lead one's life to have God's seal of approval. And they claim a lot of other knowledge about God (eg. Stuff in the bible)

No, they don't.  And no, they don't.

[Tamas]

the problem is that the church, at any given time, claims to be in knowledge on how to lead one's life to have God's seal of approval. And they claim a lot of other knowledge about God (eg. Stuff in the bible)

No, they don't.  And no, they don't.

Yes they do.

[Viking]

the problem is that the church, at any given time, claims to be in knowledge on how to lead one's life to have God's seal of approval. And they claim a lot of other knowledge about God (eg. Stuff in the bible)

No, they don't.  And no, they don't.

If so, what is the church for then?

[Sheilbh]

Salvation. I mean not being daft but people believe in that first - an after-life and then whatever religious background to it. From there they'll look to whichever church they were born into, or that their friends go to, or that's in the school's catchment area, or that they're most attracted by.

I don't think many people set out to look for an instruction manual on life based on church's proclaiming their super-secret knowledge. They're looking for something to fulfil a spiritual need, but that need comes first. It's certainly a selling point for the Catholics that 'Rome was where she now is'. Same as the via media appeals for the Church of England.