A
Aquarius
Guest
If the pope and a council did say ABC was OK, who would follow their teaching?
- Status
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
Actually it IS infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium.
A
Aquarius
Guest
Scott Waddell:
I detect a difference of opinion on what is infallible. Things may be infallible, but nobody seems to know which ones they are.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
This is what an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church affirmed (far from a mere “personal opinion” of the pope as has been claimed), but an authentic exercise of the ordinary univesal magisterium…
“sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)” Gaudium et Spes, 52]
It’s hard to take serious those that are holding their breath for a reversal to this doctrine.
“sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)” Gaudium et Spes, 52]
It’s hard to take serious those that are holding their breath for a reversal to this doctrine.
M
mlchance
Guest
What is also ludicrous is your assertion that the Church’s teaching against contraception isn’t infallible. It is, and it always has been. Pope Paul VI not issuing HV ex cathedra doesn’t change this fact.
– Mark L. Chance.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Theologians are debating whether the Church’s teaching on contraception is infallible. Most theologians think that it is not infallible.
Nonetheless, the teaching is still authoritative, and cannot be disregarded by faithful Catholics.
Nonetheless, the teaching is still authoritative, and cannot be disregarded by faithful Catholics.
M
mlchance
Guest
If theologians got to make that call, such debate might be relevant.
– Mark L. Chance.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Much of what Rahner said was, indeed, “out there” – but, to my knowledge, was never silenced. Indeed, he was most careful to avoid such a circumstance.
Blessings,
D
David_Zampino
Guest
And Pope Paul VI was right. Back in the 1960’s, the abortifacient qualities of the oral contraceptive were not known. They are now. The Holy Father was listening to the Holy Spirit in a way that most 40 years ago did not understand. Time has proven the wisdom and understanding of his judgement.
Blessings,
A
Aquarius
Guest
That doesn’t have to be reversed. Just find various methods not to be blameworthy.
A
Aquarius
Guest
Who has made the call?If theologians got to make that call, such debate might be relevant.
– Mark L. Chance.
K
kleary
Guest
The Church never changed her teaching on Artificial Contraception.
Ken
O
otm
Guest
It would be poor logic to come to the conclusion that John 23rd thought that the issue was changeable on the simple fact that he empanelled a Commission. Many people, including any number of bishops and theologians, felt that the Pill was different because instead of acting as a barrier, they felt it simply changed the hormonal balance and thus changed the cycle. The pill was relatively quite new at that point.
Further, Paul 6th’s expansion of the panel in no way suggests that he was of the opinion that the Pill was right. It does suggest that he wanted other experts on the panel. My recollection, which could be wrong, was that part of the larger commision was made up of doctors.
However, contrary to popular opinion, neither doctrine nor morals are issues subject to a vote in terms of their truthfullness or lack thereof; nor are they subject to a vote as to whether they draw us closer to union with Christ or cause disunion. They are subject to possible majority and minority opinions, but the work of the commision is just that: an opinion.
It is the responsiblity of the pope and the bishops to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church; and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to speak the truth, and the Truth.
Many “feel” that Humanae Vitae was not correct. However, all too often those “feelings” are founded on lack of information, a materialtistic and hyper-sexulaized socialization leading to self-centeredness, or both.
K
kleary
Guest
All the dissenters will need is to get many Catholic Bishops teaching that Artificial Contraception is ok regardless of what Humanae Vitae says… enough of them to where the Roman Pontiff would need to infallibly define Ex Cathedra the doctrine that states any use of Artificial Contraception is intrensically evil.
Now in order to do that to warrant such a decree you would need wide dissent within the ranks of the Bishops, of which I see no dissent for they feel no need to change this teaching personally
since they are celibate.
Therefore to disobey this teaching of the Church simply because a priest tells you otherwise is blatent disobedience to the Church and mortally sinful, since you KNOW what the Church teaches.
The teaching on Artificial Contraception is a doctrinal matter concerning the sexual act within marriage. It is not a disciplinary matter and cannot be changed because it belongs to the deposit of faith.
Same to say that the teaching on homosexual acts or fornucation can be changed, that is really scary
.
Ken
Now in order to do that to warrant such a decree you would need wide dissent within the ranks of the Bishops, of which I see no dissent for they feel no need to change this teaching personally
since they are celibate.Therefore to disobey this teaching of the Church simply because a priest tells you otherwise is blatent disobedience to the Church and mortally sinful, since you KNOW what the Church teaches.
The teaching on Artificial Contraception is a doctrinal matter concerning the sexual act within marriage. It is not a disciplinary matter and cannot be changed because it belongs to the deposit of faith.
Same to say that the teaching on homosexual acts or fornucation can be changed, that is really scary
.Ken
O
otm
Guest
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. But the results of his reflections profoundly show the wisdom of Humanae Vitae. That, and the refelctions of those theologians and church officials who, 38 years before Humanae Vitae, made the same predcitions that Paul 6th did as to what would be the attendant slide of sexual morality - and many of those were not Catholic theologians, but Protestant, reflecting on the 1930 Lambeth Conference.
Further, the pronouncement of the good monsignor is neither binding nor necessarily enlightening. There are 3 sources of infallible pronouncements: 1) the pope speaking ex cathedra (which is granted not the case with Humanae Vitae); 2 the statement of a Council, in union with the pope or ratified by him (again, not the case), and 3) the constant teaching of the Church through the Magisterium through the ages.
The constant teaching of the Church has been that birth control is morally wrong. Humanae Vitae is simply an elucidation of the 20 century holding, just as John Paul 2’ statement on the impossiblity of ordaining women is not an infallibly defined doctrinal issue, but an elucidation of it.
O
otm
Guest
So was Hans Kung, and Ratzinger. The appointment did not indicate that later theological speculation would accurately reflect the teachings of the Church; but all three had sound theological (name removed by moderator)ut at the Council.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
There we go. . .THAT is what I might spend three paragraphs jawing on. . .put forth clearly and succinctly. Bravo!
O
otm
Guest
The statement they made does not say that there is not a low divorce rate, only that the data is not complete enough. You are walking a dangerous path of argument in this area if you cannot determine what the studies which do exist were based on. It is very easy to set up a study to prove that lack of contraception has a destabilizing effect on marriages if the study is skewed in its base. It is also posible to have skewed results if there is insufficient screening of other impacts on the marriage besides contraception or lack thereof.
Because NFP has had such a narrow selection, it may not be possible until there is a sufficiently large enough sample over a sufficiently long time to make any meaningful comparisons.
B
bear06
Guest
I got his name from Mr. Keating’s list. Take it up with him.
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_050308.asp
A
Aquarius
Guest
But the widespread questioning of the infallibility of the ABC teaching still leaves a future pope the fig leaf he may need.All the dissenters will need is to get many Catholic Bishops teaching that Artificial Contraception is ok regardless of what Humanae Vitae says… enough of them to where the Roman Pontiff would need to infallibly define Ex Cathedra the doctrine that states any use of Artificial Contraception is intrensically evil.
Now in order to do that to warrant such a decree you would need wide dissent within the ranks of the Bishops, of which I see no dissent for they feel no need to change this teaching personally
Therefore to disobey this teaching of the Church simply because a priest tells you otherwise is blatent disobedience to the Church and mortally sinful, since you KNOW what the Church teaches.
The teaching on Artificial Contraception is a doctrinal matter concerning the sexual act within marriage. It is not a disciplinary matter and cannot be changed because it belongs to the deposit of faith.
Same to say that the teaching on homosexual acts or fornucation can be changed, that is really scary
Ken
- Status