Since the Catholic church's science-related teachings are obviously fallible, why should we assume that they have access to any higher authority when it comes to morals?

This question gets at the difference between theists and atheists.

Catholic Chirstians believe God, who is the One God, through Jesus, who is God, established a Church...infallible when it comes to faith and morals, through Apostolic succession, begining with St. Peter. (cf. Matt 16:18 and others).

We can discuss reasonable reason's for God existence if you would like, Ebon.

Jesus did not come to teach about science, rather God (i.e. faith and morals). It is reasonable that if God indeed did communicate with man and taught him who He is, that we would want every person to know as well. He would establish a Church to teach everyone, this Church would be infallible regarding the faith and morals that He passed down to them. Infallible so that there is no error in the teachings, that the same teachings he wanted to give will be the same for all time.

This gets at Apostolic Succession. Each Pope is bound by the previous Pope's teachings. St. Peter (32-67AD ) was bound by Jesus's teachings (God's teaching about faith and morals), St. Linus (67-76) was bound by St. Peter, St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) was bound by St. Linus, St. Clement I (88-97) was bound by St. Anacletus......All the way to Pope Benedict 16th.

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
......
266. Pope Benedict 16th

This is why it is reasonable to assume that we have access to a higher authority. Jesus told us so.

I recommend that you read the whole comment and take it in context. Thanks.

I'm sorry, when did the Catholic church finally officially recognize that the Earth goes round the sun? I seem to recall it was in the 1980s. Your article claims that it was in 1741 (about 150 years after Galileo BTW and even longer since Copernicus) so either way it's a little late.

I hope there are no hard feelings, I was really just wondering if you thought it was in the 80's?

You said it's a little late. When would have been the right time? I think being scientifically sound before you decide to teach something new (like all scientist do)is reasonable.

I have nothing more to say, sorry.

Are you serious about the 1980's comment?

I'm sorry, when did the Catholic church finally officially recognize that the Earth goes round the sun? I seem to recall it was in the 1980s.

First of all, The Church only teaches infallibly regarding Faith and Morals. When it comes to Science and Galileo their scientist are like any other scientist: When they find new information then they change their teachings. Just like everyone else

To quote myself

"Just like all scientist back then, the Chuches scientists taught that the sun revolved around the earth, but once Galileo proved otherwise, their teaching changed."

To see what the Church teaches one has to look at the councils.

First off, never heard of the Catholics for Free Choice. Second, what I quoted above is exactly what Ebon did:

Before then, Catholic views on abortion were far more complex. Both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas believed that a fetus became a person only at the moment of ensoulment, which they believed took place sometime around the end of the first trimester. Before that point, they held that the fetus wasn't sufficiently well-formed to contain a soul, and thus its destruction was not murder. This "delayed hominization" view was confirmed by the Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been officially repudiated. Pope Sixtus V did declare all abortions to be homicide in 1588, but his successor, Pope Gregory XIV, reversed that prohibition just three years later.

As far as the Sun around the earth. It is a common misunderstanding. The Church never declared this teaching infallible.

Which I find to be a cop-out. If they have direct access to god, why couldn't they get it right? Why do they have to have certain teachings that are not infallible just in case?

Just like all scientist back then, the Chuches scientists taught that the sun revolved around the earth, but once Galileo proved otherwise, their teaching changed.

I'm sorry, when did the Catholic church finally officially recognize that the Earth goes round the sun? I seem to recall it was in the 1980s. Your article claims that it was in 1741 (about 150 years after Galileo BTW and even longer since Copernicus) so either way it's a little late.

Either way Adam, your assertions are not holding water.

From your link:

But Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the throat of Christendom. The irony is that when he started his campaign, he enjoyed almost universal good will among the Catholic hierarchy. But he managed to alienate almost everybody with his caustic manner and aggressive tactics. His position gave the Church authorities no room to maneuver: they either had to accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not been proved) and reinterpret Scripture accordingly; or they had to condemn it. He refused the reasonable third position which the Church offered him: that Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one even superior to the Ptolemiaic system, until further proof could be adduced.

I guess Galileo was just too militant about things like "facts", and "observable evidence" for the church. He too agressively asserted what, was in fact, true. Sounds a lot like the allegations often leveled against Dawkins and Hitchens. But of course the problem here isn't what was true, the problem is that the bible said one thing, and someone was saying "that's not true and I can prove it". Why should Galileo even need to consider bowing to the church? Under what authority (one that exists, mind you) do they have any sway over what reality is, or should be allowed to try and censor those whom don't agree with them?

But in 1614, Galileo felt that he had to answer the objection that the new science contradicted certain passages of Scripture. There was, for example, Joshua's command that the sun stand still. Why would Joshua do that if, as Galileo asserted, the sun didn't move at all? Then there were Psalms 92 ("He has made the world firm, not to be moved.") and 103 ("You fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever."), not to mention the famous verse in Ecclesiastes. These are not obscure passages, and their literal sense would obviously have to be abandoned if the Copernican system were true.

Which of course, he was right about. Especially since most people in the time believed that nonsense, Galileo was right in trying to address a widely held, misconception by the people. Unless you try and push the line of thought that science needs to bend over backwards to dance around irrational thought nicely, I don't see the problem here.

At least they got this right

Unfortunately, there are still today biblical fundamentalists, both Protestant and Catholic, who do not understand this simple point: the bible is not a scientific treatise.

However, they fail to mention why the bible is an authority on anything. And I haven't heard good reasoning from anyone in the bible camp yet.

Galileo's condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no way impugns the infallibility of Catholic dogma.

Bullshit alert! The church was wrong but the church is never wrong? not buying it

The Catholic Church really has little to apologize for in its relations with science. Indeed, Stanley Jaki and others have argued that it was the metaphysical framework of medieval Catholicism which made modern science possible in the first place

Yeah, and we have religion to thank for science? That's still bullshit and I'm still not buying it.

You're right we have a conflict. You believe what the "Catholics for Free Choice" say (a decenting group of the Church), and I believe what the Church says.

To see what the Church teaches one has to look at the councils. Each council is bound by the previous councils infallible teachings? Do teachings develope? Certainly. Especially teaching like those regarding science. But the Church has always taught abortion to be wrong. For example, when science showed that the sperm and egg combine to form a brand new living organism (Which they did not know 2000 years ago), the Churches teachings developed to teach that abortion is wrong starting at this early stage.

If St. Thomas did teach something against the Church I hope he repented. Long before he was alive the Church had already stated their beliefs on abortion. And this is what we are debating about isn't it. The Churches teachings, not individuals teachings?

As far as the Sun around the earth. It is a common misunderstanding. The Church never declared this teaching infallible. Just like all scientist back then, the Chuches scientists taught that the sun revolved around the earth, but once Galileo proved otherwise, their teaching changed. Makes sense to me.

See link for the whole story if you would like

I would really recommend, at the very least, looking at Evangelium Vitae (see link above) and scroll down and look at all the History of teachings against abortion

Oh, and if you are going to quote yourself, don't change the wording.

The Church only declares a teaching unchangeable when there is a heresy to go against the teaching.

Above is the point of the argument

For example:

the divinity of Christ. The Church always taught that Christ was God and Man, but did not declare it infallible untill the 400's at the Council of Nicaea because of the Arian Heresy.

The teachings DO NOT CHANGE, look at the link I provided if interested.

Reading Adam's statements here, anyone could be forgiven for getting the impression that the Catholic church has always believed that the fetus was a person from the moment of conception. The truth is quite different. In fact, that didn't become the official Catholic view until Pope Pius IX declared it so - in 1869.

It is impossible for the Catholic Church to go against her own teachings once the teaching becomes an unchangable teaching. Each Pope is bound by the previous teachings of the church.

The Church only declares a teaching unchangeable when there is a movement to go against the teaching. There was not a huge movement against abortion until the 1930's when contraception was a huge issue All Christians were against abortion until then. Thus the Church needed to declare it's teaching on abortion infallible after the rest of the Churches split.

Take for example the divinity of Christ. The Church always taught that Christ was God and Man, but did not declare it infallible untill the 400's at the Council of Nicaea because of the Arian Heresy.

Only when there is a scandal against the Church does the Church even need to define it's teachings.

Here is a list of teachings on abortion dating back to 70 AD: link

It ends with:
Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).

If you want to read Evangelium Vitae you will see the whole history of the Churches teaching on abortion:

Whole document:link