Birth Control and Infallibility

[Aquarius]

OhioBob:

You lost me there. If these “factions” you refer to are not formed around differences regarding dogma, doctrine or scriptural interpretation, then what defines them?

Attitudes on authority.

 

[Aquarius]

otm:

Again, i think you are asking the question in the wrong way.

John Paul 2 came out with a statement that it is not possible for the Church to ordain women. In spite of the fact that some have tried to “shoe horn” that into an ex cathedra statment, the Vatican (Ratzinger, at the time) said that it was not, but that it was simply the ellucidation of a 20 century holding. I don’t think that anyone could say that it was “added” , as it had been there for 20 centuries (and this was not the first time the question had been asked).

If you want to look for an “addition”, then you might look to the pronouncements of Vatican 2, since that was the last council, and for all practical purposes, theologians are generally in agreement that since then, no pope has made an ex cathedra statement (but see, above, the citation to the article by Fr. Brian W Harrison, O.S. re: the book by Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M. to the contrary).

OK. But what was the last addition to the collection of infallibles?

 

[otm]

EtienneGilson:

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.

On this I believe we are in general agreement. By the way, i just noted your tag line. In which book did Coppelston come up with that quote? Or was it from something other than the History?

EtienneGilson:

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.

So I should take it that you are either a Thomist or a Neo Scholastic? There is no foundation if you insist that a foundation is only laid according to scholastic proceedures. there is life and philosophy beyond categorization.

 

[kleary]

Aquarius:

But the widespread questioning of the infallibility of the ABC teaching still leaves a future pope the fig leaf he may need.

Thus the errors of our society.

In Catholicism, Doctrine comes from the top down, not from the bottom up.

Ken

 

[the-3rd-parent]

Aquarius:

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.

How are you keeping the the procreative, unitive and pleasurable parts of sex connected if you are using barriers or chemicals to divert the nature of the act into an infertile one? You are partaking in an act that has been artificially made infertile, thus selfishly lengthing the amount of sex you can have without “risking” pregnancy. This is a simple objective matter.

Lust and chastity are in competition with each other. We’re neither all lustful nor completely chaste. The fact that you acknowledge that some chaste love still exists in your heart for your spouse is meaningless to the argument. Objectively, you are embracing the lust in your hearts when you choose to engage in contraceptives rather than NFP for the purpose of enjoying sex more often while still avoiding pregnancy. You are embracing and building lust in your hearts. The fact that you don’t acknowledge this spiritual occurence doesn’t matter as the more a person engages in a sin, the less aware that person becomes of their sin.

Remember that our logic and ability to reason is blurred, if not blinded, by Concupicense.

The fact that so many people who embrace contraceptives seem to lack the ability to comprehend the difference between NFP and ABC is testimony to it. I can state the difference plain and clear, and it’ll still go over your heads. Its like trying to teach that blue is not green to a child who wants to argue that “Well that shade of blue has a little yellow in it too and this shade of green has just a tad more yellow in it than blue, therefore they are the same color.”

 

[the-3rd-parent]

Aquarius:

Can I presume you don’t like other factions of the Church being recognized as existing? That’s fine. I take that as the views of one faction.

When I cross US law, I am prevented from doing that. I don’t see the bishops doing anything about the vast majority of Catholics who have rejected ABC teachings.

Don’t catholics think the HS guides the Church? Is he allowed to provide guidance through the laity?

No. The Holy Spirit guides the teaching authority of the Church. The official teachings of the Church are without error. The understanding of those teachings are not without error. For instance, Limbo is a proposed theory but has never been a part of Church doctrine. But, people read the theory, taught the theory to others and it was passed down in a game like telephone where many people were raised to believe in the existance of Limbo. Then, when it was corrected, it went the other way around and people thought “Oh it definetly doesn’t exist” when in fact its a theory and a speculation which our current Pope has asked theologians to look deeper into.

If there is any flaw on the teaching about contraceptives, it isn’t in any way you believe it to be. It is based upon an understanding of the virtue of chastity. Claiming that the Church will embrace contraceptives someday is like claiming that someday the Church will marry homosexuals, get rid of the annullment process and remarry the divorced, teach that fornication is ok if you’re planning on marrying, endorse abortion, endorse witchcraft, get rid of the priesthood altogether and allow the laity to run their own parishes with some alphabetical list of who hosts the mass, or declare that missing Mass on Sunday really isn’t a mortal sin.

It isn’t going to happen.

 

[OhioBob]

Aquarius:

Attitudes on authority.

Authority over dogma, doctrine and scriptural interpretation? Or something else?

 

[Aquarius]

otm:

OK, then perhaps what you and I are discussing is the issue of whether or not the Holy Spirit truly protects the Church from error in matters of faith (doctrine) and morals. I accept that the holy Spirit does ( and no, I am not trying to play the trump card of “God said it, I believe it, and that ends it”); however, with that belief comes the issue of a correctly formed conscience. You might want to read what Vatican 2 had to say about conscience.

Vatican 2 does not call us to a rubber stamp approach to morality. But it does hold that the Church has the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals, and that a correctly formed conscience will be in accord with Church Teachings.

Back to the issue of euthanasia; no question that people ahve crefuloly thought through the isue. However, the Church teaches us that life is a gift from God and not under our control, that suffering has merit, that one is not required to suffer needlessly, but can take pain relieving drugs to relieve pain; that one can take enough (e.g. morphine) that one may be ultimately hastening death if it is taken to control the pain and not to commit suicide, and I could go on about the value system the Church teaches.

However, those who have committed suicide often do not have that value system. I am not suggesting that they have violated their consicence in persuing suicide, but rather that they do not have a correctly formed conscience to begin with.

Further, in the area of suicide, it is an act that runs contrary to one of our most basic natural urges, to protect and preserve our own life. Interestingly, many, if not most who approach suicide are under the influence of depression (often accompanied by pain). When the depression is treated, and when they are made to understand they are not a burden on their (children, spouse, family menmbers, society), the urge to suicide almost always goes away.

i am not suggesting that rejection of Church teachings is unthinking. I do, however, suggest that 1) self honesty is hard for most to achieve, and 2) because someone is thinking, even thinking hard, does not automatically mean they are thinking correctly.

Thinking that is driven by a self centered world view is not likely to cause one to become more Christ like, as in, emptying oneself for another. Or, as in, being other directed. Or, as in, being other directed. Being self centered pretty much causes one to make self cent3red decisions, which tend to reinforece the self centeredness.

We probably differ on what constitutes a well formed conscience. From what you and others have written, I presume a well formed conscience is one that agrees with the Church. Correct? Therefore disagreement indicates one does not have a well formed conscience?

If so, could we skip a step and just talk about disagreement with the Church?

I’d say the same about correct thinking. Is that thinking that agrees with the church? The implication is that those who do not think correctly (and agree with the Church) are somehow deficient in their mental capacity. I think that does an injustice to many.

Likewise on the self-centered view. Is a view that does not agree with the Church self-centered? I have no reason to think that. Many can disagree with the Church without the need to be self centered.

The above is what I infer from what you have said. I’m sure you will correct me if I inferred incorrectly. I would say they are essentially offshoots of the “God said so” argument. Your thoughts?

 

[Aquarius]

otm:

That may be true. Or it may be true that their marriage is not as open to true communication as they might like to think (amazingly, many who think they have good communication, when given some simple exercises in communication, find they don’t).

Why is it so many men, when being honest about their sex life within marriage, respond along the lines that they feel they have to beg? And why is it so many women, when being honest about their sex life in marriage, feel that they are required to “put out”, that they are supposed to be sexually available at any, and most, given moments, and find sex to be less and act of communication and more an act of orgasm?

I am not willing to accept that marriages that are much over, say, about 5 years duration, are that open in communication, and sexually satisfying for those who use ABC. I have seen and heard way too much to believe that.

I agree that some may be fooling themselves by thinking they enjoy the united unitive, procreative and pleasure of sex. But that means some others do enjoy that using ABC. They are not to be dismissed because others may be foolong themselves.

I guess we may have seen and heard different things from people using ABC. Perhaps it is because we deal with different self-selected groups. I know many marriages over 5 years that are a disaster; I also know many that are excellent. (And it’s always dangerous to judge the internals of another.)

 

[Aquarius]

kleary:

Thus the errors of our society.

In Catholicism, Doctrine comes from the top down, not from the bottom up.

Ken

In Catholicism doctrine has come down from the top. An educated clergy and an illiterate laity probably had much to do with that. Is there any reason the Church must continue to act as a client service organization?

 

[Aquarius]

the-3rd-parent:

How are you keeping the the procreative, unitive and pleasurable parts of sex connected if you are using barriers or chemicals to divert the nature of the act into an infertile one? You are partaking in an act that has been artificially made infertile, thus selfishly lengthing the amount of sex you can have without “risking” pregnancy. This is a simple objective matter.

Lust and chastity are in competition with each other. We’re neither all lustful nor completely chaste. The fact that you acknowledge that some chaste love still exists in your heart for your spouse is meaningless to the argument. Objectively, you are embracing the lust in your hearts when you choose to engage in contraceptives rather than NFP for the purpose of enjoying sex more often while still avoiding pregnancy. You are embracing and building lust in your hearts. The fact that you don’t acknowledge this spiritual occurence doesn’t matter as the more a person engages in a sin, the less aware that person becomes of their sin.

Remember that our logic and ability to reason is blurred, if not blinded, by Concupicense.

The fact that so many people who embrace contraceptives seem to lack the ability to comprehend the difference between NFP and ABC is testimony to it. I can state the difference plain and clear, and it’ll still go over your heads. Its like trying to teach that blue is not green to a child who wants to argue that “Well that shade of blue has a little yellow in it too and this shade of green has just a tad more yellow in it than blue, therefore they are the same color.”

There is basic disagreement on the nature of the act. That disagreement is what leads to different conclusions.

 

[Aquarius]

the-3rd-parent:

No. The Holy Spirit guides the teaching authority of the Church. The official teachings of the Church are without error. The understanding of those teachings are not without error. For instance, Limbo is a proposed theory but has never been a part of Church doctrine. But, people read the theory, taught the theory to others and it was passed down in a game like telephone where many people were raised to believe in the existance of Limbo. Then, when it was corrected, it went the other way around and people thought “Oh it definetly doesn’t exist” when in fact its a theory and a speculation which our current Pope has asked theologians to look deeper into.

If there is any flaw on the teaching about contraceptives, it isn’t in any way you believe it to be. It is based upon an understanding of the virtue of chastity. Claiming that the Church will embrace contraceptives someday is like claiming that someday the Church will marry homosexuals, get rid of the annullment process and remarry the divorced, teach that fornication is ok if you’re planning on marrying, endorse abortion, endorse witchcraft, get rid of the priesthood altogether and allow the laity to run their own parishes with some alphabetical list of who hosts the mass, or declare that missing Mass on Sunday really isn’t a mortal sin.

It isn’t going to happen.

Each of the issues you raise deserves its own consideration, and I really don’t think they are analogous. I have no way of proving the teaching will change; but I think it will as the inclusion of the laity in the process adds a dimension of experience that has been lacking to date.

 

[Aquarius]

OhioBob:

Authority over dogma, doctrine and scriptural interpretation? Or something else?

Attitudes on whether the authority knows what it is talking about. We can look around and see self-identified Catholics who think the Church is wrong about ABC. Many think the people in Rome simply are not well informed or making the right decisions. If the Church is the people of God, the people are providing a correcting nudge.

 

[Beaver]

Aquarius:

Attitudes on whether the authority knows what it is talking about. We can look around and see self-identified Catholics who think the Church is wrong about ABC. Many think the people in Rome simply are not well informed or making the right decisions. If the Church is the people of God, the people are providing a correcting nudge.

We live in a theocracy inwhich God does the nudging and not the people.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Aquarius:

OK. But what was the last addition to the collection of infallibles?

Material development of dogma ended in the first century. That was the last time the “collection” was added to. Formal development continues, and pertains to the Church’s growth in understanding and articulating that 1st cent. deposit of faith.

However, what you don’t seem to understand about Catholicism, is that doctrines are binding according to the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, whether they are infallible or not. That’s not an opinion, but actually explicit in our Constitution, our Canon Law, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You may presume it to be merely one “faction’s” opinion, but you appear to know very little about Catholicism. I think it should be obvious by now how absurd it is for a Catholic to reject their own Church’s Dogmatic Constitution, Canon Law, and Catechism. The 1st cent. deposit of faith as interpreted by the government of the Catholic Church, those who hold the OFFICE to govern and teach Catholicism is the only official source of Catholic doctrine for Catholicism.

So it matters very little whether some doctrine is sententia certa (certain teaching) or de fide (infallible teaching). It only seems to matter to theologians and dissenters. For all others, sententia certa and de fide dogmas must be “held” (tenendam) by all the faithful.

What Catholics should be discerning is whether a teaching is taught by the magisterium as belonging to free opinion (sententia communis) or whether the magisterium intended to give a teaching that should be held (tenendam) decisively by all Catholics. This discernment is not difficult in practice, as one could simply ask their pastor. And if they have reason to believe their pastor is in error or teaching contrary to Catholic teaching, one can consult their bishop. In the final analysis, the Roman Pontiff is the final judge of what is authentically Catholic doctrine.

It’s not that hard for Catholics to know Catholic teaching. It seems, however, hard for some to submit to the authority of their pastors as Heb 13:17 demands. Dissent is antithetical to being Catholic and antithetical to the teachings of Sacred Scripture, which insists that we “obey our leaders” (Heb 13:17).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Aquarius:

Attitudes on whether the authority knows what it is talking about. We can look around and see self-identified Catholics who think the Church is wrong about ABC. Many think the people in Rome simply are not well informed or making the right decisions. If the Church is the people of God, the people are providing a correcting nudge.

Hmmmmm… Korah attempted a “correcting nudge” and look what happen to him (cf. Num 16, Jude 11).

 

[bear06]

Aquarius:

Attitudes on whether the authority knows what it is talking about. We can look around and see self-identified Catholics who think the Church is wrong about ABC. Many think the people in Rome simply are not well informed or making the right decisions. If the Church is the people of God, the people are providing a correcting nudge.

Actually, what I see is a bunch of self-identified Catholics who are going to do as they darn well please and hope God agrees with them no matter what the Church says. Quite a recipe for disaster. If people are going to take the stance that they think the Church is going to change “her position” on this issue, they might want to wait until it actually happens which it won’t because it has been a constant teaching.

I asked this on another thread and don’t think I got a response so I’ll try here. For those of you who do not think HV is infallible doctrine, would you at least say it is a discipline?

 

[Aquarius]

Beaver:

We live in a theocracy inwhich God does the nudging and not the people.

Is God allowed to work through the people?

 

[Aquarius]

itsjustdave1988:

Material development of dogma ended in the first century. That was the last time the “collection” was added to. Formal development continues, and pertains to the Church’s growth in understanding and articulating that 1st cent. deposit of faith.

However, what you don’t seem to understand about Catholicism, is that doctrines are binding according to the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, whether they are infallible or not. That’s not an opinion, but actually explicit in our Constitution, our Canon Law, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You may presume it to be merely one “faction’s” opinion, but you appear to know very little about Catholicism. I think it should be obvious by now how absurd it is for a Catholic to reject their own Church’s Dogmatic Constitution, Canon Law, and Catechism. The 1st cent. deposit of faith as interpreted by the government of the Catholic Church, those who hold the OFFICE to govern and teach Catholicism is the only official source of Catholic doctrine for Catholicism.

So it matters very little whether some doctrine is sententia certa (certain teaching) or de fide (infallible teaching). It only seems to matter to theologians and dissenters. For all others, sententia certa and de fide dogmas must be “held” (tenendam) by all the faithful.

What Catholics should be discerning is whether a teaching is taught by the magisterium as belonging to free opinion (sententia communis) or whether the magisterium intended to give a teaching that should be held (tenendam) decisively by all Catholics. This discernment is not difficult in practice, as one could simply ask their pastor. And if they have reason to believe their pastor is in error or teaching contrary to Catholic teaching, one can consult their bishop. In the final analysis, the Roman Pontiff is the final judge of what is authentically Catholic doctrine.

It’s not that hard for Catholics to know Catholic teaching. It seems, however, hard for some to submit to the authority of their pastors as Heb 13:17 demands. Dissent is antithetical to being Catholic and antithetical to the teachings of Sacred Scripture, which insists that we “obey our leaders” (Heb 13:17).

I realize doctrines do not have to be dogmatic in order to be binding. I am asking only about infallibles.

If the collection was last added to in the year 100 AD, why did Vatican I declare papal infallibility 1750 years later? Were they anticipating something? Has papal infalibility never been used to add to the collection since Vatican I?

If the last addition to the collection was in 100 AD, would it not be rather easy to list the collection?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Aquarius:

I realize doctrines do not have to be dogmatic in order to be binding. I am asking only about infallibles.

If the collection was last added to in the year 100 AD, why did Vatican I declare papal infallibility 1750 years later? Were they anticipating something? Has papal infalibility never been used to add to the collection since Vatican I?

If the last addition to the collection was in 100 AD, would it not be rather easy to list the collection?

As I stated already, material development has ended, but formal development continues. Which means…

As to the Formal side of dogma, that is, in the knowledge and in the ecclesiastical proposal of Revealed Truth, and consequently also in the public faith of the Church, there is a progress (accidental development of dogmas) which occurs in the following fashion:

1. Truths which formerly were only implicitly believed are expressly proposed for belief. (Cf. S. th. I; II, 1, 7… There was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly, which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.)
2. Material Dogmas are raised to the status of Formal Dogmas.
3. To facilitate general understanding, and to avoid misunderstandings and distortions, the ancient truths which were always believed, e.g., the Hypostatic Union (unio hypostatica), Transubstantiation, etc., are formulated in new, sharply defined concepts.
4. Questions formerly disputed are explained and decided, and heretical propositions are condemned. Cf. St. Augustine, De civ. Dei 2, 1 ; …(a question moved by an adversary gives an occasion for learning).

(Ott, L., *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *Introduction)

You can read more about how this development occurs, here:

Tradition and the Living Magisterium
newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

As for writing it all down, that’s problematic for several reasons…

1. There’s not enough paper in the world to write it all down. Jesus was Incarnate for a reason. If all God need do was to give us an updated Bible, he could have sent it to us directly like manna from heaven. He didn’t. Instead he sent His Son, and His Son established a Church which is the “pillar and foundation of truth” throughout all time. The deposit of faith of the 1st century cannot be reduced to a correspondence course. It instead is something that is taught in every age, through written and unwritten Tradition, by the apostles and their historic successors.
2. Language evolves, and sometimes means something different in later ages that it did in earlier ages. For example, “worship” in English tends to mean something different than it used to. Now a days, it is reserved for the adoration due only to God. However, it used to also mean “honor” or “veneration”, which is why the English called their magistrates, “Your Worship.” It wasn’t because they thought them Divine, but merely meant to honor them as mere creatures like ourselves. Things written down need to be reformulated as culture and languages develop over time. Thus, a living magisterium seems prudent.
3. St. John’s remarks at the end of his Gospel implies how “writing it all down” is rather absurd… “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25).

Thus, we Catholicism agrees with St. John that it would be foolish to attempt to write down all which Jesus did and taught, which is all the infallible truths and the object of Catholic faith. Instead, the living Church is commission to be the pillar of truth as Christ intended.