Well, here is a rating system for wives used by marriage counselers in 1939 to rate wives’ merits and lack thereof: demerits for wearing red nail polish, having the seams of her stockings crooked, and putting her cold feet on her husband at night to warm them; positive points for serving meals on time and letting her husband sleep late on days off.
Is the lesson from this that 1930s society in general did not regard women and men as equal partners? I’d say it is.
So why, Icerigger, does a similar document from the Catholic Church in the 1930s invite an inference that the Catholic Church still holds those views today?
I don’t think George W Crane PhD, MD would believe he speaks with the authority of God. Bricker are you claiming Casti Connubii does not say what it says? Is Casti Connubii no longer binding on Catholics? Was it ever binding, if not when did it change? Is Humanae Vitae binding or just suggestions.
Again as with Bricker Casti says woman are required to be obedient and submissive to male authority, Is this no longer the case, when did it change?
As I understand it encyclicals get superceded by later pastoral documents and by changes in policy, and may be so tacitly rather than expliticly.
The Vatican AFAIK in practice got over women having educations and careers a while ago, of course with the caveat of “as long as family duties come first”. (And also: careers and education for the individual is one issue, who wears the pants in the household is another; yes conceding the first makes it harder to justify sticking to the old line on the second but that’s someone else’s problem to justify)
And BTW, those more familiar may tell me: does Casti Connubi anywhere actually declare that it is *sinful *for the woman to get educated and have a career, as opposed to just “wrong”?
Certain statements in encyclicals may well express certain binding truths, but as a general proposition encyclicals are a teaching for their time as opposed to a definitive dogmatic decree. The vehicle for the Supreme Pontiff to pronounce some truth absolutely beyond question or further debate is the declaration that he is speaking ex cathedra. This is used so vanishingly rarely for the obvious reason that the Pope knows what is wise practice for one age may not be wise for another, and he does not confuse the issues of the moment with the holy, sacred, and unending truths revealed by God.
When did “that time” end, you ask, that time that led to this business of women-as-second-class-spouses? Definitively by the Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution “Gaudium et Spes.” (And by the way: a Pastoral Constitution outranks a mere encyclical.) Also see the recognition in the encyclical “Pacem in Terris” issued by Pope John XXIII to the roles women are (then) beginning to take in public life.
They have a perfect batting average when teaching about matters of sacred truth. When teaching about more secular matters of daily living, their ideas are no more lofty than the general run of mankind. The Church demanded Galileo admit he was wrong, and looks back on that with embarrassment. But the motion of planetary bodies is not where the Church has any more expertise than anyone with a telescope.
Maybe we should define what you mean by “binding.”
For example, right now priests celebrate Mass when wearing certain vestments – liturgical garments. The requirement that they do so is “binding,” in the sense that that’s what the boss says to do.
Tomorrow, the Pope could order that henceforth, priests celebrate Mass wearing a tuxedo, complete with top hat and tails. And that would then be “binding,” in the sense that this is what priests are then required to do. But neither discipline would be held out as sacred truth.
I took “binding,” when you said it, to imply more of a universal, for-all-time, unchanging dogma.
If Catholic girls stop going to college, then someone will start questioning Catholic girls in high school. That way leads to a reduction in Catholic school girl uniforms.
We can NOT have that.
Now, back to our education of the masses on what is correctly and officially Catholic dogma/belief/etc.
The Pope’s opinion on whether the Braves will win the National League Eastern Division this year is no more or less authoritative than mine.
It’s not “handy,” but simply factual. The Church on Earth does not purport to be staffed with constantly unerring members at any level.
It does prove useful when refuting persons such as yourself, who seem to believe that any mistake of fact from a priest, bishop, or Pontiff brings crashing down some magnificent fraud. That’s not the case, and never has been.
It’s interesting how we started with birth control and ended up on baseball.
If someone claims to be divinely guided, then I expect them to be ahead of the curve across the board and not simply in matters of theological navel-gazing.
Roman Catholicism has a long legalistic tradition. It’s a feature, not a bug.
Though this dude’s probably not a baseball but a soccer guy.
And considering how Francis has been doing so far I wouldn’t put it past him to say something that the Fix The Family gang will find alarming (though it does not actually change anything as it exists) some time soon.
Unless you think that “binding,” has one clear meaning. I did, and by my lights, encyclicals are not binding. But the continued questions suggest that Icerigger may not agree with my definition.
But if discussing the definition strikes you as “in trouble,” then we can return to: no, not binding.
