Birth Control and Infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikeledes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Lazerlike42:
All that Bishop Gasser says is that the statement needs to be made in such a way so as that the faithful can be certain that the Roman Pontiff considers anything opposed to the statement heretical. A pope doesn’t need to intend to pronounce something ex cathedra to consider anything opposed to it heretical.
Click to expand...
But the Pope needs to manifest some kind of intent (i.e., an intent that contrary doctrines are heretical) that is necessary and sufficient for a pronouncement to be ex cathedra. In modern times, this becomes equivalent to an intent to make an ex cathedra pronouncement.

The analogy that I like to use is a gun. A person from the past who has never seen a gun can manifest an intent to pull the trigger without having an intent to fire the gun, or even having an awareness that guns can be fired. However, for a modern day person who knows how guns work, an intent to pull the trigger is equivalent to an intent to fire the gun. Similarly, for a modern day Pope who is aware of the criteria of Vatican I, the intention required by the conditions of Vatican I is now equivalent to the intent to speak ex cathedra.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
But the Pope needs to manifest some kind of intent (i.e., an intent that contrary doctrines are heretical) that is necessary and sufficient for a pronouncement to be ex cathedra. In modern times, this becomes equivalent to an intent to make an ex cathedra pronouncement.

The analogy that I like to use is a gun. A person from the past who has never seen a gun can manifest an intent to pull the trigger without having an intent to fire the gun, or even having an awareness that guns can be fired. However, for a modern day person who knows how guns work, an intent to pull the trigger is equivalent to an intent to fire the gun. Similarly, for a modern day Pope who is aware of the criteria of Vatican I, the intention required by the conditions of Vatican I is now equivalent to the intent to speak ex cathedra.
Click to expand...
I can see your point, I’m just not sure. In the end, it fortunately doesn’t matter because we have to give assent anyways. So practically speaking, there is no difference. :cool:
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
I can see your point, I’m just not sure. In the end, it fortunately doesn’t matter because we have to give assent anyways. So practically speaking, there is no difference. :cool:
Click to expand...
That’s very true. I won’t be “ordaining” any women as priests anytime soon. It’s a good way to get excommunicated!
 
And this is precisely what NFP using couples (or those where one couple is known to be sterile) do every time they have sexual relations with the goal of enjoying the “unitive” aspects without the procreative.
Click to expand...
You aren’t paying close enough attention. I really don’t know how else to explain it. In NFP or sex among naturally sterile married couples, a human act does not render sex non-procreative.

Let me repeat the teaching again, *non-procreative sex is not immoral. Human acts which render sex non-procreative is immoral. *What you’ve stated above merely shows you don’t even know the teaching you are attempting to refute.

Why is the former not immoral and the latter immoral? Only human acts can be either immoral or moral. Natural sex among married couples is not inherently immoral, whether or not the couple is fertile. They have no will act contary to God by having sex. When one wills sex, but simultaenously wills against God’s plan for the conjugal (procreation), then they commit sin.

You may disagree that God’s plan for sex was procreation. This is something we will have to agree to disagree upon. I for one understand that gonads have a procreative purpose, biologically speaking. Biology tells us this. Your gum analogy fails to convince, because sex has a definite biological goal of the work. We may chew for many number of reasons which are not contary to the biological purpose of mastication.

Nonethless, we do not rely upon biology to tell us what is moral or immoral. We have a Divinely-guided Church, which NEVER taught that contraception was ok. It wasn’t until the decadent times that we live in today that this teaching was even doubted. That some Christians cannot see that this novel departure from past ecclesial teachings is due to unholy desire is astonishing.
 
40.png
JOHNYJ:
First even Paul VI didn’t say it was.Second a pope must " specificaly state " that something is !
Oh,like I said there are people that would make it so.There are those that would make anything a pope said infalible. They would make Popes divine and that is heresy and should be.
Click to expand...
Whaaaa??? I’m thinking you need to go back and do some more homework on what the Church teaches with regard to infallibility. Start with the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, *Lumen Gentium. *What you asserted is contary to this dogmatic constitution.
 
Palamite,

The translation of St. John Chrysostom that I provided is from *Patrologiae cursus completus graeca *(PG) 60, 626-627, translation in John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by Catholic Theologians and Canonists (Cambridge, MA: The Bellknap Press of Harvard University, 1965), p. 96.

Noonan, who dissents with Humanae Vitae and is therefore not likely to have reason to present St. John Chrysostom in a biased manner in this regard, finds that he is not merely speaking of aborticants, but also of contraceptives. If you disagree, you’ll have to take it up with him.
 
Palamite,

I was thinking about your mastication analogy, and wanted to extend it so that it more accurately resembled an analogy for understanding the immorality of contraception.

To clarify,sexual intercourse has a biological purpose, a biological “goal of the work”, which is procreation. That is, the consummated sexual act (orgasm) is biologically designed for procreation. Physiologically speaking, everything about the consummated conjugal act is designed to optimize procreation, thus it is clear what the Designer’s will was from a mere study of the physiological details of the consummated conjugal act.

Instead of the analogy of chewing gum which you presented, a better analogy is ingestion. Ingestion has a definite biological “goal of the work” which the human physiology is purposefully designed for: digestion. Chewing can have many number of goals, so it does not have a definite goal of the work as the conjugal act does. Ingestion, on the other hand, is more analogous to the consummated conjugal act, each of which has a definite biological goal of the work.

Contraception is to sexual intercourse what purging is to ingestion.

If I were to purge after ingestion, I am placing an act that has a definite goal of the work, and consequently, simply by placing the act, I am willing that digestion take place. Simultaneously, I am taking means (by a willful act) to see that digestion cannot take place. But this is both to will and not to will something simultaneously. And that is contradictory and hence irrational–and consequently immoral.

Likewise, when I have sexual intercourse and contracept, I am placing an act that has a definite goal of the work, and consequently, simply by placing the act, I am willing that procreation take place. Simultaneously, I am taking means (by a willful act) to see that procreation cannot take place. But this is both to will and not to will something simultaneously. And that is contradictory and hence irrational–and consequently immoral.

Keep in mind too, that “to want” something is not the same as “to will” something. I’m in the military, and there is much that I don’t want to do that I nonetheless will to do, and vice versa. Moral acts necessarily include an operation of the will.

In natural family planning, one does not take means (a willful act) to contradict the goal of the work of sexual intercourse (procreation). If by nature, procreation does not happen, then an immoral human act does not occur with respect to the conjugal act.

Similarly, if by nature, something ingested does not happen to be digested, then there’s no contradictory act of human will.
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
Contraception is to sexual intercourse what purging is to ingestion.
Click to expand...

What a load of nonesense. Contraception is to sexual intercourse what snaking on junk food is to ingestion. It is enjoying one aspect (end) of the act while not intending the other end. Of course, periodically snaking does provide nutrition; just like contraceptive acts sometimes produce a child, but it is not the intention of the act. Infact, often it is the opposite intention, such as when eating fat/sugar free products without nutritional value.
 
40.png
EtienneGilson:
What a load of nonesense. Contraception is to sexual intercourse what snaking on junk food is to ingestion. It is enjoying one aspect (end) of the act while not intending the other end. Of course, periodically snaking does provide nutrition; just like contraceptive acts sometimes produce a child, but it is not the intention of the act. Infact, often it is the opposite intention, such as when eating fat/sugar free products without nutritional value.
Click to expand...
Snacking *always * produces the same end (nutrition) as eating a meal, but to a lesser extent. Contraception rarely produces the same end (conception), but to the same extent (you either have a baby or you don’t, there is no “lesser extent” of pregnancy). What’s more, a snacking person is not trying to eliminate the possibility of ingestion and nutrition. The snacking person is accepting a small increase in nutrition for the pleasure of eating the snack. A snacking person is not like a contracepting person. If anything, a snacking person is like a person who has conjugal relations occasionally, whereas a person eating a meal is like a person who has conjugal relations often. Neither is trying to eliminate the end (nutrition/conception), but each is accepting a differnet level of possibility (lot of nutrition/larege chance of conception).
 
itsjustdave1988,
You aren’t paying close enough attention.
Click to expand...
No, you’re not proving your case very well.
I really don’t know how else to explain it. In NFP or sex among naturally sterile married couples, a human act does not render sex non-procreative.
Click to expand...
And this is a point that has been raised, but I think never sufficiently answered. Namely, just what is it that makes “artificiality” in itself sinful?
Why is the former not immoral and the latter immoral? Only human acts can be either immoral or moral. Natural sex among married couples is not inherently immoral, whether or not the couple is fertile. They have no will act contary to God by having sex. When one wills sex, but simultaenously wills against God’s plan for the conjugal (procreation), then they commit sin.
Click to expand...
And why is this? Why is this against God’s plan? You folks assert this, but cannot demonstrate it as a matter of fact.
I for one understand that gonads have a procreative purpose, biologically speaking. Biology tells us this. Your gum analogy fails to convince, because sex has a definite biological goal of the work. We may chew for many number of reasons which are not contary to the biological purpose of mastication.
Click to expand...
Without realizing it, you’re simply being arbitrary. Sex can (like mastication) have a very utilitarian/necessary end, or it may not. It’s up to you to show why it’s use must be for that end, and further defend why NFP’ers may carry on their merry way, and why joint/secondary ends for other human faculties can be enjoyed exclusively (again, the “chewing gum” example) without accusations of “sinning against nature”.
It wasn’t until the decadent times that we live in today that this teaching was even doubted.
Click to expand...
Or perhas until it was realized semen was not a homoculi form of man, people started living (and being fertile) much much longer, and it was realized that the variations in rationale on this topic required the subject to be revisisted.
Noonan, who dissents with Humanae Vitae and is therefore not likely to have reason to present St. John Chrysostom in a biased manner in this regard, finds that he is not merely speaking of aborticants, but also of contraceptives. If you disagree, you’ll have to take it up with him.
Click to expand...
My thoughts on Noonan’s work are irrelevent. It’s you who are proping up the text as evidence - it’s for you to defend your use of it in this way. Also I’m not out and out opposed to the translation Noonan uses (though I don’t think given the context that it is the clearest), but that you have not read it in it’s larger context - the “formation” being spoken of is gestation, not conception as we’d understand it. St.John is contrasting the killing of the unborn with the killing of an unwanted infant.

I also ask again - do you or the RCC really believe contraception is worse than murder? Which is a worse moral offence? How is this reflected in canonical penalties in the RCC?
Instead of the analogy of chewing gum which you presented, a better analogy is ingestion.
Click to expand...
It is not “better”, simply more useful because it will allow you to ignore the fact that there do exist morally neutral uses (by human beings) of what could be called “secondary” aspects of natural functions in an exclusive manner.

So, I’m waiting (as I’m sure others are) for you to tell me how chewing gum is not immoral when viewed through the prism of the natural law argument you’re using to condemn ABC?
Contraception is to sexual intercourse what purging is to ingestion.
Click to expand...
I’d say there’s no similtude at all. I’d agree abortion is akin to this, but not contraception. Contraception would be like chewing gum (thus not causing anything to go into the stomach while still enjoying the sensations of tasting and chewing), or perhaps like ingesting certain artificial substances which do not get assimilated by the body or contain no practical nutritional value.

Of course at a certain point these analogies (like all analogies) become strained, precisely because the symbol is not the thing it’s being compared to. However my point was not so much to give an analogy, as much as it was to give another example of human beings using organs which have a very important, practical end for reasons excluding that end in a particular act, without incurring any moral guilt.
 
40.png
EtienneGilson:
What a load of nonesense. Contraception is to sexual intercourse what snaking on junk food is to ingestion. It is enjoying one aspect (end) of the act while not intending the other end. Of course, periodically snaking does provide nutrition; just like contraceptive acts sometimes produce a child, but it is not the intention of the act. Infact, often it is the opposite intention, such as when eating fat/sugar free products without nutritional value.
Click to expand...
Purge away Etienne… you seem a convinced errorist whose a* priori* view of contraception cannot be swayed by either reason or the teaching authority of the Church for the past 2000 years. Good luck with that. While holding your breath that the Catholic Church will finally catch up to your “enlightened” mind, I will rest assured of what the magisterium has perennially taught, as well as what Paul VI taught in contrast to your dissenting view…
The teaching Church does not invent her doctrines; she is a witness, a custodian, an interpreter, a transmitter. As regards the truths of Christian teaching, she can be called conservative, uncompromising. To those who would urge her to make her faith easier, more in keeping with the tastes of the changing mentality of the times, she answers with the apostles, we cannot." (General Audience address, 19 January 1972).
Click to expand...
 
Instead of the analogy of chewing gum which you presented, a better analogy is ingestion. Ingestion has a definite biological “goal of the work” which the human physiology is purposefully designed for: digestion. Chewing can have many number of goals, so it does not have a definite goal of the work as the conjugal act does. Ingestion, on the other hand, is more analogous to the consummated conjugal act, each of which has a definite biological goal of the work.
Click to expand...
Actually, I like this better. We can choose to lose weight the healthy way by dieting or we can choose to lose weight the unhealthy way by anorexia or bullemia. Yes, the goal appears the same but it isn’t quite. The dieter is usually trying to get healthy by abstaining from certain foods or portion control. The bullemic is trying to lose weight period no matter the toll to their bodies. Of course, the dieter can also have vain motivations which is not a good reason to diet and is usually brought on by self-esteem issues.
 
Vatican I’s definition concerning the exercise of papal infallibility: “. . . the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of the Church.” [First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ]

THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1) intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.

Unless one of these is missing, the Pope is teaching infallibly.
Which one is missing in Humane Vitae ?

Clearly all the tests of infallibility are met. Thus, of course Humane Vitae is the result of an infallible definition. There is not a single test of infallibility that is missing.

While Ratzinger thought the HV was not infallible, that was only his opinion. Even if he had been Pope at the time, we would have had to judge is his opinion itself was infallibly given. Of course then “experts” would pronounce opinions on whether the judgment of the Pope on the infallibility of HV was infallible. And it would go on and on and on.
Vatican I did not require the Pope himself or anyone else to give an opinion on his own teaching to make it an infallible definition.
Vatican 1’s definition stands by itself. Unless one of the four requirements are missing, it the Pope was giving an infallible teaching.

And as has been pointed out, it has always been a teaching of the Church and since the Church is infallible in all her teachings
the teaching is inerrant.

And since all Church teachings ultimately come from Jesus Christ from the apostles, even ones that extend into present situations, they are God’s teachings and are without error…
God cannot err.

Why would anyone want to use ABC anyway? All the studies I have seen show that it results in a divorce rate of 30% to 50% compared to a divorce rate of less than 3% for those who use natural family planning.
Code: 
Also,  birth control pills cause abortions, since they prevent implantantion most of the time.
Why fight God. Give in and have peace.
 
the only area where the church is infallible is in the Immacualate Conception. i went on a weekend retreat last year w/ an amazing priest and many mom’s and this was discussed…
 
40.png
jeanine:
the only area where the church is infallible is in the Immacualate Conception. i went on a weekend retreat last year w/ an amazing priest and many mom’s and this was discussed…
Click to expand...
Then these people had no idea what they were talking about or simply did not want to accept the truth. There are at least two infallible ex cathedra definitions, the second being the Assumption.

But the Magisterium of the Church has pronounced hundreds of things infallibly. All of the Canons of Trent, for instance, are infallible.
 
40.png
jeanine:
the only area where the church is infallible is in the Immacualate Conception. i went on a weekend retreat last year w/ an amazing priest and many mom’s and this was discussed…
Click to expand...
Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D, is an amazing priest who described the infallibility of Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, here…

THE EX CATHEDRA STATUS OF THE ENCYCLICAL HUMANAE VITAE
by Fr. Brian Harrison

For a more popular-level discussion, see…

Two Instances Of Papal Infallibility?
by Jimmy Akin
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
Then these people had no idea what they were talking about or simply did not want to accept the truth. There are at least two infallible ex cathedra definitions, the second being the Assumption.

But the Magisterium of the Church has pronounced hundreds of things infallibly. All of the Canons of Trent, for instance, are infallible.
Click to expand...
And every time the Church canonizes a saint.
 
Hmmmm… the link to Fr. Harrison’s artile didn’t “take”… here’s another try…

The Ex Cathedra Status of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae
by Fr. Brian Harrison
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top