Catholic Contraceptive Believers - Outside the Church?

[sainthumbert]

Are those you believe that using contraceptives is not morally evil outside the Church? I am referring to people who claim that they are Catholic but also believe that using contraceptives is morally permissable and state so in public. For example, they say, “I am Catholic but I don’t accept the Church’s teaching on contraceptives.” Or, “I am Catholic but I think it is morally acceptable to use contraceptives.” Whether or not they actually use the contraceptives is irrelevant to my question. I already know that one can commit a grave sin but still be inside the Church (though turned away from God’s grace). I am looking for excerpts from encycicals, bulls, council documents, cannon law, etc, not just your opinion.

My own thinking is that these people would be considered heretics due to their public statements regarding disbelief of a Catholic doctrine. As such (heretics), they would be excommunicated latae sententia and would therefore be outside the Church. Am I wrong?

 

[DavidFilmer]

CCC 2089: Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

So this is the real question: Does Humanae Vitae require “belief with divine and catholic faith?” I believe that Papal encyclicals require only “religious assent” (CCC 892, LG 25). This is a lower standard of belief, and denial of it does not constitute heresy.

Thus, I believe that these people are guilty of incredulity, not heresy.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

I think this is a complicated matter, and, as far as I can see, the Church authorities have never really cleared up all the confusion on this matter.

And, to me, it is key to remember that it was the Popes, Cardinals and other Bishops THEMSELVES who called into question the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control when, in 1963 they formed the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control which was given the charge to study the new pharmaceutical birth control pills to see if they should be viewed as moral by the Catholic Church.

If there was no question and no doubt about the sinfulness of birth control pills, why form a Pontifical Commission to study the question? I see no way of avoid this logical question.

This Commission, which consisted of the Church’s leading expert in theology and science, issued a report in 1966 which recommended that birth control pills be viewed as moral by the Church.

It is true that Pope Paul VI then rejected that commission’s conclusion. Yet, the legacy of this process is that Catholics have always been able to see that even at the highest levels of the Church, in the Vatican, there was seriously divergent points of view and disagreement about this matter.

As far as I can see, based on people I know, in the USA, about 97% of weekly mass-attending married Catholics use contraceptives regularly and feel no guilt about it.

 

[davidv]

I think this is a complicated matter, and, as far as I can see, the Church authorities have never really cleared up all the confusion on this matter.

And, to me, it is key to remember that it was the Popes, Cardinals and other Bishops THEMSELVES who called into question the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control when, in 1963 they formed the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control which was given the charge to study the new pharmaceutical birth control pills to see if they should be viewed as moral by the Catholic Church.

If there was no question and no doubt about the sinfulness of birth control pills, why form a Pontifical Commission to study the question? I see no way of avoid this logical question.

This Commission, which consisted of the Church’s leading expert in theology and science, issued a report in 1966 which recommended that birth control pills be viewed as moral by the Church.

It is true that Pope Paul VI then rejected that commission’s conclusion. Yet, the legacy of this process is that Catholics have always been able to see that even at the highest levels of the Church, in the Vatican, there was seriously divergent points of view and disagreement about this matter.

As far as I can see, based on people I know, in the USA, about 97% of weekly mass-attending married Catholics use contraceptives regularly and feel no guilt about it.

Fortunately, majority rule does not determine morality. It seems to me that some people are imposing motives for the appointment of the commission that did not exist. As evidenced by the Arian heresy, whether there is “seriously divergent points of view and disagreement” or not, truth wins, and is the official teaching of the Church. All this proves is that individuals will go to great lengths to excuse their sinful behavior.

 

[L_piperatus]

So this is the real question: Does Humanae Vitae require “belief with divine and catholic faith?” I believe that Papal encyclicals require only “religious assent” (CCC 892, LG 25). This is a lower standard of belief, and denial of it does not constitute heresy.

Thus, I believe that these people are guilty of incredulity, not heresy.

It seems to me the teaching on contraception is part of the Magisterium - isn’t that higher level than an Encyclical?

Contraception was condemned by the Didache (the twelve apostles’ “catechism” in the late 1st century), by the Early Church Fathers, Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii (1930), Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (1968), and the Catechism published under Pope John Paul II.

I’ve read somewhere that Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae appealed not to his own papal infallibility, but to the infallibility of the constant teaching of the Church throughout its history (which, in other words, is the Church’s teaching Magisterium??), as the source of authority for reiterating the Church’s ban on contraception.

 

[L_piperatus]

I think this is a complicated matter, and, as far as I can see, the Church authorities have never really cleared up all the confusion on this matter.

And, to me, it is key to remember that it was the Popes, Cardinals and other Bishops THEMSELVES who called into question the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control when, in 1963 they formed the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control which was given the charge to study the new pharmaceutical birth control pills to see if they should be viewed as moral by the Catholic Church.

While estrogen-progestogen pills were new in the 1960s, contraception itself is as old as humanity. Plants and plant extracts that had to be taken orally (just like the pill), intravaginal chemicals and barriers, surgical sterilization, etc. have been around in ancient Egypt and Greece, before Christ’s time. Since the sin of contraception was so widespread throughout history, the Church condemned it multiple times, e.g. the Didache around the year 80-90 A.D. (some 50 years after Christ), various Early Church Fathers between the 2nd and 8th centuries, and so on. The issue was always regarded as settled and non-controversial up until the 20th century. Pope Paul VI simply reminded us in his encyclical that contraception was regarded as sinful and was banned throughout the Church’s history, and that it remains sinful and remains banned.

“it was the Popes, Cardinals and other Bishops THEMSELVES who called into question the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control” - No, this is not correct. While there were Bishops who called it into question, no Pope has ever called it into question, and that’s important.

 

[DavidFilmer]

It seems to me the teaching on contraception is part of the Magisterium - isn’t that higher level than an Encyclical?

There are multiple levels of the Magesterium, with differing degrees of assent. The Pope is a teacher of the Ordinary Magesterium - all Papal teachings fall under this category. Humanae Vitae is an exercise of the Ordinary Magesterium, which requires religious assent, but not full assent of faith. (religious assent is like saying, “well, I accept your authority, so I will take your word for it.”)

There are three levels of Magesterium which require full assent of faith (these would be considered acts of the Universal Magesterium, and are regarded as infallible, and teaching against them is considered heresy).

The highest level of Magesterium is the Pope teaching ex cathedra. Some people get out their Vatican I checklists and conclude that Humanae Vitae is promulgated at this level. However, the only way we know for sure is if the Church tells us so, and the Church has never done so. The very fact that it was promulgated as an encyclical (and not an Apostolic Constitution) calls this idea into doubt.

Obviously this is not an Ecumenical Council (the second-highest), so scratch that one. A Council is not automatically infallible, though it can teach in this manner.

The third is when the Bishops (worldwide) definitively propose to teach a particular doctrine while dispersed but acting in unison, in full union with the Pope. This is kinda like an Ecumenical Council where everyone works from home.

Obviously Humanae Vitae does not fall under this third category. Some claim that the essential teaching on birth control has been taught in this manner (and this seems to be the essence of your question). Until the Church either confirms or denies this speculation, it remains only personal opinion.

The question is surely not settled with enough certainty to go around calling people heretics.

 

[sainthumbert]

Thanks everyone for the comments so far, with the exception of Bartolome whose response was completely asinine. Bartolome, your personal observation that 97% of mass going Catholics regularly use contraceptives is worthless. I think the other comments adequately describe why your comment about the commission is asinine.

For the others, here are the relevant excerpts:

Humanae Vitae
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. 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.

Casti Connubii
Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

These excerpts seem more than a casual statement. One says that the Magisterium has already confirmed the teaching and another goes into all of the strong language used when making a doctrinal statement.

 

[DavidFilmer]

These excerpts seem more than a casual statement. One says that the Magisterium has already confirmed the teaching and another goes into all of the strong language used when making a doctrinal statement.

It is clearly and obviously a teaching of the Magesterium. Nobody questions that. And there is nothing casual about it.

But we are not asking if the teaching is casual or serious. The question is: Is it a teaching of the Universal Magesterium? That’s different than the Ordinary Magesterium, and requires a different level of assent.

It’s possible to make an argument that this teaching is promulgated by the Universal Magesterium, and it is possible to argue otherwise (and such arguments have appeared in these forums many times). There is no general consensus on this, and only the Church can say for sure.

Only dissent from Universal Magesterial teachings constitutes heresy. Dissent from the teaching of the Ordinary Magesterium constitutes only incredulity (still sinful, but it does not get you latae sententia excommunicated).

You asked if people who dissented from the Magesterium’s teaching on artificial birth control were heretics. I believe there is insufficient evidence to definitively assert that this teaching has been promulgated by the Universal Magesterium, and thus these people deserve the benefit of the doubt.

If the Church clarifies the authoritative status of this teaching to clearly establish that it is de Fide, then anyone who persists in refusing assent becomes a heretic. But whether this teaching is, or is not, de Fide is not for you or I to decide. This authority is the sole purview of the Church, and (so far) the Church has not exercised it. Thus, there is no justification within Christian charity to accuse anybody of heresy for dissent over a teaching whose relative authority is not definitively established.

 

[Abu]

DavidFilmer #2
Does Humanae Vitae require “belief with divine and catholic faith?” I believe that Papal encyclicals require only “religious assent” (CCC 892, LG 25). This is a lower standard of belief, and denial of it does not constitute heresy.

The second category of doctrine defined by Bl John Paul II has been neglected. This is the category of infallible doctrine to which the papal definitive condemnations, in *Casti Connubii *and Humanae Vitae against contraception, belong.

Sainthumbert #8
Thanks everyone for the comments so far, with the exception of Bartolome whose response was completely asinine.

Bartolome is very confused and imposes his confusion on numerous threads.

What needs assent is the clear development of doctrine by Bl John Paul II. Bl John Paul II issued *Ad Tuendam Fidem *in 1998 to clarify the three levels of teaching and express the development in Canon Law.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires

1. The assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (Canon #750.1)
2. A category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility including the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.
3. The category 3 truths are non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.

The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
**3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. **
Thus the third paragraph of ATF states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8) and canon 599 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.(9)

Vatican II, reiterated the teaching of Vatican I on papal infallibility, and its documents are readily available [from the EWTN Library (http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp) or the Vatican Library] for anyone with the will to know what Christ’s Church is teaching, like most of the documents of Vatican I, and the papal documents before and since Vatican II. Anything worth doing, is worth doing well, and I would add if worth knowing, is worth knowing well. Two papal dogmas are infallible – The dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

The doctrine against contraception in *Casti Connubii *and in *Humanae Vitae *is proposed definitively to be firmly embraced and held (Canon 750.2) and thus is infallibly defined.

 

[sainthumbert]

Thank you DavidFilmer for your most excellent responses. I appreciate reading your well constructed, logical analysis.

I hope I don’t try your patience, but I do have one more excerpt from Gaudium Et Spes to present. As I understand it, since it is from Vatican II, an Ecumenical Council, it would qualify as a teaching of the Universal Magisterium.

Gaudium Et Spes
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.

The teaching authority of the Church for 2000 years has condemned contraceptives. Therefore, could one say that based on Vatican II teachings (teachings of the Universal Magisterium), anyone who alleges that the use of contraceptives is morally acceptable is in heresy (dissenting from a teaching of the Universal Magisterium)?

 

[Abu]

Bl JPII has been clear in Ad Tuendam Fidem:
Canon 750 – § 1. “Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.”

§ 2. “Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.”

Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.” (A dogma).

So it is not heresy to doubt or deny the doctrine against contraception, but it is dissent and as Bl JPII has confirmed:

Donum Veritatis (Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, CDF), 1990, completely rules out all dissent:
“32. The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation Paterna cum benevolentia [1974], Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos. In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called “dissent”, which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above. The phenomenon of dissent can have diverse forms. Its remote and proximate causes are multiple.”
#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

 

[DavidFilmer]

I do have one more excerpt from Gaudium Et Spes to present. As I understand it, since it is from Vatican II, an Ecumenical Council, it would qualify as a teaching of the Universal Magisterium.

That’s a good quote!

But detractors would point out that this is a resolution of an Ecumenical Council, which is not automatically deemed infallible (as I was careful to clarify in my #7 post). A Council may teach infallibly, just as a Pope *may *teach infallibly. But, just as Popes often teach in a non-infallible manner, a Council may also teach in a non-infallible manner.

Some Ecumenical Councils taught nothing that could even remotely be considered infallible doctrine. Perhaps the most obvious example is Council of Vienne (the 15th Ecumenical Council; 1311-1312), which disbanded the Knights Templar and (at the last minute) endowed a few university Chairs. Big whoop.

The Second Lateran Council prohibited nuns and monks from singing together in choir.

The Third Lateran Council prohibited Christians from working for Jews.

Clearly, not everything that a Council says could be considered infallible Doctrine. Councils are an extraordinary (ie, not ordinary) exercise of Papal authority. Like Popes, Councils promulgate Doctrine, edicts, and rules, and there are varying degrees of assent required.

There has been considerable debate (including a recent discussion on this forum) whether Vatican II (though an Ecumenical Council) promulgated any Doctrine whatsoever in a de Fide manner. Some argue that the Church has actually disowned the idea that V2 was infallible (by claiming that the Council was “pastoral,” not “doctrinal”). Others argue that V2 promulgated nothing that a mere provincial council of Bishops could not promulgate (and a council of Bishops is an exercise of the Ordinary Magesterium and is not considered de Fide).

As I have maintained, there are valid arguments on both sides of the doctrinal question. It is my opinion that the teaching against artificial birth control is doctrine, but not Doctrine (the latter being formally recognized by the Church). But, until the Church definitively establishes that this is a De Fide teaching, I will not label dissenters as heretics.

 

[ValPal]

Are those you believe that using contraceptives is not morally evil outside the Church? I am referring to people who claim that they are Catholic but also believe that using contraceptives is morally permissable and state so in public. For example, they say, “I am Catholic but I don’t accept the Church’s teaching on contraceptives.” Or, “I am Catholic but I think it is morally acceptable to use contraceptives.” Whether or not they actually use the contraceptives is irrelevant to my question. I already know that one can commit a grave sin but still be inside the Church (though turned away from God’s grace). I am looking for excerpts from encycicals, bulls, council documents, cannon law, etc, not just your opinion.

I believe there are two issues that need to be addressed. There are a large number of Catholics, at least in the U.S., that have no clue that contraception is immoral. I’ve never heard this issue addressed at a mass or pre-Cana. These people may come forth and support contraception, but they are not guilty of mortal sin since they are not aware what they are doing is wrong. This is different from the situation where a Catholic knows something is wrong and willfully and publicly defies the Church. I’ll leave that issue to be addressed by others.

Interestingly enough, the contraceptive coverage issue in the U.S. is bringing the Church’s position to the forefront, and may educate people on the issue that weren’t educated before.

 

[mark_a]

This Commission, which consisted of the Church’s leading expert in theology and science, issued a report in 1966 which recommended that birth control pills be viewed as moral by the Church.

I’ve often wondered, was it just pills?? Could it be that the pill created a technicality loophole for Onanism? Why not sterilization?

It is true that Pope Paul VI then rejected that commission’s conclusion. Yet, the legacy of this process is that Catholics have always been able to see that even at the highest levels of the Church, in the Vatican, there was seriously divergent points of view and disagreement about this matter.

You are correct. But when (maybe) a majority of leadership favored contraception, good ol’ Catholic infallibility stepped in and squashed that notion. 1950 years of Church teaching was upheld.

As far as I can see, based on people I know, in the USA, about 97% of weekly mass-attending married Catholics use contraceptives regularly and feel no guilt about it.

Even the 50, 60, 70, and 80 year olds? Like the rest of the contracepting world, the contracepting Catholics are an aging bunch and I think your 97% figure is at best, secularly culturally skewed.

 

[StevenFrancis]

My own thinking is that these people would be considered heretics due to their public statements regarding disbelief of a Catholic doctrine. As such (heretics), they would be excommunicated latae sententia and would therefore be outside the Church. Am I wrong?

I’ll have to look through some canon law about the excommunication, but, yes, it is at least a heretical way of thinking, no different than Catholics deciding that in “their opinion” abortion is okay, or homosexual marriage, or the inevitable nature of fornication among our youth and single persons.

I am working very hard at shedding personal opinion in an exercise of humility, and subjection to the Church on faith and morals. I found personal opinion of mortal sin to be of very little use in my life, and also to be a temptation to judgement of others. There are a great deal of Catholics out and about who have strong opinions which are formed by the culture rather than the Church, and they have decided to allow themselves the extraordinarily presumptuous and dangerous luxury of placing themselves in the Chair of St. Peter, without benefit of election by the college of Cardinals, and placing their own ill formed, badly cathecised ideas above those of the Bishops, Doctors, Apostles, and Saints of the Church, and often ahead of those ideas taught by our blessed Lord Himself. I have been among this crew, and but for the grace of God, would still have that inclination.

According to the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, and waiting as the bride of Christ, (not to mention Jesus, St. Paul, the balance of the Apostles, and Saints, Doctors, Martyrs and Bishops of The Church, the practice of fornication, (sexual union between unmarried persons), is sinful in to a mortal degree, bringing about a break in the integrity of one’s relationship with God. If unrepented of before death, it could therefore lead to the loss of one’s soul to the unquenchable fire, for eternity. There are a lot of factors involved. There is concupisence, conscience, complicity with evil, intent, spite etc., but at a minimum we know that it is grave matter to be avoided, and if someone believes that it is a good thing, then there is a major break with the reality of the Church teaching, which is God’s teaching. Will the person go to hell? That is known only to the Father. Too many factors involved for us mere mortals to speculate. Is it worth the risk in order to indulge in what many consider an earthly “pleasure”? Not to me. Not anymore. I didn’t always feel that way, and I’ve only been a believing member of the Church for about 6 years (Buddhist convert), but once somebody knows the truth, felt true contrition, repented of their past, and recognizes the sinful nature of this, or any other such act, then it seems they are on the hook for it. You must not only try to refrain from performance of such an act, but avoid the near occasion of the act, and therefore stay away from lines of thought, and different psychological triggers which may cause you unbearable temptation. Only you know your own conscience and what these triggers may be in your case.

But certainly, it is not healthy to espouse an opinion of sexual morality in variance to the spiritual men and women for have formed the body of Christ in the communion of Saints over the centuries. And yes, whether or not canon law is specific, a person is cordoning off a section of their heart, and at least symbolically excommunicating themselves by their blatant and willful lack of submission, and the deeply troublesome act of pride which makes them feel empowered to hold such immoral “opinions” over those of the Church to which they claim unity with.

If one is universally Christian, (Catholic), and in submission to the magesterium of the Church, they simply don’t hold the opinion that fornication is okay.

I pray for those who are deluded into thinking otherwise, as I myself have been, much of my life.

Please pray for me as well,

My God bless, and lift us all into his merciful arms,

Steven

 

[Sheadad]

I believe there are two issues that need to be addressed. There are a large number of Catholics, at least in the U.S., that have no clue that contraception is immoral. I’ve never heard this issue addressed at a mass or pre-Cana. These people may come forth and support contraception, but they are not guilty of mortal sin since they are not aware what they are doing is wrong. This is different from the situation where a Catholic knows something is wrong and willfully and publicly defies the Church. I’ll leave that issue to be addressed by others.

Interestingly enough, the contraceptive coverage issue in the U.S. is bringing the Church’s position to the forefront, and may educate people on the issue that weren’t educated before.

Too bad that this is the way some of our Catholic brothers and sisters become aware of the teachings of their own Church.