Are the statements against contraception truly infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SonOfMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thinkandmull said:
Its obviously been taught by the Church, just not obviously infallibly. I don’t use contraception. I think the Church should be clearer on issues though. How hard is it to say “I teach this infallibly”??
Click to expand...
To someone like me, not specifying “I teach this infallibly” is a tactic that leaves the door open if something should change or go wrong in the future.

If something changed or a future pope didnt like something, the argument “But it wasnt explicitly specified” can always be used.

If its something that is staying then the argument “It fits all the criteria to be infallible, therefore it is infallible” can be used.

At this rate, does infallibility even mean anything?
 
Do you consider the Catechism of the Council of Trent to contain infallible doctrine? If so, the following is from The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, Ch. 8:
It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime ** nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.
Click to expand...
 
That Catechism, which is called fallible in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, was referring to someone taking something to make you permanently infertile.
 
thinkandmull said:
That Catechism, which is called fallible in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, was referring to someone taking something to make you permanently infertile.
Click to expand...
Well, from what I can tell… EFCs taught against contraception, councils have taught against contraception, popes have taught against contraception, encyclicals have affirmed the current teaching as infallible, the catechisms teach against contraception, the curia teaches against contraception…

Seems to me to be a consistent teaching by the magisterium across the board and throughout time, with the exception of only a relative handful of bishops, priests and laity who speak in favour of it.

I don’t see how this teaching can be considered anything but infallible at this point, except for an obstinate persistence in denying it as such, even in the face of a rather obvious interpretation of infallibility.
 
where does the idea come from that Church teachings that are not formally defined as infallible are: 1) not infallible; and, 2) do not require full assent of faith?

it seemed to me that some are trying to make this point when it comes to the Church’s teachings on contraception.

if this type of reasoning were sound or valid, then it could be equally applied to abortion, murder, rape, the doctrine on the Trinity, the doctrine on the Incarnation, etc., etc., etc.
 
MrSnaith said:
Well, from what I can tell… EFCs taught against contraception, councils have taught against contraception, popes have taught against contraception, encyclicals have affirmed the current teaching as infallible, the catechisms teach against contraception, the curia teaches against contraception…

Seems to me to be a consistent teaching by the magisterium across the board and throughout time, with the exception of only a relative handful of bishops, priests and laity who speak in favour of it.

I don’t see how this teaching can be considered anything but infallible at this point, except for an obstinate persistence in denying it as such, even in the face of a rather obvious interpretation of infallibility.
Click to expand...
What did Jesus say on the matter?
 
MrSnaith said:
Well, from what I can tell… EFCs taught against contraception, councils have taught against contraception, popes have taught against contraception, encyclicals have affirmed the current teaching as infallible, the catechisms teach against contraception, the curia teaches against contraception…

Seems to me to be a consistent teaching by the magisterium across the board and throughout time, with the exception of only a relative handful of bishops, priests and laity who speak in favour of it.

I don’t see how this teaching can be considered anything but infallible at this point, except for an obstinate persistence in denying it as such, even in the face of a rather obvious interpretation of infallibility.
Click to expand...
Only one Council said this (Vatican II) and no encyclicals have not said the teaching is infallible
 
eddie_too said:
if this type of reasoning were sound or valid, then it could be equally applied to abortion, murder, rape, the doctrine on the Trinity, the doctrine on the Incarnation, etc., etc., etc.
Click to expand...
First off, youre really comparing wearing a condom while having sex with your spouse to murder and rape?

Secondly, yes, anything a future Pope may not like and reverse, an apologist can easily explain it away and back pedal the issue. I’ll ask again, what is the point of papal infallibility again?

And thirdly, are you in full agreement with Pope Francis that fighting man made climate change is a moral obligation?
 
eddie_too said:
where does the idea come from that Church teachings that are not formally defined as infallible are: 1) not infallible; and, 2) do not require full assent of faith?

it seemed to me that some are trying to make this point when it comes to the Church’s teachings on contraception.

if this type of reasoning were sound or valid, then it could be equally applied to abortion, murder, rape, the doctrine on the Trinity, the doctrine on the Incarnation, etc., etc., etc.
Click to expand...
Very little seems to have been certainly taught infallibly. That does mean future Popes won’t decide to define a lot more often. Anyway, there are still lots of infallible teachings for Catholics to have infallible assurance of
 
thinkandmull said:
Only one Council said this (Vatican II) and no encyclicals have not said the teaching is infallible
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point. I was pointing out the consistent teaching between all of these bodies and methods of teaching, throughout the history of the Church. It looks like Sensus Fidelium to me.

Moreover, regarding the Roman Catechism that I quoted earlier (Catechism of the Council of Trent), which clearly states the evil of contraception, the Catholic Encyclopedia had this to say of it:
The Catechism has not of course the authority of conciliary definitions or other primary symbols of faith; for, although decreed by the Council, it was only published a year after the Fathers had dispersed, and it consequently lacks a formal conciliary approbation. During the heated controversies de auxiliis gratiae between the Thomists and Molinists, the Jesuits refused to accept the authority of the Catechism as decisive. Yet it possesses high authority as an exposition of Catholic doctrine. It was composed by order of a council, issued and approved by the pope; its use has been prescribed by numerous synods throughout the whole Church; Leo XIII, in a letter to the French bishops (8 Sept., 1899), recommended the study of the Roman Catechism to all seminarians, and the reigning pontiff, Pius X, has signified his desire that preachers should expound it to the faithful.
Click to expand...
Moreover, regarding your explanation of the Catechism’s statement regarding contraception, can you provide a source for this? Because that’s not how it reads, and I see no reason to take it per your interpretation.
 
MrSnaith said:
I think you missed my point. I was pointing out the consistent teaching between all of these bodies and methods of teaching, throughout the history of the Church. It looks like Sensus Fidelium to me.

Moreover, regarding the Roman Catechism that I quoted earlier (Catechism of the Council of Trent), which clearly states the evil of contraception, the Catholic Encyclopedia had this to say of it:

Moreover, regarding your explanation of the Catechism’s statement regarding contraception, can you provide a source for this? Because that’s not how it reads, and I see no reason to take it per your interpretation.
Click to expand...
I am not denying that the Catechism of Trent is authoritative. The question is whether a consistent teaching of the Magisterium after a while becomes infallible. You mention the Sense of Faith but that hasn’t been taught by the Church. If three Popes in a row teach something, is it then infallible? Or is it four Popes? What’s the magic number? This system is like the Protestants acceptance of Luther’s canon of Scripture. It’s arbitrary.

As for interpreting that Catechism, it seems to me in line with what the Fathers say about sterilization. They are quoted as being against contraception, but my reading of them is that they were condemning couples who instead of raising of Christian family permanently sterilized one or both of them so that they would never have to deal with the problem of pregnancy. Any interpretation beyond that is just interpretation
 
thinkandmull said:
As for interpreting that Catechism, it seems to me in line with what the Fathers say about sterilization. They are quoted as being against contraception, but my reading of them is that they were condemning couples who instead of raising of Christian family permanently sterilized one or both of them so that they would never have to deal with the problem of pregnancy. Any interpretation beyond that is just interpretation
Click to expand...
But that’s your interpretation of it. That’s not actually what the text says. The text is actually really clear.
 
It says “married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine”… To prevent it permanently (sterilization), or simply eating something that stops ovulation for a night? It doesn’t specify
 
thinkandmull said:
It says “married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine”… To prevent it permanently (sterilization), or simply eating something that stops ovulation for a night? It doesn’t specify
Click to expand...
The least likely interpretation would be the taking of medicine to perform stterilization. Why is it necessary to exclude either temporary or permanent effects in understanding the text, and why do you favour excluding the most likely scenario?
 
I am just saying what are the two equally possible interpretations. I didn’t “exclude permanent effects” but said that was what it could be referring to.
 
thinkandmull said:
I am just saying what are the two equally possible interpretations. I didn’t “exclude permanent effects” but said that was what it could be referring to.
Click to expand...
He was asking why you would exclude either.

If it doesn’t specify permanent or temporary, why exclude any? Here’s the reason: you want to support your position. But there’s no real justification to exclude temporary effects. So, since it doesn’t specify, we should include both.
 
thinkandmull said:
I am just saying what are the two equally possible interpretations. I didn’t “exclude permanent effects” but said that was what it could be referring to.
Click to expand...
There is a 3rd interpretation, viz that both temporary and permanent effects are wrong to pursue. And that is the most natural and obvious interpretation, and you close your eyes to it, and prefer to favour the least likely interpretation. The interpretations are not all equally possible as consideration of their substance reveals.
 
No private interpretation is valid. I don’t want that Catechism not to say contraception is wrong. I am balancing the evidence. “Sterilization is a surgical operation by which the subjects are made incapable of procreation. Formerly it consisted of castration in men, and excision of the ovaries in women. But recently two much simpler operations have been discovered, namely, vasectomy for men and ligature of the Fallopian tubes (Kehrer’s method) for women.” (Old Catholic Encyclopedia) There is lots of “well what that really means is…” on this forum (“No salvation outside the Church”, more difficult Bible passes on the Scripture forum). You have to be prepared to deal with various interpretations of passages when there is no clear cut situation at hand
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top