Your Ox Files ‘blog is hilarious, by the way.

Great question about Galileo, but it is also a severely misunderstood issue (even for many Catholics).

I won’t take up space here outlaying the issue here, but I will recommend that everyone reads “The Galileo Affair”; an excellent article which covers that issue in detail and explains the real story and why people are wrong to use this as an example of the Church being anti-science, etc.

The Galileo Affair can be found here:
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html

Another common argument that people make against the Church in regards to changing of teachings is the whole issue of usury (which; so the critics say; “the Church used to condemn but now allows”).

Once again; I won’t take up space here; but I recommend that everyone reads an excellent article called The Red Herring of Usury, it can be found here:
http://www.catholictech.com/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=646

Finally; another common objection people try and raise is to claim that the Church used to allow the death penalty and now she opposes it; but such an argument actually fails to understand that the principal of this teaching has never changed.

The Church teaching, that the death penalty can be a legitimate form of punishment, has never actually changed – see CCC 2267.

What has changed, however, are the societal conditions in which we know live.

Once upon a time (when societies were not as developed in regards to social structures and governmental infrastructure) the use of the death penalty to protect society from a dangerous aggressor was sometimes the only option available to that society.

However; things have changed and we have highly developed justice systems, prisons and prison infrastructures and treatment and rehabilitation centres for dangerous criminals.

Let me quote from the Catechism; because I think it does much better justice to this issue!

CCC 2267:
“Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

So you see, the Church’s teaching hasn’t actually changed on this issue at all.

Does that help?

The Ox

Great discussion going on here! Loving it!

Since we’re on the whole thing of infallible teaching, and with the Ox having the knowledge and links for the answers, I was wondering if someone could answer a question that I have struggled to answer in the past: if the Magisterium teaches infallibly, what does that mean for the things it has taught in the past which were incorrect? For example, the whole Gallileo, earth-center-of-the-universe malarchy?

I’m sure there’s an explanation – does someone have one?

This might also help.

It comes from the Catholic encyclopedia artice on the Magisterium, it can be found in fullness here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

At the head of this episcopal body is the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter in his primacy as he is his successor in his see. As supreme authority in the teaching body, which is infallible, he himself is infallible. The episcopal body is infallible also, but only in union with its head, from whom moreover it may not separate, since to do so would be to separate from the foundation on which the Church is built. The authority of the pope may be exercised without the co-operation of the bishops, and this even in infallible decisions which both bishops and faithful are bound to receive with the same submission. The authority of the bishops may be exercised in two ways; now each bishop teaches the flock confided to him, again the bishops assemble in council to draw up together and pass doctrinal or disciplinary decrees. When all the bishops of the Catholic world (this totality is to be understood as morally speaking; it suffices for the whole Church to be represented) are thus assembled in council the council is called oecumenical. The doctrinal decrees of an oecumenical council, once they are approved by the pope, are infallible as are the ex cathedra definitions of the sovereign pontiff. Although the bishops, taken individually, are not infallible their teaching participates in the infallibility of the Church according as they teach in concert and in union with the episcopal body, that is according as they express not their personal ideas, but the very thought of the Church.

Beside the sovereign pontiff are the Roman Congregations, many of which are especially concerned with doctrinal questions…

Other congregations, that of the Inquisition [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith], for example, have a more directly doctrinal authority. This authority is never infallible; it is nevertheless binding and exacts a religious submission, interior as well as exterior.

I thought this might help in regards to your questions…

The Magisterium or Teaching Authority of the Church

by Fr. William G. Most

By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10. 16). Now of course the promise of Christ cannot fail: hence when the Church presents some doctrine as definitive or final, it comes under this protection, it cannot be in error; in other words, it is infallible. This is true even if the Church does not use the solemn ceremony of definition. The day to day teaching of the Church throughout the world, when the Bishops are in union with each other and with the Pope, and present something as definitive, this is infallible. (Vatican II, Lumen gentium # 25). It was precisely by the use of that authority that Vatican I was able to define that the Pope alone, when speaking as such and making things definitive, is also infallible. Of course this infallibility covers also teaching on what morality requires, for that is needed for salvation.

A “theologian” who would claim he needs to be able to ignore the Magisterium in order to find the truth is strangely perverse: the teaching of the Magisterium is the prime, God-given means of finding the truth. Nor could he claim academic freedom lets him contradict the Church. In any field of knowledge, academic freedom belongs only to a properly qualified professor teaching in his own field. But one is not properly qualified if he does not use the correct method of working in his field, e.g., a science professor who would want to go back to medieval methods would be laughed off campus, not protected. Now in Catholic theology , the correct method is to study the sources of revelation, but then give the final word to the Church. He who does not follow that method is not a qualified Catholic theologian. Vatican II taught (Dei Verbum # 10): “The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”

——————————————————————————–

Taken from The Basic Catholic Catechism
PART FIVE: The Apostles’ Creed IX – XII
Ninth Article: “The Holy Catholic Church; the Communion of Saints”

By William G. Most. (c) Copyright 1990 by William G. Most.

1. Infallibility

I guess the issue comes down to the means and the sphere of infallibility: for the former, the question would be “what are the means through which these are infallibly defined, and the required conditions for each of these means?”, which naturally leads to the latter “which teachings fulfill these conditions and therefore are infallible?” (it seems to me this is the contentious part). May I be so bold as to suggest this as a new blog topic(s) for another day?

As I understand it, the Catholic Church has three infallible authorities which compliment each other: Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium, so explanations of these and the requirements of each would cover the first question. For the second question, it might be good to examine those issues we have talked about earlier – women’s ordination, homosexuality and contraception – in the light of the first part (so, for example, whether or not the Pope’s proclamation in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis fulfills the conditions for Papal Infallibility and therefore Sacred Magisterium).

Related to this are the questions, “what are the philosophical and scriptural basis for this doctrine?” and, “what are the fallible teachings of the Church?”, which may help to understand the issue more.

2. Obedience

An interesting question is, “are there any instances in which the faithful is allowed to disobey their superiors or the magisterium or dissent from the official teachings of the Church (be it infallible or non-infallible)?”. I think an explanation of the theology of obedience would help clarify a lot of things (I know it would for me, at least).

God bless!
TTM