Birth Control and Infallibility

[fix]

Lazerlike42:

There is no doubt that the teaching itself is infallibe, the only question is whether OS was an exercise of ex cathedra Papal infallibility.

Ah, I see your point. So, Ratzinger was correct then? Are you saying he said it was or was not ex cathedra?

 

[Lazerlike42]

fix:

Ah, I see your point. So, Ratzinger was correct then? Are you saying he said it was or was not ex cathedra?

If I recall, Ratzinger said that the teaching itself is infallible by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium, but that the statement of JPII was not an exercise of ex cathedra infallibility.

 

[Palamite]

itsjustdave1988,

From a natural law point of view, sex has a biological purpose. Sperm has a biological purpose. It belongs where it belongs. Ovulation is designed in such a way for a biological reason. That reason is geared toward procreation. Marital sex is not simply biological, but unitive. However, God does reveal his will for us through biology, too. To indulge in sexual acts while at the same time intentionally acting contrary to that act is a conflict in logic and the purposeful biological design for sex. It is contrary to St. Clement’s teaching, current modernist claims notwithstanding.

The problem with utilizing this reasoning is that if it were to be evenly applied, any number of activities which I think most would take to be morally neutral would have to also be categorized as being immoral. ex. chewing sugar-free gum would have to be called “immoral” since it involves enjoying the sensations of the palette and mastication while providing zero nutritional value.

This reasoning would also forbid indulging in sexual acts where there is no possibility (barring a miracle) of conception, such as is the case of those where one spouse is sterile (either due to age or some other medical condition.) And without doubt, NFP would have to be included in this, since the whole point is catching one’s wife precisely when she is infertile. All of these things are cases of knowingly thwarting (as you reason) nature’s “end” for sex.

When one has sex and does not intend (will) children, they do exactly what St. Clement explained, they outrage nature…which is preciesely what Fr. O’keefe above explains, they will X while simultaneously not willing X. That is contrary to God’s will as revealed through nature, and as such, it is immoral.

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.

Non-procreative sex is not immoral. Human acts which render sex non-procreative is immoral.

Why? I’m not asking who says this, but why this is - particularly when humans do this in other areas without anyone attempting to impose some sort of guilt upon their conscience.

 

[Palamite]

itsjustdave1988,

St. John Chrysostom called contraception worse than murder, “for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on the Epistle to the Romans).

Read the Entire Homily Here

This is precisely the kind of “proof-texting” which drives me nuts. First, the text says nothing about “contraception” being “worse than murder”. Only you guys could turn a passage condemning reckless living (and specifically, drunkness/“partying” which leads to whoring) into a condemnation of contraception.

Why then bring disgrace upon all these? Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? where there are many efforts at abortion? where there is murder before the birth? for even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevent its being born. Why then dost thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? (St.John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on the Epistle to the Romans)

What on earth does this have to do with contraception? St.John is saying that abortion is worse than “exposing” a child after birth (a very common practice throughout the pagan world). I think your mistake was due to reading not simply the translation you did, but worse yet, not reading it in context (indeed it’s funny that this is precisely the translation of the passage I see floating around online in various apologetical documents… which again, makes me doubt you’ve ever read this in it’s context.)

Also let us pretend (and we’d have to do just that, because St.John is not talking about “contraception”) your understanding of St.John is sound - do you actually believe, or does the RCC believe, contraception is “worse than murder”? The last I heard (since I’d think discipline reflects doctrine), getting an abortion will get you excommunicated in the RCC. Using a condom (if the priest is a H.V. schill - most actual RC priests appear not to be) will likely get you a Rosary (or whatever the priest wants to give as penance.)

 

[Catholic2003]

Lazerlike42:

According to Vatican I, nothing. For this reason, very many theologians are of the opinion that Ratzinger was mistaken.

There are a number of “internet” theologians who make the claim that Cardinal Ratzinger was mistaken. However, I’m not aware of any scholarly work (e.g., by a theologian with ecclesiastical credentials, or published in an academic journal) to that effect.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Catholic2003:

There are a number of “internet” theologians who make the claim that Cardinal Ratzinger was mistaken. However, I’m not aware of any scholarly work (e.g., by a theologian with ecclesiastical credentials, or published in an academic journal) to that effect.

How about the men who wrote the Vatican I documents?

 

[Catholic2003]

Lazerlike42:

How about the men who wrote the Vatican I documents?

My approach is to assume that the magisterium of the Church (as stated by then Cardinal Ratzinger) is right, and to form my understanding of the Vatican I requirements for ex cathedra statements around that magisterium. So it is clear to me that it must be the case that one or more of those Vatican I requirements was not met in the case of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

It seems to me that the missing requirement was the lack of the intent by the Pope to bind the universal Church to an ex cathedra statement. Archbishop Bertone explicitly mentions the Pope’s intent in assessing the infallibility of his teachings (bold added):

It must be stressed then that in the Encyclicals Veritatis splendor and Evangelium vitae and in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, the Roman Pontiff intended, though not in a solemn way, to confirm and reaffirm doctrines which belong to the ordinary, universal teaching of the Magisterium, and which therefore are to be held in a definitive and irrevocable way.

Thus, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not ex cathedra because Pope John Paul II did not intend it to be. It is similarly clear that Pope Paul VI did not intend Humanae Vitae to be ex cathedra.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Catholic2003:

My approach is to assume that the magisterium of the Church (as stated by then Cardinal Ratzinger) is right, and to form my understanding of the Vatican I requirements for ex cathedra statements around that magisterium. So it is clear to me that it must be the case that one or more of those Vatican I requirements was not met in the case of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

It seems to me that the missing requirement was the lack of the intent by the Pope to bind the universal Church to an ex cathedra statement. Archbishop Bertone explicitly mentions the Pope’s intent in assessing the infallibility of his teachings (bold added):

Thus, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not ex cathedra because Pope John Paul II did not intend it to be. It is similarly clear that Pope Paul VI did not intend Humanae Vitae to be ex cathedra.

The problem is that I have very often heard this arguement that intent is necessary, but I have never been shown a Magisterial document which confirms this. In fact, I have seen Magisterial documents which seem to speak against this.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The bishop you quote seems to have some problems. For example:

Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only synchronically, but also diachronically. This means that a morally unanimous consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.

• Lumen Gentium 25.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Also, I was thinking. If the intent to infallibly declare something was necessary, then how did Pius IX infallibly define the Immaculate Conception? Vatican I had not yet occured. I realize that the idea of papal infallibility did exist during the time of Pius IX and throughout history. However, it is also true that it was not always understood in the same way as it is today. There was a lot of debate during Vatican I because there was not clear consensus on exactly how it worked. So it seems to me that by no means do we know that Pius IX intended it to be infallible, or that he knew he needed to intend to. In fact, if I recall, the bishop who proposed the final understanding of papal infallibility which was accepted understood it to be a sort of automatic protection. In other words, God automatically protected Popes from error in matters of faith and morals when they spoke with those conditions, whether they knew it or not!

 

[Catholic2003]

Lazerlike42:

The problem is that I have very often heard this arguement that intent is necessary, but I have never been shown a Magisterial document which confirms this. In fact, I have seen Magisterial documents which seem to speak against this.

Can you give me an example of such a magisterial document?

Lazerlike42:

The bishop you quote seems to have some problems.

When my understanding differs from that of Archbishop Bertone, then secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I assume that I am wrong and he is right.

The section you quote looks perfectly correct to me. The agreement among bishops for the ordinary, universal magisterium must be diachronic, not merely synchronic.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Catholic2003:

Can you give me an example of such a magisterial document?

Yes I am looking for it it’s been a while. Can you give me a document that says that it is necessary for the pope to intend to prounce something infallibly for it to be infallible?

When my understanding differs from that of Archbishop Bertone, then secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I assume that I am wrong and he is right.

The section you quote looks perfectly correct to me. The agreement among bishops for the ordinary, universal magisterium must be diachronic, not merely synchronic.

Vatican II very, very cleary states that synchronic agreement is sufficient. This is not one of those ambiguous passages. It is extremely clear. For one, it says dispersed throughout the world, not something like, “the world and history.” Secondly, in context this refers to the college of bishops. It doesn’t get clearer. Ludwig Ott concurs with this as well. So does the code of Canon Law:

749 §2. The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their Magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Lazerlike42:

Also, I was thinking. If the intent to infallibly declare something was necessary, then how did Pius IX infallibly define the Immaculate Conception? Vatican I had not yet occured. I realize that the idea of papal infallibility did exist during the time of Pius IX and throughout history. However, it is also true that it was not always understood in the same way as it is today. There was a lot of debate during Vatican I because there was not clear consensus on exactly how it worked. So it seems to me that by no means do we know that Pius IX intended it to be infallible, or that he knew he needed to intend to. In fact, if I recall, the bishop who proposed the final understanding of papal infallibility which was accepted understood it to be a sort of automatic protection. In other words, God automatically protected Popes from error in matters of faith and morals when they spoke with those conditions, whether they knew it or not!

Here is the statement of the bishop (Bishop Vincent Gasser):

Now I shall explain in a very few words how this word “defines” is to be understood according to the Deputation de fide. Indeed, the Deputation de fide is not of the mind that this word should be understood in a juridical sense so that it only signifies putting an end to controversy that has arisen in respect to heresy or doctrine which is properly speaking de fide. Rather, the word “defines” signifies that the Pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain, or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff. Such then is the meaning of the word “defines”.

 

[Catholic2003]

Lazerlike42:

Also, I was thinking. If the intent to infallibly declare something was necessary, then how did Pius IX infallibly define the Immaculate Conception?

I merely claim that the intent to speak ex cathedra is necessary in modern times, now that Vatican I has been promulgated. Prior to Vatican I, the intent would be manifested in a more generic manner.

However, historically, it seems possible that Ineffabilis Deus was Pope Pius IX’s first salvo in his ultimately successful attempt to have the papacy declared infallible, and that he did directly intend Ineffabilis Deus to be infallible even in 1854.

Lazerlike42:

God automatically protected Popes from error in matters of faith and morals when they spoke with those conditions, whether they knew it or not!

This sounds like the “strawman” description of papal infalliblity that Fr. Chirico had to argue against because he couldn’t find any actual theologians who espoused it.

 

[Catholic2003]

Lazerlike42:

Vatican II very, very cleary states that synchronic agreement is sufficient. This is not one of those ambiguous passages. It is extremely clear. For one, it says dispersed throughout the world, not something like, “the world and history.” Secondly, in context this refers to the college of bishops. It doesn’t get clearer. Ludwig Ott concurs with this as well. So does the code of Canon Law:

When I read these words, it appears to me that you are not just saying that Archbishop Bertone is wrong, but that he must be an absolute moron for even thinking that the agreement among bishops must be diachronic. (I apologize for my use of the word “moron”, but I couldn’t find any less offensive words in the thesaurus that adequately conveyed my feelings.)

I find such a position untenable. While I can admit the remote possibility that Archbishop Bertone is mistaken, the idea that he has absolutely no idea about even the basics of infallibility is, for me, out of the question.

Again, I try to form my understanding of Vatican I and Vatican II in light of magisterial statements, not opposed to them.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Catholic2003:

This sounds like the “strawman” description of papal infalliblity that Fr. Chirico had to argue against because he couldn’t find any actual theologians who espoused it.

It may not be worded properly, but it seems to be the same, or at leat very similar, as the description of the term “defines” that was given to the council by Bishop Gasser prior to approving the decree on papal infallibility.

I also would really like to see a Magisterial document that says the Pope must have the intent of infallibility. I may be completely wrong. I am not so much trying to argue here, because as I said in the end it doesn’t matter when it comes to assent. That being said, I am trying to come to a deeper grasp on this, and thus far I have never seen the statement in any Magisterial text that intent is necessary.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Catholic2003:

When I read these words, it appears to me that you are not just saying that Archbishop Bertone is wrong, but that he must be an absolute moron for even thinking that the agreement among bishops must be diachronic. (I apologize for my use of the word “moron”, but I couldn’t find any less offensive words in the thesaurus that adequately conveyed my feelings.)

I find such a position untenable. While I can admit the remote possibility that Archbishop Bertone is mistaken, the idea that he has absolutely no idea about even the basics of infallibility is, for me, out of the question.

Again, I try to form my understanding of Vatican I and Vatican II in light of magisterial statements, not opposed to them.

As I said, Ludwig Ott (who wrote before Vatican II) and the Code of Canon Law are in agreement with my position. Ott formed his understanding on Magisterial statements aside from Vatican II, so the idea of synchronic agreement exists not only in Vatican II, but in prior statements as well. In fact, Vatican II cites several references when making this point. So the issue of interpreting Vatican II is not relevant here; Ott came to this undertanding apart from it.

 

[Catholic2003]

Lazerlike42:

In other words, God automatically protected Popes from error in matters of faith and morals when they spoke with those conditions, whether they knew it or not!

Lazerlike42:

Here is the statement of the bishop (Bishop Vincent Gasser):

Rather, the word “defines” signifies that the Pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See

, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain, or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff. Such then is the meaning of the word “defines”.

Bishop Gasser’s statement states the knowing the “mind of the Roman Pontiff” is a key factor in understanding the word “defines”. How can this be independent of the Pope’s intent? How can the Pope be infallible without knowing it, when it is required that contrary doctrine be held to be heretical by the Pope himself?

 

[Catholic2003]

Lazerlike42:

I also would really like to see a Magisterial document that says the Pope must have the intent of infallibility. I may be completely wrong. I am not so much trying to argue here, because as I said in the end it doesn’t matter when it comes to assent. That being said, I am trying to come to a deeper grasp on this, and thus far I have never seen the statement in any Magisterial text that intent is necessary.

Like you, I’m also seeking a deeper grasp on this matter. I don’t know of any magisterial statements that say intent is necessary, but I do know of two magisterial statements (Cardinal Ratzinger’s and Archbishop Bertone’s) that say that Ordinario Sacerdotalis is not an exercise of papal infallibility. The “intent” approach is the best that I’ve seen so far in explaining this.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Catholic2003:

Bishop Gasser’s statement states the knowing the “mind of the Roman Pontiff” is a key factor in understanding the word “defines”. How can this be independent of the Pope’s intent? How can the Pope be infallible without knowing it, when it is required that contrary doctrine be held to be heretical by the Pope himself?

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.