Are the statements against contraception truly infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SonOfMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, reviewing what’s been said about contraception by the Magisterium, I see how Pius XI said in an encyclical that this has been a consistent teaching of the Church. Now, I think John Paul II’s decree on female priests was infallible because, although the Holy Office said it was not infallible in itself but via universal Magisterium, I think universal Magisterium only is possible if its made known. The obvious way for this to be shown would be by the Pope. John Paul II said his doctrine had to be definitely held.

The question is whether Pius XI’s encyclical meant to give infallible witness to “diachronic” infallibility. I think its wording is telling: “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” However, the question stills remains if this idea of “diachronic infallibity” is actually infallibly part of Church teaching
 
That article doesn’t have the smoking gun on this. Until the Church so defines, we don’t know if a consistent teaching of the Church is infallible UNLESS the bishops of the world intend it to be so, with the Pope, AND make it none that this is to be held as definite and infallible. The case is lacking with contraception
 
Onan ejaculated outside the vagina, which is more obviously wrong then merely taking a pill or herb to temporarily stop fertility.

Anyway, pro-contraception Christians don’t consider Deut. 25:7–10, as used in the article, a smoking gun either. Abraham laughed at God, but was not silenced like Elizabeth’s husband in the New Testament.
 
thinkandmull said:
That article doesn’t have the smoking gun on this. Until the Church so defines, we don’t know if a consistent teaching of the Church is infallible UNLESS the bishops of the world intend it to be so, with the Pope, AND make it none that this is to be held as definite and infallible. The case is lacking with contraception
Click to expand...
Since the beginning, the Bishops of the world taught the evils of contraception and you question intention? Remarkable.
 
No doubts remain that it is infallible.

Christus Dominus:
  1. In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, **perform their duties in his name **and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.
Pastor Bonus:

Art. 1 — The Roman Curia is the complex of dicasteries and institutes which help the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his supreme pastoral office for the good and service of the whole Church and of the particular Churches. It thus strengthens the unity of the faith and the communion of the people of God and promotes the mission proper to the Church in the world.

Structure of the Dicasteries

Art. 2 — § 1. By the word “dicasteries” are understood the Secretariat of State, Congregations, Tribunals, Councils and Offices, namely the Apostolic Camera, the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, and the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See.

Vadecum for Confessors (by the Pontifical Council for the Family):
  1. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.33
 
Rau said:
Really? Why?
Click to expand...
People eat candy, smoke cigars, take weight pills and brain altering pills like antidepressants, even exchange organs. Imagine you lived in early Christianity and you found that eating a deer’s kidney would prevent pregnancy for a night. I don’t see how this is clearly wrong from a logical point of view. The act of ejaculation is meant for the union of the bodies, but contraceptive pills are a different issue, and not btw the same as sterilization as condemned by the Father. We accept the doctrine because the Church has taught us such in modern times. I am not sure if an Amish community would see broken marriages if it allowed contraception. Traditional Catholics have low rates of separation, but it could be because of the Sacraments, our whole Catholic culture, or a reaction against a world that allows divorce and remarriage. The case may not be very strong, but we can still accept it from authority, right?
 
CrossofChrist said:
No doubts remain that it is infallible.

Christus Dominus:
  1. In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, **perform their duties in his name **and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.
Pastor Bonus:

Art. 1 — The Roman Curia is the complex of dicasteries and institutes which help the Roman Pontiff in the exercise of his supreme pastoral office for the good and service of the whole Church and of the particular Churches. It thus strengthens the unity of the faith and the communion of the people of God and promotes the mission proper to the Church in the world.

Structure of the Dicasteries

Art. 2 — § 1. By the word “dicasteries” are understood the Secretariat of State, Congregations, Tribunals, Councils and Offices, namely the Apostolic Camera, the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, and the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See.

Vadecum for Confessors (by the Pontifical Council for the Family):
  1. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.33
Click to expand...
Christus Dominus is fallible, and even if it is true that the Pope can give His authority a commission, the document in question would still be fallible.
 
Any lawyer who looked at this case would say this teaching is not manifestly infallible. Vadecum for Confessors did not specify which Pope’s document it was bearing witness to the intention of infallibility about. It could have believed in the idea that a consistent teaching becomes infallible. However, this hasn’t been taught by the Church yet and is usually just assumed by radical traditional Catholics on issues like religious liberty. If you look at his language, Pius XI MIGHT have been confirming the witness of the past on this, but 1) he did not use infallible language as John Paul II did when he bore witness to Universal infallibility on female priests 2) consistent but not clearly universal and definite teaching PERHAPs is not infallible 3) even if it is declared a source of infallibility, Pius XI may not have believed it to be such when he issued his encyclical.
 
“perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.”

In a very limited way however.
 
thinkandmull said:
Onan ejaculated outside the vagina, which is more obviously wrong then merely taking a pill or herb to temporarily stop fertility.

Anyway, pro-contraception Christians don’t consider Deut. 25:7–10, as used in the article, a smoking gun either. Abraham laughed at God, but was not silenced like Elizabeth’s husband in the New Testament.
Click to expand...
I don’t remember Abraham who laughed but his wife Sarah did.
 
“Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, ‘Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?’”

"Zechariah asked the angel, ‘How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.’ The angel said to him, 'I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. 20 And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time.

Strictly from the Bible, Onan’s sin could of been one of evil intention instead of against nature. Augustine as quoted by Akin speaks of an “evil prayer” not to have children. But sometimes its right to pray for that

Now onanism is contrary to nature I believe, quite obviously so. But contraception is a different issue
 
thinkandmull said:
People eat candy, smoke cigars, take weight pills and brain altering pills like antidepressants, even exchange organs. Imagine you lived in early Christianity and you found that eating a deer’s kidney would prevent pregnancy for a night. I don’t see how this is clearly wrong from a logical point of view. The act of ejaculation is meant for the union of the bodies, but contraceptive pills are a different issue, and not btw the same as sterilization as condemned by the Father. We accept the doctrine because the Church has taught us such in modern times. I am not sure if an Amish community would see broken marriages if it allowed contraception. Traditional Catholics have low rates of separation, but it could be because of the Sacraments, our whole Catholic culture, or a reaction against a world that allows divorce and remarriage. The case may not be very strong, but we can still accept it from authority, right?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I find what you’ve said here incomprehensible, or at least very confused. I don’t think I can usefully discuss this with you further.
 
The basis argument that I see used on this is that the husband is not “accepting the whole wife” in taking something, herb or otherwise, to alter fertilization. If this argument was valid however, a couple could never use outside lubricant for example, because then the “husband would be accepting the wife only with the extra lubrication”. See my point?
 
thinkandmull said:
“Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, ‘Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?’”

"Zechariah asked the angel, ‘How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.’ The angel said to him, 'I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. 20 And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time.

Strictly from the Bible, Onan’s sin could of been one of evil intention instead of against nature. Augustine as quoted by Akin speaks of an “evil prayer” not to have children. But sometimes its right to pray for that

Now onanism is contrary to nature I believe, quite obviously so. But contraception is a different issue
Click to expand...
There is the difference between the two. Zechariah disbelieved “How can I be sure of this” While Abraham acts in belief by having including himself and son circumcised. Perhaps this is why God does not question Abraham’s laugh as He did Sarah.
 
Abrahams laugh was not of the evil intention as Elizabeth’s husband’s. Onan’s intention was more evil than others who would not impregnate their brothers wife. That’s how some Christians interpret that
 
thinkandmull said:
Any lawyer who looked at this case would say this teaching is not manifestly infallible.
Click to expand...
Lawyers aren’t shepherding the Church.
Vadecum for Confessors did not specify which Pope’s document it was bearing witness to the intention of infallibility about. It could have believed in the idea that a consistent teaching becomes infallible…
Click to expand...
And this matters because…?

Your rationale in favor of contraception being theoretically okay includes both calling into question a decree from Vatican II and attempting to restrict the force of a document that obviously has the approval (and in the form of the claim the clear authority) of the Pope.

And JPII also said the following, “What is taught by the Church on contraception does not belong to material freely debatable among theologians.”

Why bother arguing about this?
 
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”??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top