|
Seems to me that this discussion has less to do with the New Pope than with RC dogma, the nature of sin, and who is technically a real Catholic.
For those who say that dogma will not change, yeah you are right. Dogma will not change. Dogma is the bare bones essence of what the Faith is really founded upon. However, most of what has been discussed is not found in dogma per se. Married clergy and the gender of those able to be ordained is not found in dogma but in practice. St Peter was married and he was most certainly Catholic.
The Holy Father can not change dogma but can and does adjust practice from time to time.
The essence of Catholic Faith is the Nicene Creed. One can be a Catholic and still be in error or be in a state of sin. Technically, anyone who accepts that JC is who we believe Him to be is a Catholic, though that person might be scismatic or simply in error. Remember that the definition of Catholic is Universal.
As to the nature of sin, I was taught that there are some acts which by their nature are essentially positive and some that are essentially negative. However, for an act or ommision of an act to be a sin one must believe that this act or omission is contrary to the will of God and that one must act or fail to act in the knowledge that this is offensive to God. It has a lot to do with personal responsibility and one's ability to understand the nature and gravity of the act or omission. That is best left up to the judgment of God. The more you understand the more is expected of you, but I'll (excuse the expression) be damned if I judge you for your honest decisions.
The very essence of the Catholic faith is reconcilliation and redemption. There are certain revealed truths which are immutable and there are plenty of incidental practices which are open to adjustment. It used to be mandatory to avoid eating meat of Fridays. That was not dogma but practice. It was designed as an act of self denial to express devotion. It came to be viewed as an unnecessary disciplinary rule that had outlived its usefullness and was being seen as an essential rather than an incidental. The rule was eliminated as a mandatory requirement and simply suggested as a voluntary expression.
To sum up, dogma will not change but practice can. I think it will be interesting to see how the next 20 or 30 years play out.
|