No, it has not been acknowledged as an infallible by the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium, and it has not always been taught within the Church hierarchy.
The Winnipeg Statement, and various debates amongst Bishops, Priests, Theologians, etc. demonstrate that there is no consensus among all Bishops that the teaching on contraception is unchangable truth.
Always? How far back does “always” date? Castii Connubii, to my knowledge, is the earliest encyclical to address the issue of birth regulation, and it was only promulgated by Pope Pius XI on 12/31/1930. So, I think it’d be closer to say that this position on birth regulation has only been circulated since 1931. The next encyclical of the subject was Humanae Vitae, which was promulgated by Pope
Would I be wrong to assume that by CCC, you mean the Catechism of the Catholic Church? If that’s true, then that only represents the current moral teachings observed by the of the Church. Whether they’re taught, or believed to be true by the Laity, and all Priests/Bishops/etc. is a different matter entirely. But if you meant something else by CCC, feel free to correct me.
The problem with the “progressive” interpretation is typical in how it completely eviscerates Catholic teaching. If there is to be such a thing as the infallible teaching of the universal and ordinary magisterium, then it must
somehow be able to function. But the typical progressive throws out objections, which if they are of the right sort, would totally obliterate the very possibility that, when a doctrine becomes controversial, that the Church could appeal to the universal magisterium. We all have heard the typical objections, including the facile objection (which boils down to such a statement) that if
one bishop currently dissents to doctrine X, that doctrine X can’t
possibly be infallible by means of the universal and ordinary magisterium. But if the infallibility of the Church cannot function in cases of controversy, then the doctrine is simply pointless and wrong.
But the simple fact is that the Church
does teach that there is such a thing as the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium-- and it did so officially during Vatican II. There is no option to reject it, and so we need to reject these ridiculous attempts to explain away Church doctrine.
What is
really at the root of almost all contemporary dissident theology is the overwhelming urge to reject traditional Catholic teaching on contraception. John Finnis in his book on “Moral Absolutes” tells a very convincing story about how an entire revolution in Catholic ethics was made
simply to accommodate a willful move to reject the teaching on contraception.
And so at the root of most dissident theology is the rejection of infallibility
period, and not just of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. Rejecting the latter is bad enough, but rejecting the former is plain
insane. In order to be consistent, the person in favor of contraception needs to throw out far too much of Christianity to justify the “cost” or the “purchase price” of contraception.
As to where it is marked as infallible-- it seems that the successor of Peter has confirmed that the teaching is infallible in Humanae Vitae, and indeed, the CDF backed this interpretation. The infallibility of the ordinary magisterium must work in
some way. The typical progressivist wants to object that we need some sort of infinite regress of infallible definitions-- in effect, to say that no doctrine can be defined as infallible by the ordinary magisterium, because ultimately we would need an extraordinary act of infallibility in order for it to be binding. Like I said above, this is all absurd because it refuses to play with the rules of the game. For if the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium requires an infallible act of the extraordinary magisterium, then there simply is no such thing as the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. It is merely a fiction.
God bless you, Questionful. Feel free to keep questioning, but please also commit this to serious pray, and read serious philosophical and theological sources in favor of the Church’s doctrine before you decide definitely against it.
In Christ,
Rob
penWindow(‘cr/85.htm’)
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
