Can a couple in good conscience use ABC if their pastor does not object?

[setter]

The director of the marriage preparation program where I work with engaged couples was adamant yesterday that we instruct couples that they and their pastor have the final say in forming their conscience about using ABC or not. She prefaced her comments by stating that most engaged couples are likely already sexual active and using ABC, that she knows that most Catholic married couples, including her numerous siblings, all use ABC in their marriages. She made the repeated assertion that the Church teaching against ABC “That is the ideal, but …”.

Is it true that after an individual or couple consult a clergy and receive tacit “pastoral counsel” to use ABC in their personal situation that this completes what a couple is responsible to do in forming their conscience? That it is not a sin to use ABC?

 

[LilyM]

How much additional/further research a person should do in addition to the pastoral advice that is given to them is really only something that can be judged on a case-by-case basis. Depends on things like the person’s education level, access to resources, pre-existing knowledge etc etc.

Having said that, I think there’d be very few Catholics who aren’t aware of Humanae Vitae at least. And they need to be told the truth about it, which is that although it wasn’t expressed as an ex-Cathedra pronouncement, it nonetheless IS an infallible exercise of the Magisterium and thus binding.

It’s not simply an ideal that can be ignored at whim. Any more than ‘thou shalt not kill’ or ‘thou shalt not steal’ can be ignored in societies that have a high rate of thefts or robberies.

Additionally, it’s not just an issue of what the couple themselves are obligated to do, but what obligations ALL of those teaching and instructing them have to see that such teaching is as accurate as possible.

 

[thistle]

The director of the marriage preparation program where I work with engaged couples was adamant yesterday that we instruct couples that they and their pastor have the final say in forming their conscience about using ABC or not. She prefaced her comments by stating that most engaged couples are likely already sexual active and using ABC, that she knows that most Catholic married couples, including her numerous siblings, all use ABC in their marriages. She made the repeated assertion that the Church teaching against ABC “That is the ideal, but …”.

Is it true that after an individual or couple consult a clergy and receive tacit “pastoral counsel” to use ABC in their personal situation that this completes what a couple is responsible to do in forming their conscience? That it is not a sin to use ABC?

NO, you cannot use ABC under any circumstances.
YES, it is a grave sin to use ABC.

CCC 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

 

[mlchance]

Is it true that after an individual or couple consult a clergy and receive tacit “pastoral counsel” to use ABC in their personal situation that this completes what a couple is responsible to do in forming their conscience? That it is not a sin to use ABC?

No to both questions.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[1ke]

The director of the marriage preparation program where I work with engaged couples was adamant yesterday that we instruct couples that they and their pastor have the final say in forming their conscience about using ABC or not. She prefaced her comments by stating that most engaged couples are likely already sexual active and using ABC, that she knows that most Catholic married couples, including her numerous siblings, all use ABC in their marriages. She made the repeated assertion that the Church teaching against ABC “That is the ideal, but …”.

YOU NEED TO REPORT THIS PERESON IMMEDIATELY.

This is absolutely false and this person should NOT be in charge of sorting the mail let alone director of marriage preparation.

Is it true that after an individual or couple consult a clergy and receive tacit “pastoral counsel” to use ABC in their personal situation that this completes what a couple is responsible to do in forming their conscience? That it is not a sin to use ABC?

No it is not true and it is a terrible, terrible sin to lead other people into sin.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

YOU NEED TO REPORT THIS PERESON IMMEDIATELY.

This is absolutely false and this person should NOT be in charge of sorting the mail let alone director of marriage preparation.

This deserves to be said over and over again until the person you are talking about is no longer in charge. That person is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and is leading many to stray from the faith.

 

[Newbie2]

“Thou shall not kill”

That is the ideal, but…

That’s pretty much the message. Everyone is doing it, so why not?

 

[Phemie]

YOU NEED TO REPORT THIS PERESON IMMEDIATELY.

This is absolutely false and this person should NOT be in charge of sorting the mail let alone director of marriage preparation.

No it is not true and it is a terrible, terrible sin to lead other people into sin.

It does not say where the OP is posting from but I know that in Canada that has been the mantra since HV was published (actually that was the bishops’ response to Rome re. HV) and my own pastor subscribes to that. It’s also what I was counselled back in the 70s when I got married.

 

[fix]

Is it true that after an individual or couple consult a clergy and receive tacit “pastoral counsel” to use ABC in their personal situation that this completes what a couple is responsible to do in forming their conscience? That it is not a sin to use ABC?

The act of contraception is intrinsically wrong. If that is so, then how can a “pastoral” solution dispense from the natural moral law?

 

[1ke]

It does not say where the OP is posting from but I know that in Canada that has been the mantra since HV was published (actually that was the bishops’ response to Rome re. HV) and my own pastor subscribes to that. It’s also what I was counselled back in the 70s when I got married.

That is irrelevant.

It contradicts a required Catholic doctrine and no one has the authority or ability to teach publicly in the name of the Church that which is contrary to the Faith. It is sinful and scandalous.

I would report it to the proper Congregations in Rome.

 

[Phemie]

That is irrelevant.

It contradicts a required Catholic doctrine and no one has the authority or ability to teach publicly in the name of the Church that which is contrary to the Faith. It is sinful and scandalous.

I would report it to the proper Congregations in Rome.

When I suggested to my pastor that we should bring someone in to teach NFP (there is no NFP taught in the diocese) he just smirked. He’d never tell anyone that ABC is wrong and the idea that anyone would want to use NFP is ludicrous to him.

 

[1ke]

When I suggested to my pastor that we should bring someone in to teach NFP (there is no NFP taught in the diocese) he just smirked. He’d never tell anyone that ABC is wrong and the idea that anyone would want to use NFP is ludicrous to him.

That may be the case. But, silence is not the same as publicly and overtly stating that contraception can be used. A person in an authoritative/teaching position in the Church is subject to teaching ONLY Church doctrine and can and should be reported to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith if they are not (presuming they’ve been reported to their diocese and no action has been taken).

 

[LilyM]

That may be the case. But, silence is not the same as publicly and overtly stating that contraception can be used. A person in an authoritative/teaching position in the Church is subject to teaching ONLY Church doctrine and can and should be reported to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith if they are not (presuming they’ve been reported to their diocese and no action has been taken).

But never telling anyone that ABC is wrong, even those who admit to him that they are using it, is equally disastrous from a pastoral point of view.

If you see someone running towards a cliff edge, and about to run right off it, you’re guilty if you don’t warn them that the cliff is there, almost as much as if you pushed them off.

 

[1ke]

But never telling anyone that ABC is wrong, even those who admit to him that they are using it, is equally disastrous from a pastoral point of view.

Yes, I agree it’s a sin of omisson. However, you can’t report what someone DIDN’T say. You can report things they actually said or did.

I’m specifically talking about the OPs situation where they are being told to stand up and say something contradicting the deposit of faith.

 

[joeybaggz]

“Having said that, I think there’d be very few Catholics who aren’t aware of Humanae Vitae at least. And they need to be told the truth about it, which is that although it wasn’t expressed as an ex-Cathedra pronouncement, it nonetheless IS an infallible exercise of the Magisterium and thus binding.”

Have all the bishop’s ever spoken in one voice concerning the condemnation of ABC?

If Paul VI didn’t speak ‘ex cathedra’, and if the bishops have never spoken in one voice re ABC, is the Church’s teaching on ABC, infallible?

 

[mlchance]

If Paul VI didn’t speak ‘ex cathedra’, and if the bishops have never spoken in one voice re ABC, is the Church’s teaching on ABC, infallible?

Yes. It has been the constant teaching of the Church that ABC is wrong. This hasn’t changed. What has changed is the way the doctrine has been articulated. Consider Paul VI’s HV. Even if Paul VI’s expression of the Church’s constant stand against ABC doesn’t pass whatever sort of philosophical test, it doesn’t follow that the Church’s stance against ABC is wrong.

Doctrine doesn’t change. It develops, which means that the way in which that doctrine is explained and expressed changes. For another example, consider the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence. The Church has always taught the truth of the Real Presence, but the Church has not always used the term “transsubstantiation” to do so. Did the introduction of this new term change the Church’s teaching? Nope, it merely expanded the Church’s vocabulary.

The same thing has happened with any authentic development in Church doctrine.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[LilyM]

“Having said that, I think there’d be very few Catholics who aren’t aware of Humanae Vitae at least. And they need to be told the truth about it, which is that although it wasn’t expressed as an ex-Cathedra pronouncement, it nonetheless IS an infallible exercise of the Magisterium and thus binding.”

Have all the bishop’s ever spoken in one voice concerning the condemnation of ABC?

If Paul VI didn’t speak ‘ex cathedra’, and if the bishops have never spoken in one voice re ABC, is the Church’s teaching on ABC, infallible?

The Pope doesn’t need to expressly say he’s speaking ‘ex Cathedra’ for his teaching to actually BE ex-Cathedra.

To be so, his teaching needs to fit the following conditions (From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Infallibility here - newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm :

"The infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. "

So while Humanae Vitae wasn’t expressly declared as ex cathedra, it does nonetheless seem to fit the criteria.

 

[StCsDavid]

The director of the marriage preparation program where I work with engaged couples was adamant yesterday that we instruct couples that they and their pastor have the final say in forming their conscience about using ABC or not. She prefaced her comments by stating that most engaged couples are likely already sexual active and using ABC, that she knows that most Catholic married couples, including her numerous siblings, all use ABC in their marriages. She made the repeated assertion that the Church teaching against ABC “That is the ideal, but …”.

Is it true that after an individual or couple consult a clergy and receive tacit “pastoral counsel” to use ABC in their personal situation that this completes what a couple is responsible to do in forming their conscience? That it is not a sin to use ABC?

Sounds like this instructor is a slave to moral relativism. She needs to be corrected. I touched on this topic on my blog a few weeks ago. You can read about the Natural Law and the CIA here.

 

[joeybaggz]

The Pope doesn’t need to expressly say he’s speaking ‘ex Cathedra’ for his teaching to actually BE ex-Cathedra.

To be so, his teaching needs to fit the following conditions (From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Infallibility here - newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm :

"The infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church’s in order to be infallible.
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. "

So while Humanae Vitae wasn’t expressly declared as ex cathedra, it does nonetheless seem to fit the criteria.

“It must be clear that he speaks as head of the Church universal”
That’s a very loose condition that opens itself up to interpretation.
Was JPII speaking as head of the church universal in his condemnation of US action in Iraq, both times. Some say yes, some no. Which was it?

Reading this post it seems that one could argue that the only time a Pope does not speak infallibly is when he’s talking soccer scores at breakfast? I don’t mean to be facetious, but if you follow the last two popes, much of what they said would fall under a such a broad definition of infallibility.

Painting with such a broad brush presents problems. Unless we don’t consider infallibility something that has existed in the Church from the beginning. That infallibility, as our Protestant critics say, is an invention of the last couple of centuries.

Read what was just said, "A pope doesn’t need to expressly declare that he is speaking ‘ex cathedra’ for his teaching to actually be Ex Cathedra. This sounds a little like Bill Clinton defending himself by saying “it depends on how you defend the word - is”

The doctrine of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are “Ex Cathedra.” OK, no problem. But didn’t popes make past pronouncements about such people and things such as Galileo, scientific discovery, slavery, John Hus, Savanarola, the Inquisition, Joan of Arc, the Crusades, just war, etc. etc. And lets not go back to the pronouncement of the popes of the Dark Ages. I respectfully disagree about Humanae Vitae being on a par with the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception when it comes to Ex Cathedra. Heck, when it was promulgated, it was said that half the bishops of the church were for ABC. That Paul VI went against the grain.

Are all encyclicals infallible Ex Cathedra pronouncements? After all, they are all disseminated as authentic teaching of the head of the universal church. Do we want to go back through history and examine every pronouncement of every pope? Sorry, don’t think that would be wise. If your argument is right, I think if we go back in history and apply your position, we’ll find pronouncements by past popes which would pass your muster. Only problem is that those pronouncements were reversed or done away with by later popes.

Personally, I agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church. ALL THE TEACHING. And, I agree with Humanae Vitae, I believe it is the proper moral position and Paul VI was, and is,right. I just have a problem with your elevation of it to the same status as formal Ex Cathedra pronouncements.

Respectfully

 

[setter]

Thank you all for your responses and clarifying my question for me.

I will not be reporting my boss just yet to her boss, because I have had personal encounter and know precisely that her boss would very much would support her more “liberal” stance in relation to Church teaching, particularly regarding contraception. It is a bit intimidating that her boss is the Moderator of the Curia for the diocese. I want to retain my job and relative position of influence from within to see if I can dispel the darkness of her moral relativity compass – thanks StCsDavid and LilyM for your useful links.

In follow up to our meeting yesterday, I gave my boss two pieces – a CD talk by Fr. Thomas Loya “Healthy Sexuality” in which he overviews JP II’s Theology of the Body and a USCCB publication “Married Love and the Gift of Life” booklet – that I use with the engaged couples I work with, for her to review. She took them and I invited her feedback and further discussion. I am praying that she keeps an open mind as she is in her early 60’s and seems set in her ideas.
Besides the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I strongly suspect that in my boss’s take is lacking in a “pastoral” understanding (she uses the term “pastoral approach” alot when we discuss folks whose understanding and behavior contradicts Church teaching), is there any other authoritative writings that explain the relationship between that primacy of an individual’s conscience (and clergy consultant) when it contradicts Church teaching in matters of faith and morals? – as this seems to be the basis of her argument.