Birth Control and Infallibility

[Aquarius]

otm:

Neither of them added anything, as neither of them spoke ex cathedra.

OK. What was the last addition to the collection of the infallible from any source?

 

[Aquarius]

otm:

No, not an effect on the infallibility of the teaching, but it would have had an effect on the acceptance of the teaching.

It is well accepted that the teaching of the Church has been for 20 centuries that it is morally wrong to take an innocent life. It is not that the teaching has to be marked infallible; it is the fact of acceptance or rejection of the specific issue (e.g. assissted suicide) which is expanded upon as a part of that infallible teaching.

The issue of the immorality of assisted suicide is not a “new” moral teaching, it is a seamless part of the same theological position held for 20 centuries - killing innocents is wrong.

Some will accept that issue and violate it; that is, they will have a correctly formed conscience and not follow their conscience. That is sin.

Others will not have a correctly formed conscience; they see a family member in pain, believe that suffering is to be avoided at all costs, know the family member is terminal, and in an emotionally driven act will assist in the suicide, believing they have done good for the family member. if they are following their conscience, it is at the minimum questionable if they have committed a sin; particularly if they were not properly catechized, and did not understand the moral wrongness of the act.

In either case, the issue is still infallible; it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person.

They may not have understood the teaching; they may not have accepted the teaching; they may not have heard the teaching. None of that goes to the issue of infallibility. The reasons that people may not know a teaching is infallible or may hold that it is not can be numerous. Having a correctly formed conscience requires more than just assuming that all bets are off if the issue is not defiened by either a council or a clear ex cathedra statement. It takes time, study, and prayer helps.

Bottom line - I really wonder how many people using ABC, who have heard the Church’s position, take it up in prayer and meditation, and how many simply take the postion of “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up”.

The bottom line is one of those questions best answered, “I don’t know.”

I would not limit euthanasia to the emotionally driven. Many have very carefully thought through the issue for themselves and others. As people become more educated, reflective, and informed, that well formed conscience will no longer be a rubber stamp; it will really be something that is formed, not just accepted.

Rejection of Church teachings on various matters does not have to be unthinking. It can be the result of time, study and prayer.

 

[Aquarius]

msproule:

QUESTION: But what about that ridiculous idea of “legitimate dissent” that was pointed out in an earlier post?

ANSWER: Disregard it; there is no such thing as “legitimate dissent” when reacting to a Magisterial teaching. Infallible or not, we owe it religious submission of mind and will.

That is a choice a Catholic may make. That’s their own business. however, I see some Catholics trying to push those tachings on others who do not embrace religious submission of mind and will.

 

[Aquarius]

the-3rd-parent:

I am astounded! I have to go to bed so I wasn’t able to read all the responses.

Ok, it is true that the Popes have only made two statements ex Cathedra. But it is also true that Ex Cathedra is not the only authority we are to follow nor is it the only binding authority. We must follow the teachings of the magistrium.

Every council, every discussion, every time people have thought “oh the Church is going to change a teaching,” the Church hasn’t, because she isn’t re-evaluating truth. She is evaluating new technology, new problems and questions that face the Church that need to be evaulated on the basis of the moral law and on Divine Revelation.

Pope John Paul II’s work “The Theology of the Body” wasn’t just something pulled out of thin air. Its basis is on past Church documents, Tradition and the gospels. He merely looked at what we can learn from the body and went into the theology of it in light of those things. He illuminated a truth that we had fallen short of grasping.

You see, we had become a people focusing on virtue and vice but not understanding or comprehending what it is.

Chastity is our sexuality in its originally intended state. It is our sexuality not effect or touched by sin. Unfortunately, to protect ourselves from lust, we grew nearsided. We forgot that what salvation is and what the meaning of the Cross is. This is why so many anti-Catholic Protestants pin us as believing we earn our way to Heaven. It is because so many Catholics were falling into the temptation of trying to earn our way to Heaven. We became so afraid by our lustful desires that instead of actually cultivating the virtue of chastity, we covered up and surpressed our sexuality and treated it like it were evil.

This only leaves to guilt and does not solve the lust residing within our hearts. So what does society do? It reacts by embracing its lust.

What society lost was a definition, a clarification and image of what chastity is, what our sexuality is supposed to look like because we were ashamed to humbly admit that we are lustful creatures whose sexuality needs to be redeemed by our Lord.

This clarification is not a change in Church teaching and to entertain the thought that the Church is merely slow and will eventually catch up with embracing contraceptives is ridiculas!

The desire to divert and pervert sex to fit into our own plans, to transform its natural design is only motivated out of lust. The Unitive, Procreative and pleasure of sex are all united. To engage in the act using some method to transform the nature of the act is wrong. Contraceptives do that. Abstaining when you’re most fertile, does not. And moreover, it is unnatural to abstain during fertile times for years and years without end. This is a sacrifice and should be done only to better glorify God, when the act of abstaining is a greater act of selfless love than the act of giving yourself completely to your spouse.

This is a vision the Church is merely trying to reaffirm and clarify what the Church has always taught. It was merely a teaching that had been lost and had not been emphasized enough. They knew the word chastity, but did not know what it was except that it was the opposite of lust and that lust is bad.

Society may have lost a number of things. But one thing it did gain was competition in the intellectual realm. The huge increase in educated and well informed people has led to lots of thought and consideration being given to issues which were often left to a small group in the past.

Many who use ABC find they do enjoy the united unitive, procreative and pleasure of sex, and have no idea why someone else feels qualified to tell them they don’t.

 

[Beaver]

Here is an artcle which could help.

ewtn.com/library/Theology/AUTHUMVT.HTM

 

[Sherlock]

Aquarius:

Society may have lost a number of things. But one thing it did gain was competition in the intellectual realm. The huge increase in educated and well informed people has led to lots of thought and consideration being given to issues which were often left to a small group in the past.

Many who use ABC find they do enjoy the united unitive, procreative and pleasure of sex, and have no idea why someone else feels qualified to tell them they don’t.

And they probably do not wish to learn what they are losing…I wonder if people continue to use ABC after studying the Theology of the Body—I suspect that the number who do is very small. It would be difficult to sustain an argument against that broad and beautiful explanation of the revelatory nature of our bodies.
At any rate, what God has joined together, let no man put asunder: taking the procreative element artificially out of sex is simply trying to play God. Of course many folks would dispute that God is qualified to tell them what to do…

 

[Beaver]

Sherlock:

And they probably do not wish to learn what they are losing…I wonder if people continue to use ABC after studying the Theology of the Body—I suspect that the number who do is very small. It would be difficult to sustain an argument against that broad and beautiful explanation of the revelatory nature of our bodies.
At any rate, what God has joined together, let no man put asunder: taking the procreative element artificially out of sex is simply trying to play God. Of course many folks would dispute that God is qualified to tell them what to do…

Is not that like try to tell the engineer of the automobile industry, he does know how to build a car.

 

[msproule]

Aquarius:

That is a choice a Catholic may make. That’s their own business. however, I see some Catholics trying to push those tachings on others who do not embrace religious submission of mind and will.

Who are these others? Non-Catholics, I assume.

 

[fix]

mikeledes:

A priest suggested that the Catholic teaching on birth control is not infallible and can be changed. He claimed that the Catholic Church had changed its teachings before. One example was that the Church taught that sex within marriage was at most a venial sin. As proof of this he cited the work of a certain Rainer (I’m probably spelling his name wrong). Can someone please help me with this. How do I respond? What sources can I read on this topic?

Thanks

In addition to the several good posts I have read here I offer this link as more information to think about:

1. Catholics are bound to believe also doctrines definitively proposed by the Magisterium, not as divinely revealed, but as logically or historically connected with doctrines divinely revealed. Doctrines definitively proposed are also irreformable and set forth infallibly in the same three ways.

The assent (theological faith) required of Catholics is the same for doctrines definitively proposed as for doctrines divinely revealed, except that in the latter case it is based on the authority of the Word of God, and in the former case it is based on the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Magisterium.

Examples: Priestly ordination restricted to men; illicitness of euthanasia, prostitution, fornication, and contraception; that canonized Saints are in heaven.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=374982&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=ordinary+magisterium&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=6&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[Beaver]

To make this simple for everone it comes down to the Pope’s address of the Encyclical.

Example: Humanae Vitae address is as follows:

*To His Venerable Brothers the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See, to the Clergy and Faithful of the Whole Catholic World, and to All Men of Good Will.

*By address all of the church, the encyclical is infallible.

Example Two: Casti Connubii

**TO THE VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS,

PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.

**
**

**

 

[msproule]

Beaver:

By address all of the church, the encyclical is infallible.

…as well as the many instances of confirming existing teaching. For example:

"…obliged once more…" (HV 14)

“…Magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many
occasions…” (15)
​

…not to mention the pretty clear statements about binding authority:
“…condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception.” (16)

“These laws must be wisely and lovingly observed”. (31)

 

[bear06]

msproule:

…as well as the many instances of confirming existing teaching. For example:

"…obliged once more…" (HV 14)

“…Magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many
occasions…” (15)
​

…not to mention the pretty clear statements about binding authority:
“…condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception.” (16)

“These laws must be wisely and lovingly observed”. (31)

These are all examples of the way something is infallible that people like to skip.

1. In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of fhe Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ’s teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church.

 

[Aquarius]

msproule:

Who are these others? Non-Catholics, I assume.

Actually non-Catholics plus the majority of Catholics.

 

[OhioBob]

Aquarius:

Actually non-Catholics plus the majority of Catholics.

I find this whole issue of “dissenting Catholics” to be a frustrating oxymoron that inevitably pops up on any thread related to morality (among others). I find it hard to explain my frustration using analogies, but I will take a stab at it.…

Catholicism is a belief system, a body of revelation and sacred tradition that make up the deposit of faith which must be believed in order to be in communion with the Church. The fundamental essence of Catholicism is the deposit of faith and the adherence to Catholic doctrine by the faithful. The beliefs are the very things that make someone Catholic. If I believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches, then I am Catholic.

Catholicism is not an acquired attribute such as nationality. If I am born in America, I am an American. While I might choose to disagree with the Constitution and laws of America, that doesn’t make me something other than an American because my beliefs are not the fundamental essence of my citizenship. They might make me a more or less “patriotic” American, but my “Americanism” is not determined by my beliefs.

However, Catholicism is, in its essence, a system of beliefs and adherence to revealed truth as set forth by the teaching authority of the Church. I am either in communion with those beliefs and that authority or I am not. If I am, then I am Catholic.

But if I am not in communion with those beliefs – if I dissent, if I pick and choose doctrine, if I accept the teachings I like and discard the ones I don’t, if I follow them in my private life but ignore them in my public life (or vice versa) - then I am not Catholic. I lack the very essence of what makes someone Catholic. I am not “less Catholic” or “somewhat Catholic”. I am simply “not Catholic”.

Now I might continue to call myself “Catholic” because I’m “more like a Catholic than anything else”, but calling myself something doesn’t make it so.

I think that people who deny the teaching authority of the Church yet stubbornly refuse to recognize that dissent sets them apart from the Church are lying to themselves and setting themselves up for disappointment either in this life, or the next (or maybe both).

The height of vanity lies in the assumption that the Church should redefine truth to conform to my desires. To the contrary, Christ and his Church call Catholics to humility. I believe that the path to humility lies in remaining in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Sorry for the off-topic rant.

 

[EtienneGilson]

otm:

and much of the argument has resounded in teh area of natural law, which is perhaps closer to a scolastic philosophy argument than anything. What is so interesting is the different approach that John Paul took, which is more in the area of phenomenology and personalism; a branch of philosophy that scholstic trained philosophers have varying degrees of difficulty with.

What is even more interesting is that you should bring up Natural Law (not a branch of scholasticism, but Thomism since some scholastics like Bonaventure or Occham denied it). Since his name was already given Germain Grisez (a rare philosophical voice in favour of Humanae Vitae) showed that the natural law argument FAILED to display that ABC is immoral. In order to correct it, him and Finley developped a new approach to morality (The Grisez-Finley method) to accomodate for it. Another philosopher who had destroyed the natural law argument was the neo-thomist Jacques Maritain (in his letters to Abbey Journet; later Cardinal Journet).

Pope Paul simply ignored the advice and argued along natural law lines anyways in Humanae Vitae. After the embassament and rude reception of Humanae Vitae, rangin from massive theological descent to national conferences life the Dutch or the Canadians issue declarations contrary to it, the previously prolific poor pope Paul the sixth didn’t write another encyclical for the remaining 7 years of his pontificacy.

Take this into account with theology of the body; a new; innovative, and utter baseless approach to theology; one gets the rightful impression that the Catholic position on contraception is a dogma floating around without a sound theological, scriptural or philosophical foundation. Not only that but theology of the body is based off of an overly literal approach to Genesis and a Trinitarian formula at odds with the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic understanding the Trinity.

As for the reference to rtforums…lol. That is a funny site but hardly an authoritative one. The book review about infallibility dates back to 1986 and the book was ENTIRELY ignored for being a waste of a once beautiful tree. Brian Harrison and McCarthy might believe that HV was infallible, but they also believe that not only is evolution, but even transformism has been infallibly condemned rtforum.org/lt/lt73.html
Other funny articles on rtforums are rtforum.org/lt/lt100.html, rtforum.org/lt/lt93.html, rtforum.org/lt/lt51.html

And the pronouncement by the presenting Mgr. Lambruschini of the encyclical was never corrected. Pope Paul could have easily rebuked him (he was the Vatican’s press secretary) but didn’t because it was an accurate reflection of the authority of the teaching.

And once again the studies are attacked simply because people here seem willing to throw out reason, science, philosophy and theology to support the Church’s ban on ABCs. The only available studies are Kritz and Gurak (1999) and Best (1998):

Best, Kim, 1998, “Contraception Influences Quality of Life”, Network, Vol. 19, No. 4, Summer 1998. Also available on:

fhi.org/en/fp/fppubs/network/v18-4/nt1842.html

Best reports that international studies have identified many benefits from marital contraception. On the link between marital contraception and marriage stability, Best reports the results of Kritz and Gurak (1997 version) and also reports that: “Contracepting couples in the Zimbabwe study described more peace and happiness in their homes than couples who were not using contraceptives. In the Cochalamba, Bolivia, study, current users of contraceptives were more likely than non-users to report better relationships with their partners.” However some studies showed that use of contraceptives by a wife caused marital tensions where the husband or older relatives disapproved of contraception.

dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/Issue2/John_Flanagan.htm#_ftn68

 

[Aquarius]

OhioBob:

I find this whole issue of “dissenting Catholics” to be a frustrating oxymoron that inevitably pops up on any thread related to morality (among others). I find it hard to explain my frustration using analogies, but I will take a stab at it.…

Catholicism is a belief system, a body of revelation and sacred tradition that make up the deposit of faith which must be believed in order to be in communion with the Church. The fundamental essence of Catholicism is the deposit of faith and the adherence to Catholic doctrine by the faithful. The beliefs are the very things that make someone Catholic. If I believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches, then I am Catholic.

Catholicism is not an acquired attribute such as nationality. If I am born in America, I am an American. While I might choose to disagree with the Constitution and laws of America, that doesn’t make me something other than an American because my beliefs are not the fundamental essence of my citizenship. They might make me a more or less “patriotic” American, but my “Americanism” is not determined by my beliefs.

However, Catholicism is, in its essence, a system of beliefs and adherence to revealed truth as set forth by the teaching authority of the Church. I am either in communion with those beliefs and that authority or I am not. If I am, then I am Catholic.

But if I am not in communion with those beliefs – if I dissent, if I pick and choose doctrine, if I accept the teachings I like and discard the ones I don’t, if I follow them in my private life but ignore them in my public life (or vice versa) - then I am not Catholic. I lack the very essence of what makes someone Catholic. I am not “less Catholic” or “somewhat Catholic”. I am simply “not Catholic”.

Now I might continue to call myself “Catholic” because I’m “more like a Catholic than anything else”, but calling myself something doesn’t make it so.

I think that people who deny the teaching authority of the Church yet stubbornly refuse to recognize that dissent sets them apart from the Church are lying to themselves and setting themselves up for disappointment either in this life, or the next (or maybe both).

The height of vanity lies in the assumption that the Church should redefine truth to conform to my desires. To the contrary, Christ and his Church call Catholics to humility. I believe that the path to humility lies in remaining in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Sorry for the off-topic rant.

When dealing with various self-identified Catholics, they all claim to be Catholic. Some point to others and deny those others are Catholic. But, I find it easier to go with the self-identification than to side with one of the various Catholic factions.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Pope Paul simply ignored the advice …

I believe he took their advise into consideration, but simply disagreed.

“We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be in divine Scripture” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8).

“Before it [the Church] speaks, the most saintly may mistake; and after it has spoken, the most gifted must obey” (Ven John Henry Cardinal Newman, Letters of John Henry Newman, 236)

“… one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)”

 

[Jasny]

EtienneGilson:

Rahner was never silenced though he did add a powerful voice to the chorus of theologians who argued against or simply ignored the encyclical Humanae Vitae. And Rahner wasn’t even that liberal a theologian.

In fact the at the Vatican Press Conference for Humanae Vitae the presenting Mgr. said " The decision has been given", said Mons. Lambruschini, “and it is not infallible.” ewtn.com/library/Theology/PRSSCNHV.HTM

Not only can it be changed, but to Rahner, it can be ignored (he called this legitimate descent).

Rahner was probably the most important Catholic theologian of the 20th century. Other theologians who have voice opinions contrary include liberals like Eduard Schillibeeckx and Hans Kung or conservatives like Yves Congar, Cardinal Journet and Henri de Lubac. Even conservative philosophers have disagreed with the arguments in Humanae Vitae including Germain Grisez, Etienne Gilson and Jacques Maritain.

Karl Rahner was not an orthodox theologian. By the end of his life he denied the true presents. He taught also that there is a magisteriaum of theologians. In a letter to me from Fr. Baker, of Homilitic and Pastoral Review, he expalined that Rahner had three basic periods: 1 orthodox 2 problematic 3. heretical. He mentioned that Rahners system leads to atheism.
He also mentioned that JPII ordered no photos when they last met.
Rahner also lead the Bishops Conference of Austria to rebel against Humani Vitae.

The more wacky theology we get the more earlier wackos look conservative I guess

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I find it easier to go with the self-identification than to side with one of the various Catholic factions.

Hmmmm…so If I claimed to the pope, you’d go with my self-identification?

 

[Aquarius]

itsjustdave1988:

Hmmmm…so If I claimed to the pope, you’d go with my self-identification?

No. Because I know that is a particular office. But when we have various factions of Catholics all saying they are real Catholics, it’s reasonable to go with the self-identification. Each Catholic faction objects to that because they think they are the real Catholics. I’d say there has been a second Reformation, but nobody wants to acknowledge it.

Will the real Catholic please stand up?