Are the statements against contraception truly infallible?

[edwest2]

I think the issue here includes the idea that somewhere the Church got it wrong about artificial contraception. Exactly where?

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7599

humanaevitaepriests.org/hv_clergy_pledge_assent.pdf

Ed

 

[thinkandmull]

How do you answer the argument I made above?

If the pope said that you must obey a committee, and you didn’t, then you would be disobeying the pope. But we must obey the pope. Therefore we must obey any committee that the pope tells us to.

Do you see anything wrong with that argument?

Yes, because authority comes from the hierarchy. Bishops have a particular flock, for example. They have authority over it. Giving authority to a committee is delegating beyond the hierarchy.

As for Humanae Viate, Paul VI said he intended “to give our reply to these grave questions”, and they says he “declares” his position. If he had said “define” it would have been clearly infallible. I think there is still doubt. The committee in question, it is here argued, bears witness to the intention of the hierarchy to teach on the issue infallibly. But it doesn’t specifically say which Pope or when a college of bishops taught this. Its too unspecific for me

 

[thinkandmull]

I note you have elsewhere siad that an explicit infallible declaration would merely make you think more on the subject, that is, you’re not prepared to say that it would cause you to believe.

The teaching on contraception is infallible. Following explanations of various related terms, extracted from EWTN, may be helpful. There is also a CFD document that says essentially the same thing as this.

*These are terms that are easily confusing.

Doctrine. The word doctrine comes, by way of the Latin doctrina, from the Greek word doxa, meaning belief. The doctrine(s) of the Church, therefore, are those teachings which must be believed by the faithful. These include 1) dogmas, teachings which the Church has solemnly defined as formally revealed by God, and, 2) other teachings definitively proposed by the Church because they are connected to solemnly defined teachings. The first (dogmas) can be called doctrines of divine faith, the second doctrines of catholic faith. Together they are said to be “of divine and catholic faith.” Both kinds of doctrine require the assent of faith. Both are infallibly taught by the Church. Dogmas require it because they are formally revealed by God. Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church require it, because the infallibility of the Church in matters of faith and morals is itself divinely revealed. A side note, doctrine shares the same root as orthodox, meaning correct belief. Those who hold the Church’s doctrines faithfully are thus orthodox.

Dogma. Dogmas, therefore, are those doctrines solemnly proposed by the Church as formally revealed in Scripture or Tradition. This may have been done by papal pronouncement (Pius IX: Immaculate Conception), by a General Council (Chalcedon: Christ is two natures in one Divine Person), or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (killing an innocent human being is gravely immoral).

Definitively Proposed. Doctrines that are definitively proposed are no less certain, even though they are not proposed as formally revealed by God. They are connected to dogmas, however, by either historical or logical connection. An example of logical necessity would be the reservation of priesthood to men in the witness of Scripture and Tradition. The Church has not yet taught that it was formally revealed by God, but such dogmatization is possible. Papal infallibility was similarly infallibly taught by the Church before it was proposed as formally revealed by God. An example of historical necessity would be the election of a Pope or the celebration of a General Council. While a portion of the Church could elect an antipope, or hold a false council, the Church as a whole could not err in this way without compromising Christ’s revealed promise to be with the Church until the end of time.

Infallible. As noted above, all that the Church teaches as being of “divine and catholic faith” is taught infallibly. Infallibility is not limnited, therefore, to extraordinary acts of proposing dogmas, whether by popes or councils. Those looking to believe only such “infallible” statements deceive themselves. In both the category of divinely revealed and definitively proposed doctrines there are many which are taught only by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. This means that the Church has “always and everywhere” taught it as true, and, therefore, that the contrary position has never been taught. Perhaps, the most debated example is contraception*. At no time in history has the Church taught that contraception is morally licit. Whenever in the Fathers, Doctors or the Magisterium it has been discussed it has always been as an evil. There is no formal declaration, no extraordinary act, but it is certainly infallibly taught from the beginning of the Church, to Paul VI, to today.

Authoritative. Finally, the Church teaches things which are neither proposed as formally revealed or definitively proposed. This is the category of authoritative teaching. Anything in the Catechism or a pope’s writings and addresses that is not “of divine and catholic faith” if clearly meant to take a position, without deciding it by proposing it as revealed or as definitive, is authoritively taught. It should receive “religious obedience of intellect and will,” as opposed to the assent of faith. Such obedience is an act of justice. It shows the respect Catholics owe the Pope, and it humbly acknowledges that by charism and grace of vocation the Pope is more likely to be right than those who disagree with him. As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105

“by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (killing an innocent human being is gravely immoral).” Where has the Church said its teaching on abortion is based on Revelation and is therefore dogma?

 

[Genesis315]

Let’s say the Pope said that contraception use is leading to a rise in STDs. Whether or not STDs have risen (and as a result of contraception use) would be a matter of “human fact” where the Pope could certainly err. But whether STDs have risen or not does not affect the moral truth that contraception use is a sin.

This is analogous to the Pope saying various general immoral attitudes and behaviors have led to the earth’s temperature rising. Even if they haven’t, they’re still immoral behaviors. If he had passed a definitive judgment on such behaviors like Popes Pius XI and Paul VI did with regard to contraception use, it would certainly be infallible, but a prediction or analysis of temporal consequences would not.

There’s also a causal issue I think. Some actions are not immoral in and of themselves, but may become so based on their effect (if the effect is known or intended). In the environmental context, there is the general principle that we should not destroy Creation, but rather care for it and use it prudently. Whether a particular \otherwise moral activity is actually harming Creation or not would determine whether that activity is sinful in those circumstances or not. A lot of the debate hinges on this, I think.

 

[thinkandmull]

The Church has issued condemnations of propositions in the past, but sometimes qualified how they were condemned, and sometimes not. With contraception, it is not clear whether it was condemned with infallible authority or fallible authority

 

[Rau]

The Church has issued condemnations of propositions in the past, but sometimes qualified how they were condemned, and sometimes not. With contraception, it is not clear whether it was condemned with infallible authority or fallible authority

A definitive act of a Pope or Council is not required for teachings to be infallibly taught. Consistent and universal teaching by the Magisterium also qualifies them. In the case of HV, you also have the explicit act.

 

[thinkandmull]

A definitive act of a Pope or Council is not required for teachings to be infallibly taught. Consistent and universal teaching by the Magisterium also qualifies them. In the case of HV, you also have the explicit act.

That’s ambiguous. Do you mean several Popes in a row? The Church hasn’t taught that several Popes making a teaching constitutes an infallible teaching, although many Catholics believe this is so. The commission may have had this opinion when they said the teaching on contraception is infallible. Anyway, their premise is not Catholic doctrine yet. Now all the bishops teaching definitely, along with the Pope, is infallible. Whether all the bishops have done this is the question. There was much dissent after HV, for example

 

[Usagi]

Ultimately, whether the condemnation of contraception is infallible is of little importance to Catholics. Whether the teaching might change in the future has no affect on the fact that it is the authoritative teaching now. Even if it were a purely disciplinary rule, equivalent to the laws of fast and abstinence (and I certainly don’t believe it is, but even if it were), it would be binding on the consciences of Catholics while it remains in effect.

On another topic, the notion of infallibility via the “ordinary and universal magisterium” does not just mean that “several popes in a row” have taught a thing, but that the thing has always been taught by the Church since the beginning. That doesn’t mean there has never been dissent or heresy, but that the Magisterium has never wavered on the issue. In the case of contraception, we must remember that Humanae Vitae and even Casti Connubii did not contain brand-new teachings against contraception, but rather reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching on the topic in the wake of new contraceptive technologies and cultural shifts. HV is particularly notable because so many people at the time assumed it would represent a softening of the Church’s position, but instead Paul VI reaffirmed previous teaching on the matter.

Usagi

 

[thinkandmull]

“‘several popes in a row’ teaching a thing” vs “that the Magisterium has never wavered on the issue”

That is the same thing.

This is about the whole hierarchy teaching something at the same time, and teaching it definitely. John Paul II asserted the authority he believed he had to say this collegial act had taken place in the case of female priests. This hasn’t been done on contraception

 

[Rau]

That’s ambiguous. Do you mean several Popes in a row? The Church hasn’t taught that several Popes making a teaching constitutes an infallible teaching, although many Catholics believe this is so. The commission may have had this opinion when they said the teaching on contraception is infallible. Anyway, their premise is not Catholic doctrine yet. Now all the bishops teaching definitely, along with the Pope, is infallible. Whether all the bishops have done this is the question. There was much dissent after HV, for example

See if you can find where the Church has ever held the contrary position. Does any Bishops Conference teach otherwise? Talk to your priest. Look at the tract on Church teaching on Catholic Answers. The Commission is somewhat irrelevant.

 

[thinkandmull]

I am not saying there is contrary teaching on this from the hierarchy. This issue is if it was every unanimous at one time, AND also whether they intended it to be infallible at that moment.

 

[Rau]

…As for Humanae Viate, Paul VI said he intended “to give our reply to these grave questions”, and they says he “declares” his position. If he had said “define” it would have been clearly infallible. I think there is still doubt. The committee in question, it is here argued, bears witness to the intention of the hierarchy to teach on the issue infallibly. But it doesn’t specifically say which Pope or when a college of bishops taught this. Its too unspecific for me

There is no standard, required “verb” (“define”, “declare”, etc.) required to elevate a statement to the level of “ex cathedra”.

Below is an extract from: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7599

*Furthermore, we must remember Bishop Gasser’s warning to the Vatican I Fathers, some of whom were falling into the appealing but perilous trap of wanting some single, definite, uniform form of words which should mark an “ex cathedra” statement: a “standard formula” so obvious as to do away with all possible doubt or confusion as to whether any given papal utterance was infallible or not. Gasser pointed out that the Council had no power to legislate for the past: previous Pontiffs had used a variety of verbal formulae over the centuries to express their definitive doctrinal decisions. Nor, he continued, had the Council any power to legislate for the present or future Popes as to what exact form they should use: that would be the heresy of conciliarism—putting Councils above the Pope. In particular, there is no “magic” in the verb “define,” as if the presence or absence of an “ex cathedra” definition can be established by the simple criterion of seeing whether the Pontiff uses that word or not. Theologians, for instance, recognize as “ex cathedra” Pope Innocent X’s condemnations of certain Jansenist heresies, although the word “define” never appears: after the heretical propositions, the Pope appended (with no pomp and less ceremony) a simple five-word thunderbolt: 'Declarata et damnata uti haeretica" (“Declared and condemned as heretical”).

Finally, there is a particular reason why Paul VI probably did not use the word “define,” or other expressions which would have made the definition in “Humanae Vitae” look even more like those used for proclaiming the recent Marian dogmas. There has been a strong tendency for Popes to use the word “define,” in practice, in those “ex cathedra” statements which do in fact proclaim dogmas- -truths revealed by God. As we saw, some conservative Fathers at Vatican I were worried precisely for that reason by the use of “definit” in the text of the dogma: they thought it might be taken to restrict the Pope’s infallibility to matters of revealed truth and its opposite, heresy. Gasser had to explain to them most carefully that, in this document, the word “definit” does not have that restricted meaning, and must be understood to include decisions regarding matters less grave than heresies and revealed, “de fide” dogmas. However, since in practice “definimus” has usually been the word Popes have used for proclaiming strictly revealed truths, we can readily understand why Paul VI would not have wanted to use it here, nor other expressions which might resemble too closely those which modern Catholics associate with the dogmas of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. Such wording might have led to confusion over whether the Pontiff was making the immorality of contraception a dogma of faith, to be accepted as such under pain of excommunication. Pope Paul had no intention of doing that, and so he carefully chose words which could not be taken in such a way. However, he manifestly did intend to affirm with “certainty” (as he later told the College of Cardinals) an immutable norm of the natural law written by God in the human heart. And his manner of doing so in “Humanae Vitae” enables all Catholics who understand the 1870 definition correctly to see on the face of this document the radiance of the Pope’s intimate converse with God as he made this decision: the radiance of infallibility.*

And if this ex-Cathedra statement is not enough, the whole Church has consistently taught the wrongs of contraception, and never the reverse.

 

[Rau]

“‘several popes in a row’ teaching a thing” vs “that the Magisterium has never wavered on the issue”

That is the same thing.

“Several popes” is not a basis the Church uses to affirm a teaching as definitive. The constant teaching of the magisterium is.

 

[dmar198]

Yes, because authority comes from the hierarchy. Bishops have a particular flock, for example. They have authority over it. Giving authority to a committee is delegating beyond the hierarchy.

From your reply it appears that you think the first statement is wrong: “If the pope said that you must obey a committee, and you didn’t, then you would be disobeying the pope.”

Apparently, you are saying that you Wouldn’t be disobeying the pope, just the committee he told you to obey.

So what if the pope stood next to the committee all the time, and every time the committee commanded us to do something, the pope commanded it too? Then would you be obliged to obey? Because I think it follows that he could just give one command that covers all the following commands. Does that seem reasonable?

 

[thinkandmull]

Of course it is reasonable to accept the committee while the Pope approves each document individually. Accepting them without the Pope reading and approving the documents is a different matter.

HV used the word “declare” which was the same word used in the decree on Religious Liberty at Vatican II. It is certainly not clear that that decree was making an ex cathedra statement, so it puts HV in doubt. Likewise, HV says that the pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes “taught with the highest authority”, although it is certainly not definite that GP was an ex cathedra statement. Your article says Paul VI meant to teach with “‘certainty’ (as he later told the College of Cardinals)”. We should find that speech to the Cardinals. In the mean time, remember that Paul VI said that all of Vatican II taught with a “certain authority” and must be accepted by the Church. I think it is clear that Paul VI did not make it obvious that he was teaching infallibly. Rau, your quote that Paul VI carefully chose his words so that people wouldn’t think he was defining something based on revelation is absurd because many Catholics believe contraception is against the Bible and Tradition, and second because Paul VI could have simply said “this teaching is now infallible”, instead of leaving us wondering if he meant to bind us to religious submission alone

 

[dmar198]

Of course it is reasonable to accept the committee while the Pope approves each document individually.

What if he took two or three of their documents and approved them all at once? Would you say he has to do them one at a time? What if he approved all of them?

 

[thinkandmull]

If a Pope approves of a document, it is assumed that he read it. He can’t read what has not been written yet

 

[Rau]

Of course it is reasonable to accept the committee while the Pope approves each document individually. Accepting them without the Pope reading and approving the documents is a different matter.

HV used the word “declare” which was the same word used in the decree on Religious Liberty at Vatican II. It is certainly not clear that that decree was making an ex cathedra statement, so it puts HV in doubt. Likewise, HV says that the pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes “taught with the highest authority”, although it is certainly not definite that GP was an ex cathedra statement. Your article says Paul VI meant to teach with “‘certainty’ (as he later told the College of Cardinals)”. We should find that speech to the Cardinals. In the mean time, remember that Paul VI said that all of Vatican II taught with a “certain authority” and must be accepted by the Church. I think it is clear that Paul VI did not make it obvious that he was teaching infallibly. Rau, your quote that Paul VI carefully chose his words so that people wouldn’t think he was defining something based on revelation is absurd because many Catholics believe contraception is against the Bible and Tradition, and second because Paul VI could have simply said “this teaching is now infallible”, instead of leaving us wondering if he meant to bind us to religious submission alone

Did you read the linked document?

You appear to be grasping at straws in a bid to deny the infallibility of the teaching despite it being so on 2 independent grounds.

 

[dmar198]

If a Pope approves of a document, it is assumed that he read it.

Is that in Catholic teaching somewhere?

 

[Bookcat]

Lately all this talk of Laudato Si being prudential judgement and since its about science and nothing to do with faith or morals (even though the Pope made it a moral case by saying we all have a moral obligation to fight CC), people say it isn’t binding on the whole Church and it isn’t infallible.

Ah…yes it has to do with faith and morals…