Church teaching on birth control could be wrong, says English Catholic bishop

[didymus]

from the Telegraph (UK):

Church teaching on birth control could be wrong, says English Catholic bishop

The über-liberal Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, Kieran Conry, has given an astonishingly frank interview to Andrew M Brown of The Catholic Herald. One well-known priest’s reaction: “I’m still picking up my jaw off the floor.”
Me too. Here’s a list of the things Bishop Conry says in the interview:

1. The Church’s teaching on birth control “could be wrong” and is not infallible. Asked if Humanae Vitae was a mistake, he says: “I don’t know.”

1. “You can’t talk to young people about salvation,” says the bishop, because that concept means nothing to them. Instead, talk in their language - for example, about saving the planet.

1. Asked if frequent confession is a a good idea, he replies: “No, because my own experience when we had Confession every day at St Chad’s Cathedral in Birmingham was that regular penitents came back with exactly the same words week after week. So there you would say, actually, there is no conversion taking place.”

1. He insists that Summorum Pontificum is not intended to provide ordinary Sunday Tridentine Masses. He paraphrases the Pope as saying: “Have it [the traditional Mass] but not as part of your standard Sunday repertoire.”
   These are shocking things for a bishop to say. I’ve thought for a long time that Kieran Conry, a thoroughly decent and compassionate man, should resign as Bishop of Arundel and Brighton: he is too partisan, too out of sympathy with aspects of the Magisterium, and his misrepresentation of Summorum Pontificum is outrageous.

And yet, at least he has the guts to speak his mind. Several leading bishops of England and Wales share these views; but surreptitiously. They are too cowardly to reveal what they really think, except in semi-private gatherings of Magic Circle hangers-on. Now +Kieran has let the cat out of the bag. Let’s see what happens next.

 

[Holly3278]

Wow. Give me a break. I think this liberal bishop needs to be excommunicated for saying such stuff.

 

[Letchitsa1]

Ahh…there go the English thinking again…

Coming from the country that founded its own religion on the sexual desires of their king - is it really surprising?

 

[averheyen]

Ahh…there go the English thinking again…

Coming from the country that founded its own religion on the sexual desires of their king - is it really surprising?

I just think this is discouraging.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ahh…there go the English thinking again…

Coming from the country that founded its own religion on the sexual desires of their king - is it really surprising?

Letchitsa,

Off topic, but what are you trying to say? I can’t imagine you meant the paint all the people of England as inferior thinkers, did you, or otherwise malign the whole country?

VC

 

[chatto]

Just for future reference, English Catholics (like me) are just as puzzled by the ‘legitimacy’ of the Anglican Church as you are. But the country (by which I mean the people) didn’t just abandon Catholicism because Henry VIII wanted a divorce. That’s why we spent the next c.300 years being persecuted and excluded from public life.

As for the Bishop’s comments, I think he displays the same faults, misconceptions and misunderstandings of many Catholics. The Magisterium’s problem since Vatican II hasn’t been teaching what is correct (which of course it does), but communicating the whys and wherefores of that teaching to the faithful, including the bishops. We need to be convinced, and the Magisterium’s arguments are often convincing when encountered, but you really have to look for them. On the other hand, ‘society’ gets its ‘teaching’ out there all day everyday through the news, advertising and the like.

I hope this is going to be the great reform the Church goes through in our time - a new apostolic transmission of the faith, not watered down, not limited to (the very important) causes of environmentalism or social justice, but the whole teaching, presented in a way that first the faithful, then the world will be able to understand.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Bishop is not alone in his thinking on Humanae Vitae. There are Cardinals in the Vatican today, who opposed it back before Paul VI published it.

In fact, Paul VI actually put together a commission to study artificial birth control. The Commission reported to him, that birth control done out of necessity in the context of marriage, would not be immoral. Pope Paul VI was going to go along with the commission’s report, but more conservatives in the Vatican, warned him, that if he did so, it would undermine the authority of the Papacy. He rejected it, and of course, issued Humanae Vitae.

On this issue;

1. Asked if frequent confession is a a good idea, he replies: “No, because my own experience when we had Confession every day at St Chad’s Cathedral in Birmingham was that regular penitents came back with exactly the same words week after week. So there you would say, actually, there is no conversion taking place.”

This was indeed fact and Vatican II addressed it. Confession of sins without a conversion of heart, is not what the Sacrament is about.

1. He insists that Summorum Pontificum is not intended to provide ordinary Sunday Tridentine Masses. He paraphrases the Pope as saying: “Have it [the traditional Mass] but not as part of your standard Sunday repertoire.”

He’s also correct on this. The TLM is an extraordinary form, not the ordinary, as Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio specifies.

I’m not sure I agree with the Bishop that you can’t talk to young people about salvation. However, his experience may be different, and he’s really trying to say that the traditional language concerning salvation, may be difficult for young people to grasp.

Jim

 

[fix]

Of course no commission has he authority of the Pope. It has always been taught as evil.

This has been confirmed by other popes and is in the CCC. There will always be dissenters.

Why do we claim there is no conversion? Simply because we continue to sin?

It is condescending to claim youth cannot grasp salvation or are not open to what is true.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

fix;

Of course no commission has he authority of the Pope. It has always been taught as evil.

True, but Pope’s use commissions to study issues to help them make educated decisions.

This has been confirmed by other popes and is in the CCC. There will always be dissenters.

True and Pope John Paul II himself, reaffirmed Humanae Vitae.

Why do we claim there is no conversion? Simply because we continue to sin?

You’d have to ask a person who’s experienced in hearing confessions from the same people week after week, as this Bishop is.

Jim

 

[fix]

Is it a good idea to go to Confession regularly? “No, because my own experience when we had Confession every day at St Chad’s Cathedral in Birmingham was that regular penitents came back with exactly the same words week after week. So there you would say, actually, there is no conversion taking place.”

This is what the piece says. If that is all we have to go on I would say the quote itself makes little sense.

 

[Brendan]

The Bishop is not alone in his thinking on Humanae Vitae. There are Cardinals in the Vatican today, who opposed it back before Paul VI published it.

In fact, Paul VI actually put together a commission to study artificial birth control. The Commission reported to him, that birth control done out of necessity in the context of marriage, would not be immoral. Pope Paul VI was going to go along with the commission’s report, but more conservatives in the Vatican, warned him, that if he did so, it would undermine the authority of the Papacy. He rejected it, and of course, issued Humanae Vitae.

But it is still Church teaching, and the bishop has the obligation to teach it.

He’s also correct on this. The TLM is an extraordinary form, not the ordinary, as Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio specifies.

It depends on what the bishop means by ‘ordinary’ in this statement. If he means that the Extraordinary Form is now the Ordinary form, they you (and he are correct).

If he means that S.P. was not intended to provide for regularly occurring access to the Extraordinary Form to all Latin Rite Catholics, then the bishop is mistaken.

I’m not sure I agree with the Bishop that you can’t talk to young people about salvation. However, his experience may be different, and he’s really trying to say that the traditional language concerning salvation, may be difficult for young people to grasp.

Jim

I would fully agree here. The bishop is just plain flat our wrong. The entire purpose of the Church is to talk about the Salvation found in Jesus Christ. That means all people, young, old.

If he means that he personally cannot talk to them, that he does not have the interpersonal skills to do so; then he should appoint those how can, because that is the mandate of the Church.

 

[siamesecat]

I don’t see what the problem is with this Bishop. I think it’s ok to disagree with the Church on things not clearly stated in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you can’t use methods of contraception ( obviously abc doesnt exist but it doesnt condemn the pull out method etc.) Now, I know the story of Onan supports the Church’s teaching, and I respect that. But I don’t think there’s a direct relation. I can see maturbation being a sin but not loving sex between husband and wife with contraception. I mean, that may be the right interpreation, but but it also might not be. I just don’t see how people can be sure. It’s one thing for a Bishop to disagree with an obvious Biblical teaching - saying adultery is fine or whatever - that’s wrong. But think this is up for debate.

 

[estesbob]

The Bishop is not alone in his thinking on Humanae Vitae. There are Cardinals in the Vatican today, who opposed it back before Paul VI published it.

In fact, Paul VI actually put together a commission to study artificial birth control. The Commission reported to him, that birth control done out of necessity in the context of marriage, would not be immoral. Pope Paul VI was going to go along with the commission’s report, but more conservatives in the Vatican, warned him, that if he did so, it would undermine the authority of the Papacy. He rejected it, and of course, issued Humanae Vitae.

Jim

There is debate as to whether Humanae Vitae is infallible teaching AND whether humanae Vitae applies to unmarried people.

I agree with this Bishop in his comments on confession and the EF Mass.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t see what the problem is with this Bishop. I think it’s ok to disagree with the Church on things not clearly stated in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say you can’t use methods of contraception ( obviously abc doesnt exist but it doesnt condemn the pull out method etc.) Now, I know the story of Onan supports the Church’s teaching, and I respect that. But I don’t think there’s a direct relation. I can see maturbation being a sin but not loving sex between husband and wife with contraception. I mean, that may be the right interpreation, but but it also might not be. I just don’t see how people can be sure. It’s one thing for a Bishop to disagree with an obvious Biblical teaching - saying adultery is fine or whatever - that’s wrong. But think this is up for debate.

Kinda interesting to see an atheist who adheres to Sola Scriptura…

 

[JimR-OCDS]

estesbob

There is debate as to whether Humanae Vitae is infallible teaching AND whether humanae Vitae applies to unmarried people.

Yup and this Bishop is merely on one side of the fence.

The debate will go on long beyond my years, and I’m not all concerned about whether the Church changes or not.

Jim

 

[siamesecat]

Kinda interesting to see an atheist who adheres to Sola Scriptura…

I don’t adhere, but I respect Church teachings. I like to look at things from both sides - so I try to understand the basis of Catholic teaching. I have a lot more respect for strict Catholics who follow almost all rules than “Catholics” who don’t follow any. Even as a non-believer, I think strict Catholics are less crazy than lax ones. I still don’t like religion, but iif you believe - you better follow the rules and live by example. So loo ing at the issue from a Catholic perspective, I think this is one that is up for debate. I’m not saying it’s wrong - just not infallible.

 

[Genesis315]

Yup and this Bishop is merely on one side of the fence.

The debate is whether Humanae Vitae itself presents a definitive judgment as to a truth of morality (the evidence is pretty overwhelming that it does so–remember, that papal infallibility does not just apply to definitive judgments as to dogma; see here).

However, there is no debate that this has been the universal teaching of the Church, reaffirmed repeatedly by Roman Pontiffs since Lambeth in 1930. Those facts alone, even apart from a particular definitive judgment from a Roman Pontiff make the teaching irreformable and not up for debate.

The link I provided, by then Cardinal Ratzinger explains these principles of the Magisterium quite well in the context of explaining the parts of a particular profession of faith.

To those who don’t like a particular doctrine, it will always be debatable–especially one in which the temptation to live by the flesh rather than the spirit or to win the repsect of those who want to do so is so strong.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The debate is whether Humanae Vitae itself presents a definitive judgment as to a truth of morality (the evidence is pretty overwhelming that it does so–remember, that papal infallibility does not just apply to definitive judgments as to dogma; see here).

However, there is no debate that this has been the universal teaching of the Church, reaffirmed repeatedly by Roman Pontiffs since Lambeth in 1930. Those facts alone, even apart from a particular definitive judgment from a Roman Pontiff make the teaching irreformable and not up for debate.

Spot on Gen.

And, what’s more, the question about whether HV applies to unmarried people is somewhat immaterial in the sense that although artificial contraception might not be intrinsically evil for unmarried people, moral theology would still invalidate its general use even among unmarried people, because of the evil effects of society and individuals.

VC

 

[fix]

The debate is whether Humanae Vitae itself presents a definitive judgment as to a truth of morality (the evidence is pretty overwhelming that it does so–remember, that papal infallibility does not just apply to definitive judgments as to dogma; see here).

However, there is no debate that this has been the universal teaching of the Church, reaffirmed repeatedly by Roman Pontiffs since Lambeth in 1930. Those facts alone, even apart from a particular definitive judgment from a Roman Pontiff make the teaching irreformable and not up for debate.

The link I provided, by then Cardinal Ratzinger explains these principles of the Magisterium quite well in the context of explaining the parts of a particular profession of faith.

To those who don’t like a particular doctrine, it will always be debatable–especially one in which the temptation to live by the flesh rather than the spirit or to win the repsect of those who want to do so is so strong.

Yes, basically it cannot change whether or not it is defined as infallible. Also, it may be infallible by the universal and ordinary magisterium.

I add this:

first, we must point out the tendency to measure everything on the basis of the distinction between the “infallible Magisterium” and the “fallible Magisterium”.

In this way infallibility becomes the criterion for all authority problems, to the point of actually replacing the concept of authority with that of infallibility. Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the ), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching…

 

[cathgal]

The Bishop is not alone in his thinking on Humanae Vitae. There are Cardinals in the Vatican today, who opposed it back before Paul VI published it.

In fact, Paul VI actually put together a commission to study artificial birth control. The Commission reported to him, that birth control done out of necessity in the context of marriage, would not be immoral. Pope Paul VI was going to go along with the commission’s report, but more conservatives in the Vatican, warned him, that if he did so, it would undermine the authority of the Papacy. He rejected it, and of course, issued Humanae Vitae.

I find this statement highly doubtful. Source please

If the Pope goes along with it, how can it undermines the authority of the papacy?

There are some who believes it’s moral and some who believe it’s immoral. If the Pope choose one over the other, it would consider infallible, regardless of what everyone thinks.

But being the Pope and has the gift of infallibility given by the Holy Spirit, he chose the correct one because he knows what is right and not because he was influenced by conservatives. Where faith and morality are concerned, Popes are not influenced by outside force but by God.