# Where does the catholic church put its teachings on record? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 3, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761 "2013-04-03T19:18:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/21 "2013-04-03T22:08:43Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > **Ethelbert** , I’m not sure about that. I’m having a discussion with someone over whether a catholic in full communion can support same sex marriage. It would appear that the catechism doesn’t allow it (since supporting it would seem to be, by the church’s lights, an encouragement to others to commit mortal sins), but I questioned whether you have to believe every single thing the church teaches to be in full communion. My interlocutor affirms the following: If you’re aware of a church teaching and disagree with it, insisting on disagreeing after correction, then you have excommunicated yourself. He’s got documentation for this, but it invites the question “What is church teaching?” Here it is suggested that the catechism encompasses all and only the teachings of the RCC. That’s the best answer I have so far–but it appears the document is carefully worded to avoid the full implications of that claim. Your friend is mistaken. If you’re aware of a church teaching on a matter of faith or morals, then yes. But supporting the secular institution of same-sex marriage can be done without flouting any particular Church teaching on faith or morals. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/22 "2013-04-03T22:10:14Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > The Church has no formal list of infallible pronouncements. Their feeling is that you should listen to whatever the Pope and the Bishops tell you and not consult any formal lists. That really does make infallibility a contentless doctrine! They’re saying there are certain things I must believe or else–then refusing to specify what those things are! Sure they’ll name things when pressed, but then insist there’s really no list of such things I must believe or else! This undermines the act of attempting to tell me what those things are in the first place. It remains open to me just to say _you_ think that’s one of the infallible things, but it doesn’t seem so to me! Of course, if I’m saying this out of spite or some unthoughtful reflex, then I’m at least one of the bad guys in the situation. But if I’m saying so out of genuine, deep and considered reflection, and taking truth seriously, then they literally can have no valid reply to me in terms of infallibility. If they don’t know what’s infallible, how should I know?! (And if I can’t know, then why should i care?) We’re getting into GD territory though… This all taps in to this thing that I return to every now and then. For personal reasons I find myself attracted to the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but internet catholics and internet orthodox seem to insist that if I’m going to insist on thinking homosexuality is okay and abortions are sometimes fine etc, then I need not apply. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/23 "2013-04-03T22:10:52Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I have to apologize for one part of what I said above–the conversation took place yesterday and I incorrectly remembered the person showing me some church document or other which implied a latae excommunication for stubborn disagreement with a church doctrine, but in fact the documentation incident I was remembering was concerning a different but related matter. Concerning latae excommunication, my interlocutor actually backed down and clarified that he was simply expressing his own opinion as to whether it was really possible for a person in communion with the church to support same sex marriage. He feels certain that no one who supports it could possibly actually be in communion, but admits this is not something explicitly spelled out in church doctrine. So that part’s probably settled. Well, I regard myself as a practical Catholic, in union with the Holy See, and thus in full communion with the Church, and I support the secular institution of same-sex marriage. I am open to any questions that may help further define this position. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/24 "2013-04-03T22:22:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I regard myself as a practical Catholic, in union with the Holy See, and thus in full communion with the Church, and I support the secular institution of same-sex marriage. > > I am open to any questions that may help further define this position. The one question that comes to mind is, do you not think you’re providing an encouragement to others to commit mortal sin? (IIUC, homosexual acts are mortally sinful.) If not, why not? I guess the argument for the view that it encourages sin hangs on a premise that legitimizing homosexual marriage also legitimizes homosexual sex, and that legitimizing things also encourages them. Is one or both of those premises something you disagree with? BTW just to make sure it’s clear I’m pro SSM as well, just asking a question with what I take to be catholic presuppositions. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/25 "2013-04-03T22:33:11Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > That really does make infallibility a contentless doctrine! > They’re saying there are certain things I must believe or else–then refusing to specify what those things are! Sure they’ll name things when pressed, but then insist there’s really no list of such things I must believe or else! This undermines the act of attempting to tell me what those things are in the first place. It remains open to me just to say _you_ think that’s one of the infallible things, but it doesn’t seem so to me!. I phrased that poorly. There are volumes of teachings you may consult. There is the Catechism. There are Papal Bulls. There are Encyclicals. There are documents from the Congreagation for the Doctrine of Faith. There are writings of theologians and saints. The Vatican has libraries. The Vatican has embraced the internet for disseminating this information. The Church believes that the Bishops are the authentic teachers of the faith. When a Bishop (including the Pope) wishes to teach you something, they do not want you running off to consult some “We REALLY mean it this time” list. They want you to accept their teaching. This does not mean that scholarship, discussion, and debate are off-limits. It means that when the Church has made a decision regarding the issue being debated, that is the correct answer. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/26 "2013-04-03T23:58:01Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > This all taps in to this thing that I return to every now and then. For personal reasons I find myself attracted to the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but internet catholics and internet orthodox seem to insist that if I’m going to insist on thinking homosexuality is okay and abortions are sometimes fine etc, then I need not apply. Have you considered the Episcopalian Church (assuming you’re in the US)? It’s very similar to Catholicism in many respects, but pro-gay and pro-choice, and generally liberal. (The same is true of some, but not all, of the other churches of the Anglican Communion.) ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/27 "2013-04-04T00:12:02Z")
> [@](#): > > In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. > [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > I know that there is a frequently repeated meme on the internet that the Church has only made two infallible statements. No, the meme is that _the Pope_ has only made two infallible statements as defined as his prerogative to do so solely as the Pope. And that is true. It has happened twice. > [@](#): > > The Church, however, believes that it is not necessary for the Pope to make a formal ex cathedra declaration in order for a teaching to be infallible, as explained above. > > The Church has no formal list of infallible pronouncements. Their feeling is that you should listen to whatever the Pope and the Bishops tell you and not consult any formal lists. Yeah, good luck getting such a list. Except for the core credal statements, it’s going to be a bit rough to find those things that all popes and bishops taught as implicitly infallable throughout the entire history of the Church. Take artificial contraception, for example. Sure, after Paul VI issued _Humanae Vitae_ it became the official stance of the RCC that artificial contraception was objectively evil and those who disagreed publicly were censured (at least, those who could be practically censured were censured, which amounts to mainly clergy and religious – Rome wasn’t about to chase down and censure millions of lay folk). And there are militant RCC right wingers who would love to add that ban on A.C. to the ‘implicitly regarded as infallible’ column. But, the commission after Vatican Council II that looked into the matter, made up of bishops and theologians, recommended allowing A.C. So, this matter was certainly _not_ a position of the “universal magisterium.” And thus, goes nowhere near the infallible column. And as far as “just obey the bishops” thing, well, maybe for some in the church feel that way, but a good many, if not the majority do not. Even some bishops would recoil from the idea that their flock were supposed to simply blindly obey. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/28 "2013-04-04T00:46:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your friend is mistaken. If you’re aware of a church teaching on a matter of faith or morals, then yes. But supporting the secular institution of same-sex marriage can be done without flouting any particular Church teaching on faith or morals. Well, there’s the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s [Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html), which says > [@](#): > > Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil. > > In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection. and in terms of Catholic politicians: > [@](#): > > When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral. > > When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/29 "2013-04-04T01:14:17Z")
> [@moriah](#): > > Take artificial contraception, for example. Sure, after Paul VI issued _Humanae Vitae_ it became the official stance of the RCC that artificial contraception was objectively evil and those who disagreed publicly were censured (at least, those who could be practically censured were censured, which amounts to mainly clergy and religious – Rome wasn’t about to chase down and censure millions of lay folk). And there are militant RCC right wingers who would love to add that ban on A.C. to the ‘implicitly regarded as infallible’ column. But, the commission after Vatican Council II that looked into the matter, made up of bishops and theologians, recommended allowing A.C. So, this matter was certainly _not_ a position of the “universal magisterium.” And thus, goes nowhere near the infallible column. Nope. That is not how it happened. In 1930, the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church decided that artificial birth control was acceptable for married couples. In response Pope Pius XI issued _Casti Cannubii_ which declared that artificial contraception was intrinsically evil. In 1963, after this new-fangled pill thing came out, Pope John XXIII created a small commission of non-theologians to research the question of whether The Pill changed things. Pope Paul VI enlarged the commission and did appoint some bishops to manage it. The majority of the commission gave the Pope a report that advocated changing the ban. Conservative Catholic apologists claim that the commission went beyond its assigned mission by not sticking to the question of whether The Pill was part of what was contemplated under _Casti Cannubii_. A minority of the commission gave the Pope [a report](http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/0church/birth-control-minority.htm) that advocated including The Pill in the ban. The Pope rejected the report of the majority and accepted the report of the minority. Looking at the reasoning of the minority report is instructive. > [@](#): > > Why Cannot the Church Change Her Answer to This Central Question? > > (1) The Church cannot change her answer because this answer is true. Whatever may pertain to a more perfect formulation of the teaching or its possible genuine development, the teaching itself cannot be substantially true. It is true because the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ to show men a secure way to eternal life, could not have so wrongly erred during all those centuries of its history. The Church cannot substantially err in teaching doctrine which is most serious in its import for faith and morals, throughout all centuries or even one century, if it has been constantly and forcefully proposed as necessarily to be followed in order to obtain eternal salvation. The Church could not have erred through so many centuries, even though one century, by imposing under serious obligation very grave burdens in the name of Jesus Christ, if Jesus Christ did not actually impose those burdens. The Catholic Church could not have furnished in the name of Jesus Christ to so many of the faithful everywhere in the world, throughout so many centuries, the occasion for formal sin and spiritual ruin, because of a false doctrine promulgated in the name of Jesus Christ. > > If the Church could err in such a way, the authority of the ordinary magisterium in moral matters would be thrown into question. The faithful could not put their trust in the magisterium’s presentation of moral teaching, especially in sexual matters. To summarize: It cannot be changed because that would be saying Pope Pius XI was wrong. And a teaching of the Pope could not have been wrong. What stronger definition of infallibility can you want? Later in the document: > [@](#): > > The Value and Dignity of the Church’s Teaching Authority > > If the Church should now admit that the teaching passed on is no longer of value, teaching which has been preached and stated with ever more insistent solemnity until recent years, it must be feared greatly that its authority in almost all moral and dogmatic matters will be seriously harmed. For there are few moral truths so constantly, solemnly and, as it has appeared, definitely stated as this one for which it is now so quickly proposed that it be changed to the contrary. > > What is more, however, this change would inflict a grave blow on the teaching about the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to the Church to lead the faithful on the right way toward their salvation. For, as a matter of fact, the teaching of Cast Connubii was solemnly proposed in opposition to the doctrine of the Lambeth Conference of 1930, by the Church “to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals…in token of her divine ambassadorship…and through Our mouth.” Is it nevertheless now to be admitted that the Church erred in this her work, and that the Holy Spirit rather assists the Anglican Church! > > … > This is a most significant question which profoundly enters into the practical lives of Christians in such a way that innumerable faithful would have been thrown by the magisterium into formal sin without material sin. To summarize: Saying birth control is OK would be tantamount to saying that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church and became an Anglican. And even if we were wrong, the people who were using birth control against our wishes were going to hell. As to your suggestion that this is not a position of the Universal Magesterium, I’ll let these words speak for themselves: > [@](#): > > In dealing with this question, to dispute in a subtle way whether the teaching is technically “infallible by a judgment of the magisterium” is empty-headed (supervacaneum). For if this doctrine is not substantially true, the magisterium itself will seem to be empty and useless in any moral matter. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/30 "2013-04-04T01:27:37Z")
> [@moriah](#): > > No, the meme is that _the Pope_ has only made two infallible statements as defined as his prerogative to do so solely as the Pope. And that is true. It has happened twice. Perhaps since 1870. In 1870 the First Vatican Council formalized the doctrine of infallibility. But they did not say that the proclamations of all earlier Popes had just been random musings of some old men, but now they will start to be infallible. > [@](#): > > And as far as “just obey the bishops” thing, well, maybe for some in the church feel that way, but a good many, if not the majority do not. Even some bishops would recoil from the idea that their flock were supposed to simply blindly obey. Yes, I’m certain that except perhaps for an ultra-conservative core, most Catholics tend to pick and choose what they believe. Of course, most Bishops would prefer that you study, discuss, and pray over the issues and come to the realization and acceptance that they are giving you the truth. ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/31 "2013-04-04T02:57:13Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > A minority of the commission gave the Pope [a report](http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/0church/birth-control-minority.htm) that advocated including The Pill in the ban. > > The Pope rejected the report of the majority and accepted the report of the minority. Looking at the reasoning of the minority report is instructive. > > To summarize: It cannot be changed because that would be saying Pope Pius XI was wrong. And a teaching of the Pope could not have been wrong. > > What stronger definition of infallibility can you want? I’ll let Pope Honorius speak to that question. > [@](#): > > As to your suggestion that this is not a position of the Universal Magesterium, I’ll let these words speak for themselves: The fact that there were bishops and cardinals willing to overrule a previous Pope sorta make ‘universal’ quite questionable. This is the perfect example of an ordinary teaching being subject to ‘creeping infallibility’. In this mentality, _everything_ becomes infallible, which is clearly not what the ecumenical council intended. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/32 "2013-04-04T03:22:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I regard myself as a practical Catholic, in union with the Holy See, and thus in full communion with the Church, and I support the secular institution of same-sex marriage. > > I am open to any questions that may help further define this position. I think of it more as, I’m not worried about what the secular world does. After all, divorce and remarriage is legal secularly but adultery for practicing Catholics. I’d be interested in your take on it. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/33 "2013-04-04T08:20:02Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Hm, although actually—really all it says is that it “aims” at being and is “conceived of” as being a complete presentation of what is essential to catholic faith. > > Which would of course allow for the possibility that it fails at that purpose. Think of it as the authors saying “mind you, we’re doing our best but if we went and said ‘Ok dudes this is what you have to believe and phrased it exactly that way’ the boss would smack us.” Or “well, gee, widdle us? Gosh!” The RCC isn’t literalist re. the Gospels, it can’t be literalist re. a specific Catechism. Both authors and translators have worked to the best of their ability, but they also assume and accept that their ability is limited; one of the difficulties is in using language which is both professionally precise and understandable by the general public. I’ve had several arguments with one of the authors regarding both casuistic and specific phrasings of dogmas and so far he’s never shook a fist at me yelling “heretic!” ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/34 "2013-04-04T08:40:42Z")
Plus, remember, this is a synthesis of existing teachings. If you read the Catechism, you’ll see it is heavily footnoted with references to fuller and (often) more authorative documents which set out the teachings that it synthesises - scripture passages, the decrees of church councils, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/35 "2013-04-04T13:56:59Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > The one question that comes to mind is, do you not think you’re providing an encouragement to others to commit mortal sin? (IIUC, homosexual acts are mortally sinful.) If not, why not? I guess the argument for the view that it encourages sin hangs on a premise that legitimizing homosexual marriage also legitimizes homosexual sex, and that legitimizing things also encourages them. Is one or both of those premises something you disagree with? > > BTW just to make sure it’s clear I’m pro SSM as well, just asking a question with what I take to be catholic presuppositions. No, I don’t believe my position provides any particular encouragement to others to commit mortal sin. It’s abundantly clear to me that a person desiring homosexual sex is seldom going to eschew having that sex until marriage. Abstaining from sex until marriage is not unheard of, of course, but it’s generally a religious concept, and my support is for secular marriage – that is, I’m not advocating that the Church accept same-sex marriage as sacramental; I’m advocating that my secular government grant legal recognition to same-sex unions identical in name and fact to the recognition granted to opposite-sex unions. In other words, I don’t believe that the presence, or absence, of legal civil marriage for same-sex couples has any meaningful relation to the decision to sin. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/36 "2013-04-04T14:11:16Z")
> [@gigi](#): > > I think of it more as, I’m not worried about what the secular world does. After all, divorce and remarriage is legal secularly but adultery for practicing Catholics. I’d be interested in your take on it. That’s an excellent analogy. It’s perfectly possible to remain a “witness to the whole moral truth” while simultaneously recognizing the demands inherent in living and participating in a secular society. If I wish to demand that the secular society recognize my own right, as a Catholic, [to educate my children](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters), I must also respect the right of the secular society to diverge from my vision of moral truths. Indeed, it’s even possible to recognize that a particular action which conflicts with my version of moral truth is nonetheless mandated by my secular society’s framework. In my view, a sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved except by death. Two people within a valid sacramental marriage cannot erase that marriage by “divorce;” there is no such concept. Yet I recognize that the CIVIL purposes of marriage require such a legal process. I would not oppose a law permitting civil divorce on the grounds that a valid sacramental marriage still exists and I’m encouraging the mortal sin of adultery by permitting civil divorce. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/37 "2013-04-04T16:28:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yet I recognize that the CIVIL purposes of marriage require such a legal process. I would not oppose a law permitting civil divorce on the grounds that a valid sacramental marriage still exists and I’m encouraging the mortal sin of adultery by permitting civil divorce. Yet simultaneously you can’t condone or aprove of such; only permit as something outside the moral realm by people unable or unwilling live up to standards. And likewise, the Church cannot attach itself to such. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/38 "2013-04-04T16:30:52Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Yet simultaneously you can’t condone or aprove of such; only permit as something outside the moral realm by people unable or unwilling live up to standards. And likewise, the Church cannot attach itself to such. “Condone or approve” from what perspective? I can certainly condone such a law as necessary in the secular, civil context. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/39 "2013-04-04T17:37:33Z")
IOW, to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761/40 "2013-04-04T22:17:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Condone or approve” from what perspective? > > I can certainly condone such a law as necessary in the secular, civil context. What about the document I linked to? Doesn’t that say Catholics can’t licity condone such a law? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-catholic-church-put-its-teachings-on-record/654761.md?page=3)