Changes in Church Teaching: The Development of Doctrine



Editor's Note: To submit a faith question to Catholic Exchange, email href=”mailto:jtaylor@catholicexchange.com”>jtaylor@catholicexchange.com. Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange becomes the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.



Dear Catholic Exchange:

We often hear people claim the Church has changed her teachings in many areas over the years, for example, her teachings on religious freedom, usury, etc. Is this true? Also, I’ve heard many say it is possible for a Catholic to remain in good standing with the Church and still disagree with her authoritative teachings, even many well-respected theologians hold this claim on the basis that these teachings are not infallibly defined. Such claims are very troublesome. What is the response to this?

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

John R.

Dear John,

Greetings in Christ. First, there is a legitimate sense in which Church teachings or doctrines can change. This is known as “development of doctrine.” The Church speaks of the “deposit of faith,” or the “deposit of divine revelation.” These are the truths that God has communicated through Scripture and Tradition (Catechism, no. 84), and which the Church preaches and safeguards in her infallible teachings. Closely associated or coextensive with the deposit of faith are those definitive—and therefore also infallible—Church teachings “without which the saving truths of the faith [i.e., the deposit of faith] cannot be preserved, explained, or observed” (Catechism, no. 2035).

These truths of God can never change, but the Church’s understanding of them does grow and evolve over the centuries, as expressed in her doctrines. In addition, the Church’s greater understanding of a truth does not mean that the Church contradicts its previous teaching regarding that truth. Rather, in summary, deeper insights are gained in which the core doctrinal teaching and principles are preserved. As Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, Revised Edition explains, regarding the development of doctrine,

The substance of the Truth always remains the same; however, the grasp of the Truth—due to the gradual unfolding of the divine mysteries—changes. Nothing has been added or subtracted from the Deposit of Faith since the last Apostle [cf. Catechism, nos. 66-67]. However, the mysteries revealed by Christ to His Apostles are clearer now than they were in the first

centuries. . . . At times, a mystery which seemed implicit in the Scriptures was made explicit by a papal definition (e.g., the Immaculate Conception) (Father Peter Stravinskas, ed., p. 324).

For further reading on this topic, we recommend Karl Keating’s cogent treatment on the subject in Catholicism and Fundamentalism. For a more in-depth treatment, we recommend An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Cardinal Newman (ISBN: 026800921X). Newman was an eminent convert to Catholicism and a highly learned scholar. Benedictus Books provides a 10 percent discount to CUF members: (888) 316-2640.

Regarding whether a Catholic is in “good standing,” the term can be considered from a couple of perspectives. Regarding a canonically legal judgment, only a person’s bishop, religious superior or other lawful Church authority has the power to make such judgments. Some will argue that they remain a Catholic in good standing as long as the Church has not disciplined them through a formal application of canon law. However, just because one has not been canonically disciplined does not mean that he is “good standing” in a more general sense, i.e., that he is committed to living a faithful Catholic life. For example, one can be in a state of mortal sin for violating the Church’s teaching, even though the Church has not formally disciplined him for his wrongdoing. In general, one can determine whether a person’s actions are in objective conformity with Church teaching. That is, while one cannot presume to judge definitively a person’s culpability regarding an action or actions, one can objectively evaluate whether the person’s actions are in harmony with Church teaching. In addition, for the purpose of correction, one can offer charitable reproof if he deems such action prudent (cf. Catechism, no. 1829).

In any event, there are no “optional” teachings for Catholics. A Catholic is obligated to assent to all of the Church teachings, although the assent required may differ somewhat based upon the manner in which a particular teaching is proposed. In addition, even if a Catholic is not formally disciplined for dissenting from Church teaching, the Church makes clear that (1) anyone who dissents from a divinely revealed teaching is guilty of heresy (cf. Catechism, 2089); (2) anyone who dissents from a definitively proposed teaching “sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church” (canon 750 §2); and (3) the faithful are called to assent with “religious submission of intellect and will” to any teaching proposed as true but without a definitive act, noting that even in this third category the faithful are “to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine” (canon 752).

Furthermore, even though there are well-known theologians who promote “faithful dissent” from the Church’s official teachings, the Church disagrees with them. As the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) noted in its 1990 Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, “[T]he theologian who is not disposed to think with the Church (sentire cum Ecclesia) contradicts the commitment he freely and knowingly accepted to teach in the name of the Church” (no. 37, emphasis added).

Finally, you mentioned two examples in which the Church has allegedly changed her teaching: religious liberty and usury. Regarding usury, The Catholic Encyclopedia has a helpful article, which you can read for more information. While economic conditions in society have differed over time that admit of different applications of the Church’s principles on usury, the principles themselves have remained constant.

Regarding religious liberty, this is a complex issue, but we will provide some general considerations and then refer you to a book. James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead make an important point in their book The Pope, The Council, and the Mass: Vatican II is not at odds with previous Church teaching, although it does ask some different questions than previous Popes did regarding the general issue of religious liberty.



Likoudis and Whitehead summarize the matter well. Prior to Vatican II, Popes were focused on safeguarding the public order in Catholic countries, including seeking to protect the faith of the Catholic faithful in those countries. These Popes also sought to combat naturalistic philosophies that taught that men had no obligation to worship the one, true God.

As time passed, the distinctive Catholic states that existed in the 19th century were no longer as vibrant and Catholic as they once were. The principles of the Church had not changed, but the social situations to which she could apply them had. A fundamental principle of Church teaching regarding respect of another’s free will is that the Church—including any of her representatives—cannot coerce any state and its people to have a constitution and government that principally favors Catholicism. While advancing the Church’s mission in every country remains a goal of the Church, including, if possible, establishing a government that principally favors Catholicism, it would not be moral for her to attempt to impose her will on a country and its people. Given the changes in the world’s landscape, Vatican II focused on a different aspect of the religious liberty issue: teaching that the state had no right to coerce people in religious matters.

In this regard, Likoudis and Whitehead note that Vatican II is in keeping with Church teaching, which has always recognized that people’s free will should be respected in religious matters. For example in the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, the Church provides the following canon regarding Jews who pretended to be Christians, but secretly kept the Sabbath and other uniquely Jewish observances: “Such people must not be received into the communion, nor in prayer, nor in the Church. . . . But let them be Hebrews openly, according to their own religion” (Likoudis and Whitehead, p. 190, emphasis added by authors). As Nicaea II conveys, such respect for people’s free will is importantly distinguished from necessarily endorsing or affirming the errors that may be associated with one’s choice of religion. In addition, Vatican II was seeking to safeguard the rights of Catholics in all countries.

Lest anyone believe that Vatican II fell into religious indifferentism, the Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) reaffirms the obligation of all people, in exercising their free will regarding religious matters, to seek the truth and thus Catholicism and the Church:

The sacred Council begins by professing that God himself has made known to the human race how men by serving him can be saved and reach happiness in Christ. We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church. . . . All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to as they come to know it. . . . The sacred Council like wise proclaims that these obligations bind man’s conscience. Truth can impose itself on the mind of man in virtue of its own truth, which wins over the mind with both gentleness and power. So while the religious freedom which men demand in fulfilling their obligation to worship God has to do with freedom from coercion in civil society, it leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies [i.e., states] towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ (no. 1).

In summary, when examined closely, we see that Vatican II did not reverse the Church’s teaching. Obviously, there is more that could be addressed on this topic. We recommend two books: the first is the aforementioned book by Likoudis and Whitehead. It will soon be in print again. To purchase a copy, call Rector Press toll-free at (800) 247-3473 to find out when it will be available. If you cannot obtain the book from Rector Press, you may also call Loome Theological Booksellers: (651) 430-1092. We also recommend Fr. Brian Harrison’s Religious Liberty and Contraception. Again, call Loome’s. Finally, you might also be able to obtain these books via interlibrary loan through your local library.

If you have further questions on this or would like more information about Catholics United for the Faith, please contact us at 1-800-MY-FAITH (693-2484). Please keep us in your prayers as we endeavor to “support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.”

United in the Faith,

Thomas J. Nash

Senior Information Specialist

Catholics United for the Faith

827 North Fourth Street

Steubenville, OH 43952

800-MY-FAITH (800-693-2484)

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

MENU