Birth Control and Infallibility

[otm]

St.Eric:

I think that is painting people with too braod of a brush. One could say that NFP breeds the same mentallity of treating your partner like an object- only “using” each other during times of infertility- trying to “escape” the “natural consequences” of the “marital embrace.” The means may be differet but the motivation is the same- wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

It is possible, but way less likely to be use oriented; one of the requirements of NFP is a much deeper and more open comuunication about what marriage and sexual embrace is about in the marriage, coupled with the fact that the discipline of forgoing sexual embrace is the exact opposite of the use orientation which is so prevalent among contracepting couples.

 

[Aquarius]

otm:

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.

People need to get more comfortable saying, “I don’t know.”

 

[otm]

St.Eric:

Read my post again. I said that if a couple agrees to abstain for a certain number of days during the month and uses condoms the rest of the time, then it would be the same as NFP, in terms of saying “no” to the desires.

Then perhaps you have never used a condom of spoken to anyone else who has. If you don’t get the difference, either your research is lacking, or you have not asked the proper questions.

 

[BillP]

Aquarius:

If the pope and a council did say ABC was OK, who would follow their teaching?

How about the 85% of American Catholics who use ABC now?

 

[otm]

Aquarius:

But lack of infallibility sure does leave that door open. And open disagreement about infallibility opens it even more.

it is not a lack of infallibility that suggests that the door is open, but the lack of acceptance of an issue taught uniformly by the Church.

If someone insists that an issue is open for discussion, that is, is not infallible, unless defined by a Council or by an ex cathedra statement, that person is denying the Church is infallible in the third area - the constantly held teaching of the Church from its inception, or they are questioning if it has been held constantly.

I have yet to see anyone successfully argue that contraception was not continuously held immoral since the inception of the Church.

That leaves us with only those who deny that a constantly held teaching is infallible without a defining act by a pope or council.

 

[otm]

Aquarius:

If the pope and a council did say ABC was OK, who would follow their teaching?

Probably the majority of those who are using it now; and I say majority, because eventually some will figure out they are unhappy with the results they achieve in terms of marital stability and true union. the same thing or issue that causes some now to quit ABC and go to NFP.

 

[otm]

Aquarius:

I detect a difference of opinion on what is infallible. Things may be infallible, but nobody seems to know which ones they are.

I would disagree with you. The biggest issue of infallible positions of the Church revolve around sexual morality, and tend to fall of fairly rapdily as it moves out of that specific sphere.

 

[Aquarius]

otm:

it is not a lack of infallibility that suggests that the door is open, but the lack of acceptance of an issue taught uniformly by the Church.

If someone insists that an issue is open for discussion, that is, is not infallible, unless defined by a Council or by an ex cathedra statement, that person is denying the Church is infallible in the third area - the constantly held teaching of the Church from its inception, or they are questioning if it has been held constantly.

I have yet to see anyone successfully argue that contraception was not continuously held immoral since the inception of the Church.

That leaves us with only those who deny that a constantly held teaching is infallible without a defining act by a pope or council.

It would be easy to fix, yet I don’t see that happening. The doubt remains, and the lack of acceptance grows. That’s why the door is open.

 

[Catholic2003]

otm:

I have yet to see anyone successfully argue that contraception was not continuously held immoral since the inception of the Church.

That leaves us with only those who deny that a constantly held teaching is infallible without a defining act by a pope or council.

The debate centers on the precise conditions for infallibility via the ordinary, universal magisterium. For example, see Reply to Lawrence J. Welch, by Francis A. Sullivan, Theological Studies, September 2003.

 

[otm]

Catholic2003:

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.

I am not convinced that most think it is not infallible; I am not sure a poll has been taken of recent to determine that. I think you would be correct to say that was the position perhaps just after HV came out, and perhaps for a number of years after that, but My recollection is that HV is about 37 years old; time enough to almost go two generations. I would suspect that the last generation, or a goodly number of them, are in agreement with it. If nothing else, they have a lot more data to work with in terms of the human misery we have created with the tremendous loss of almost any moral base about sexuality.

 

[Aquarius]

otm:

I would disagree with you. The biggest issue of infallible positions of the Church revolve around sexual morality, and tend to fall of fairly rapdily as it moves out of that specific sphere.

Well, that’s a big issue.

What was the last addition to the collection of the infallible? Did JPII add anything? Did the current pope add anything?

 

[Aquarius]

otm:

I am not convinced that most think it is not infallible; I am not sure a poll has been taken of recent to determine that. I think you would be correct to say that was the position perhaps just after HV came out, and perhaps for a number of years after that, but My recollection is that HV is about 37 years old; time enough to almost go two generations. I would suspect that the last generation, or a goodly number of them, are in agreement with it. If nothing else, they have a lot more data to work with in terms of the human misery we have created with the tremendous loss of almost any moral base about sexuality.

Had there not been a loss of a moral base of sexuality, would that have an effect on the infallibility of the teaching? I would think an infallible teaching would be known to be infallible at the time it is issued.

 

[otm]

Aquarius:

People need to get more comfortable saying, “I don’t know.”

or perhaps, if something good is going on and the evidence is only anecdotal, they should say, “This bears watching”.

And by the way, anecdotal evidence is not the same as hearsay. Hearsay is a reiteration by one individual of a statement by another inidvidual to prove the thruth thereof.

An anecdotal statement is simply a short amusing or interesting statement by an individual. Get enought interesting shotrt statements by individuals using NFP, and it becomes research.

 

[otm]

Aquarius:

It would be easy to fix, yet I don’t see that happening. The doubt remains, and the lack of acceptance grows. That’s why the door is open.

I would disagree wtih yo as to why the “doubt” remains.

1. it has been very unpopular to teach, resulting in less and less catechesis, and more and more who don’t “doubt”, but rather, simply don’t know.
2. we live in a hyper-sexualized society which has defied the orgasm and raised it to the level of a “right” - see, for example, the efforts of Planned Parenthood to teach 12, 13 and 14 year olds how to, for example, put on a condom, and how to have intercourse, while insisting these children have the “right” to know this information and that their parents do not have the “right” to withhold that, or teach sexuality themselves. See, also, just about 3 ot of, say, 4 or 5 womens’ magazines in the news stand at your local grocery store and count the number of explicit sexual stories listed on their covers; you will have more stories in any given month than you will different magazines. Or see the sleaze that passes for entertainment on evening TV. Or catch MTV videos. Or adds by Calvin Kline…

By the time a Child reaches near adulthood, they are convinced that sex is a right, and they must use something to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Oh, and check out the abotion rate. All of this is effectively drwoning out the teaching voice of the Church.

1. we become more and more self centered and move closer and closer to hedonism. It is hard to teach anyone anything when their attitude is “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up”.

It isn’t doubt about the issue of whether or not HV was infallibile; it is an issue about whether or not anyone at all is even listenting anymore. Do they doubt? How can they doubt what they don’t even know about, except by occasional hearsay?

 

[otm]

Aquarius:

Well, that’s a big issue.

What was the last addition to the collection of the infallible? Did JPII add anything? Did the current pope add anything?

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

 

[otm]

Aquarius:

Had there not been a loss of a moral base of sexuality, would that have an effect on the infallibility of the teaching? I would think an infallible teaching would be known to be infallible at the time it is issued.

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”.

 

[msproule]

Catholic2003:

Nonetheless, the teaching is still authoritative, and cannot be disregarded by faithful Catholics.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Aquarius]

otm:

or perhaps, if something good is going on and the evidence is only anecdotal, they should say, “This bears watching”.

And by the way, anecdotal evidence is not the same as hearsay. Hearsay is a reiteration by one individual of a statement by another inidvidual to prove the thruth thereof.

An anecdotal statement is simply a short amusing or interesting statement by an individual. Get enought interesting shotrt statements by individuals using NFP, and it becomes research.

I agree. Much of the organized and valid research in sociel sciences is based on orderly collection of first hand antecdotes. These could be for NFP, ABC, or birdwatching.

The problems crop up when people start to make general conclusions from the few isolated, or selected, instances they encounter which support their opinions.

 

[Aquarius]

otm:

I would disagree wtih yo as to why the “doubt” remains.

1. it has been very unpopular to teach, resulting in less and less catechesis, and more and more who don’t “doubt”, but rather, simply don’t know.
2. we live in a hyper-sexualized society which has defied the orgasm and raised it to the level of a “right” - see, for example, the efforts of Planned Parenthood to teach 12, 13 and 14 year olds how to, for example, put on a condom, and how to have intercourse, while insisting these children have the “right” to know this information and that their parents do not have the “right” to withhold that, or teach sexuality themselves. See, also, just about 3 ot of, say, 4 or 5 womens’ magazines in the news stand at your local grocery store and count the number of explicit sexual stories listed on their covers; you will have more stories in any given month than you will different magazines. Or see the sleaze that passes for entertainment on evening TV. Or catch MTV videos. Or adds by Calvin Kline…

By the time a Child reaches near adulthood, they are convinced that sex is a right, and they must use something to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Oh, and check out the abotion rate. All of this is effectively drwoning out the teaching voice of the Church.

1. we become more and more self centered and move closer and closer to hedonism. It is hard to teach anyone anything when their attitude is “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up”.

It isn’t doubt about the issue of whether or not HV was infallibile; it is an issue about whether or not anyone at all is even listenting anymore. Do they doubt? How can they doubt what they don’t even know about, except by occasional hearsay?

I can’t dispute those things are not factors, but I think you left out a very important aspect of the situation. Couples have first hand experience in their marriages, with kids, each other, sexuality, etc. From this experience, many of them firmly believe that ABC is not only acceptable, but necessary in some cases. Their human experience does not conform to official teachings.

Some may not want to be confused by the facts, but others bring facts to the table which the teachings don’t want to consider. These folks do wonder if anyone is listening to them as the people in Rome make policy, and they are convinced that they know more about their marriage and family situation than anyone in a policy making position.

So, I think you may be selling the people short in casting them as unthinking robots molded and sent on their way by modern society. There is a great deal of thought and consideration on the ABC issue, and much of it is very intelligent, informed, educated, and insightful.

The people simply think Rome is wrong, and the lack of a firm, official, and very visible stamp of infallibility lends credence to that idea. It looks like the door is being kept open to allow for future change.