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

[LilyM]

“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

What on earth are you going on about?

The Pope says things all the time that are directed to a particular part of the faithful - maybe the Bishops of a particular country or region for instance. Like his recent rescinding of the indult for EMsHC to purify the sacred vessels, which indult I believe was only granted in a few countries such as the US.

Or else meant only for a particular time - one example being His Holiness’ address for Lent 2008, which clearly isn’t meant to be binding at all times and but rather is about one specific time period.

Or else he makes remarks on disciplinary matters which also may or may not be infallible. Last year’s Motu Proprio on the TLM, for example. Being an exhortation to his Bishops, and permission to priests and faithful, to increase provision of a particular form of the Mass (which is a discipline), it also is not infallible teaching, and he would be within his rights to turn around tomorrow if he was so moved and take the whole thing back. Unlike Humanae Vitae.

So again, as to whether a Papal Encyclical is infallible teaching (and some are - you’d find few arguing that JP2s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis regarding ordination of women ISN’T infallible) you have to look and see how closely it meets ALL the criteria.

And if Jesus gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the primary teaching authority in the Church AND the utmost power to bind and loose heaven then why wouldn’t a lot (though not all, and not a majority) of what His Holiness says be indeed infallible teaching? Isn’t that the Pope’s role?

 

[PaulinVA]

Thank you all for your responses and clarifying my question for me.
I am praying that she keeps an open mind as she is in her early 60’s and seems set in her ideas.

Yep, not surprising. A whole generation of Catholics talked themselves (with the collusion of liberal priests) into believing that using ABC was a matter of conscience.

If I remember correctly, for a VERY short period of time in the 60s, between when the the Pope’s commission studying birth control released their report in favor of ABC and the Pope rejected it’s findings, the informal teaching was that you could use your conscience since the question was in a state of flux. After the Pope reiterated that ABC was always wrong, that removed any “conscience clause” from formal and informal teaching. Someone who knows more about the Church in the sixties (I was a kid then) could hopefully elaborate on that.

That, I believe, is what makes people think there’s a “conscience clause”. They are wrong. There is none. However, people of that generation and the people they have infected continue to think that it is Church teaching, when it is not.

 

[Newbie2]

In response to the OP, would it be possible to find a priest that is supportive of ABC? Answer is yes, of course. If the answer to the title question is yes, then it’s just a matter of finding a priest who will tell one what one wants to hear, right?

 

[rwoehmke]

I have not read HV for a long time, but as a recall there was some language that Paul VI understood that some married couples would have difficulty living up to the standard of no ABC and he encouraged them, even though they might fall. to keep up the struggle to follow the teaching and to make use of the sacraments of Eucharist and Reconciliation. As I recall the Canadian Bishops were not very supportive, but most U.S. Bishops eventually fell into line. Obviously more than 60 percent of married couples in the U.S. did not. In any case it sounds like the pill, the patch, and depo are proving to be a very mixed “blessing” and barrier methods have a fairly high failure rate. The newer knowledge of the NFP methodology, as opposed to the rhythm of the 40’s, seems to be proving quite effective and even many non-catholic couples prefer it. I don’t think that preference extends to the college age and younger crowd who are “hooking up.”

 

[larry85704]

Hello

Birth control is such a simple topic right? Just like being pro-life.

Tell you what I see. I see that the Church’s position on birth control and it’s pro-life position has, among other things, made the teaching authority of the Church not effective. If you look at the statistics, the percentage of Catholics that use a method of birth control fully approved by the Church is so small that it is virtually insignificant. It is a joke. Now birth control and being pro-life are connected. I hope you all can see that.

As a Church we must be pro-life, ETERNAL life, not necessarily life here. Most of the Catholics I know will tell me about people who are kept on this earth longer than they should of been. Most Catholics I know don’t talk much about death. But there are always people that will say that a person should be kept alive as not as medically possible and hope for a miracle. I feel so sorry for you and the people that you might influence that may someday be terminally ill.

Our Catholic tradition is pro-sex, pro-baby and pro-marriage. God gave most of us a strong desire to have sex and He gave us marriage as the way to have sex. Babies are the natural result. My wife and I could easily have 1 baby every 20 months. So, lets see, that is about 20 babies (not counting twins). So, when I see couples that generally have 2 to 4 kids I’d assume they are having sex but are not having babies, I hope so anyway.

There are Catholics that, at one time, were not pro-marriage. They wanted sex and maybe babies, but not marriage. Now that they got religion they are like a sober alcoholic. Hide the booze. Know what I mean? That is not exactly right, is it?

People in the Church that teach that the pill is ok are trying to restore the Church. I know this a very conservative web site and so many people will take great offense to what I say. But in the Church there are the liberals, the conservatives and the middle of the road folks. You need to keep in mind that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, all of the Church. If the brain is supposed to be the leaders of the Church, fine. But the brain cannot make gray hair brown, or a fat person skinny. If you wanted a skinny Church and you think it is fat, tough. God wants it fat.

It is sure easy for us to point out the sins of others, to say this is sinful, or that. Jesus is pretty emphatic about not doing that. Why should I care what you say when you point out the sin of your brother in such a public way?

You need to love the Catholic Church in its imperfection and rejoice in it just the way it is because that is the way God loves you. Oh, the Catholic Church is all those people that do all those sins you folks don’t like so much. If you are so good, so perfect, then guess what? Jesus did not die for YOU…

 

[PaulinVA]

Larry, I read your post four times and I still don’t know what you are trying to say in relation to couples thinking that using ABC is okay.

 

[Janet_S]

.
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.

You should read these articles:

“The Inconvenient Conscience”
by George Cardinal Pell
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=195

“Forming a Catholic Conscience”
by Fr Thomas Morrow
catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/april96/page30.html

As far as authoritative writings about conscience, you should read JPII’s Veritatis Splendor, sections #54 through #61:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

You should also read the Vatican II document, *Lumen Gentium *#25:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.

No exceptions for conscience there!

The point is, the “conscience excuse clause” used by Catholic dissenters is a distortion of authentic Church teaching, and, as Cardinal Pell pointed out, it is used almost exclusively for the purpose of trying to justify sins of a sexual nature.

Also, just because we follow our consciences doesn’t mean we are immune from the guilt of mortal sin. The Catechism says in section #1791, that we are each responsible for forming our consciences, and if we take little trouble to find out what is true and good, or if our conscience is blinded through the habit of committing sin, we are still culpable for the evil we commit when we follow an erroneous conscience.

 

[Janet_S]

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.

I think that’s a great idea.

We need to counsel and pray for our “cafeteria” Catholic brothers and sisters. Many of them were led astray by dissenting priests and theologians.

It’s good that you are pointing out to your boss the positive reasons behind the Church’s teachings. The Church teaches us the truth about the evil nature of ABC not because it is trying to deny us a good time, but because God has something much better planned for us.

After 40+ years of living with the rotten fruit of the widespread use of contraceptives, more people will begin to listen to what the Church has to say. I can see that happening already among the people I know.

 

[setter]

You should read these articles:

“The Inconvenient Conscience”
by George Cardinal Pell
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=195

“Forming a Catholic Conscience”
by Fr Thomas Morrow
catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/april96/page30.html

As far as authoritative writings about conscience, you should read JPII’s Veritatis Splendor, sections #54 through #61:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

You should also read the Vatican II document, *Lumen Gentium *#25:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

No exceptions for conscience there!

The point is, the “conscience excuse clause” used by Catholic dissenters is a distortion of authentic Church teaching, and, as Cardinal Pell pointed out, it is used almost exclusively for the purpose of trying to justify sins of a sexual nature.

Also, just because we follow our consciences doesn’t mean we are immune from the guilt of mortal sin. The Catechism says in section #1791, that we are each responsible for forming our consciences, and if we take little trouble to find out what is true and good, or if our conscience is blinded through the habit of committing sin, we are still culpable for the evil we commit when we follow an erroneous conscience.

Thank you for the resource links and clarification …this is what I am looking for to present/reference if our dialogue progresses further.

 

[setter]

It’s good that you are pointing out to your boss the positive reasons behind the Church’s teachings. The Church teaches us the truth about the evil nature of ABC not because it is trying to deny us a good time, but because God has something much better planned for us.

Exactly.

After 40+ years of living with the rotten fruit of the widespread use of contraceptives, more people will begin to listen to what the Church has to say. I can see that happening already among the people I know.

Thanks for the encouragement.

 

[Janet_S]

To setter:

In my previous post, I listed Veritatis Splendor #54 through #61 as a reference about conscience. I goofed–it is actually #54 through #64 (it doesn’t stop at #61.) Though, if you have time, you should read the whole encyclical–it’s about 80 printed pages.

Another authoritative source about the Church’s teaching on birth control is the Vatican II document *Gaudium et Spes *#51 and #87 which predates Humanae Vitae.

Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, 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)

All should be persuaded that human life and the task of transmitting it are not realities bound up with this world alone. Hence they cannot be measured or perceived only in terms of it, but always have a bearing on the eternal destiny of men.

If you want to listen to a talk about conscience, and how the modern view of “primacy of conscience” got started, you can download (for free) Dr.Wm.A.Marra’s lecture, “How absolute is Conscience,” parts 1 through 3, from this site. This is one of my favorites, and I have listened to it several times.
proecclesia.com/page_free%20talks.htm

Another website that may be helpful for you with your marriage preparation class is the Alexander House.
thealexanderhouse.org/about.htm

There are lots of resources out there, and I could go on and on.

I, too, am very interested in the Church’s teaching on conscience. The Church does teach that we have consciences, that we must form them according to moral truth, and that we have the duty to follow them. However, our consciences must be in line with objective reality. If they are not; if they are erroneous and we act in line with them anyway, we still, in most cases, will be culpable for the sins we commit. Those teachers, priests, and theologians who advise people to ignore the Church, and to follow their erroneous consciences are leading many Catholics astray and will have a lot to answer for before God some day.

You might not be able to do much to convince your boss or your pastor, but I’m sure that you’ll be able to reach some of the people in your marriage preparation class about the beauty and truth of the Church’s teachings on marriage and family. Don’t be afraid to tell the good news.

Also, are there any physicians or nurse practitioners in your area who teach NFP?

 

[setter]

To setter:

In my previous post, I listed Veritatis Splendor #54 through #61 as a reference about conscience. I goofed–it is actually #54 through #64 (it doesn’t stop at #61.) Though, if you have time, you should read the whole encyclical–it’s about 80 printed pages.

Another authoritative source about the Church’s teaching on birth control is the Vatican II document *Gaudium et Spes *#51 and #87 which predates Humanae Vitae.

If you want to listen to a talk about conscience, and how the modern view of “primacy of conscience” got started, you can download (for free) Dr.Wm.A.Marra’s lecture, “How absolute is Conscience,” parts 1 through 3, from this site. This is one of my favorites, and I have listened to it several times.
proecclesia.com/page_free%20talks.htm

Another website that may be helpful for you with your marriage preparation class is the Alexander House.
thealexanderhouse.org/about.htm

There are lots of resources out there, and I could go on and on.

Thank you for directing me to and loading me up with resources – then if push comes to shove rhetorically, it is not just my personal opinion or interpretation that I am presenting …which I have noticed that the liberal slanting folks default to making such an accusation when they run out of argument.

Those teachers, priests, and theologians who advise people to ignore the Church, and to follow their erroneous consciences are leading many Catholics astray and will have a lot to answer for before God some day.

This is a sober reality that they seem to have discarded in their rejection of or blindness to truth.

You might not be able to do much to convince your boss or your pastor, but I’m sure that you’ll be able to reach some of the people in your marriage preparation class about the beauty and truth of the Church’s teachings on marriage and family. Don’t be afraid to tell the good news.

Not a problem for me …when I meet with engaged couples alone, they get the full gospel package in relevent and entertaining terms …got to keep it somewhat light and sincerely befriend them, akin to the lost sheep who don’t always know any better, so as they will be more open to considering the truth and “whys” of what the Church teaches.

Also, are there any physicians or nurse practitioners in your area who teach NFP?

Our diocese has a very solid and faithful NFP office of ministry that I utilize as a resource. The thing is, at the diocesan and parish level, it is a mixed bag, with more often the pressure being to keep the marriage preparation process “positive” otherwise you risk scaring the couples away and worst impugning guilt. The result is that the touchy areas of cohabitation, chastity before marriage, weekly Mass attendance and Penance as integral component of preparation, …are glossed over or presented generically …despite that many of these engaged couples have been away from the Church and are living in a manner below their dignity in Christ.

 

[Janet_S]

. . . it is not just my personal opinion or interpretation that I am presenting …which I have noticed that the liberal slanting folks default to making such an accusation when they run out of argument.

It doesn’t make much sense, does it. I’m sure your boss and pastor are aware of what the Church teaches, but when you try to educate people according to authentic Church teachings, you are “being judgmental” or giving “only one of many opinions of Catholic teaching.” The inconsistency of their position is not surprising, though, since at the root of bad theology is bad philosophy.

I wonder who they think this teaching (against ABC) should be directed to? Should it be directed to only those people who come to marriage preparation already convinced ABC is intrinsically evil? Don’t they realize that most of us who enthusiastically support the Church’s teaching against ABC support it because someone took the time to explain to us the reasons behind it? Don’t they see that all couples preparing for marriage deserve the same explanation of authentic Church teaching?

Do any of these moral dissenting theologians, priests, and DRE’s still believe in the necessity of conversion? It sure doesn’t seem like it. They should consider Paul’s warning: Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.–Romans 12:2

Too many people in the Church are conforming themselves to this age and not renewing their minds in truth. I thank God for the good, loyal Catholics who challenged me to conversion. If it weren’t for them, I would probably be in the same boat as your boss–rebelling against the Church and trying to have it my way.

 

[Brother_John]

The act of contraception is intrinsically wrong.

“Artificial Contraception”, or just “Contraception” ???

 

[fix]

“Artificial Contraception”, or just “Contraception” ???

The act of contraception is a sin. Contraception means against life or against the beginning. NFP is not contraception. Hope that helps explain my quote.

This is from HV:

… We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. …

 

[Brother_John]

The act of contraception is a sin. Contraception means against life or against tthe beginning. NFP is not contraception. Hope that helps explain my quote.

My question was a tad tongue-in-cheek. I’m well aware what the Church teaches.

But, I’ve always wondered, what’s the difference between using a pill or condom, vs a thermometer or a calendar? Either is a method of enjoying the marital act while trying to avoid pregnancy…besides the fact that the Church declares itself not to be inconsistient

 

[fix]

My question was a tad tongue-in-cheek. I’m well aware what the Church teaches.

But, I’ve always wondered, what’s the difference between using a pill or condom, vs a thermometer or a calendar? Either is a method of enjoying the marital act while trying to avoid pregnancy…besides the fact that the Church declares itself not to be inconsistient

I only quoted a portion of HV. The rest explains more.

Do you not see a moral difference between not having sex and engaging in sex while altering the very nature of the act?

 

[Brother_John]

I only quoted a portion of HV. The rest explains more.

Do you not see a moral difference between not having sex and engaging in sex while altering the very nature of the act?

I realize and understand the Church teaching.

But to me, if you’re trying to have sex using any manner that reduces the likelihood of pregnancy…it’s kinda like saying “gosh dang it”, when everyone knows what you really mean.

 

[1ke]

My question was a tad tongue-in-cheek. I’m well aware what the Church teaches.

But, I’ve always wondered, what’s the difference between using a pill or condom, vs a thermometer or a calendar? Either is a method of enjoying the marital act while trying to avoid pregnancy…besides the fact that the Church declares itself not to be inconsistient

The Church does not teach it is intrinsically wrong to avoid a pregnancy for a time or indefinitely. You are confusing the Church’s teachings. The Church doesn’t teach that birth control is wrong. She teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control. NFP is not.

 

[Brother_John]

The Church doesn’t teach that birth control is wrong.

You might check this one out again.