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

[TMC]

I can’t understand what is controversial here. Some have suggested that Humanae Vitae is infallible, but many have said it is not. It is possible to hold that a teaching is not infallible and still uphold it. For example, the Archbishop of the Phillipines gave a sermon on the 40th anniversary of HV that explicitly said HV was not infallible, but went on to explain why it is nonetheless correct. The reporter backed this bishop into a corner by asking him if HV could possibly be wrong - if its not infallible it could possibly be wrong. That is what ‘not infallible’ means.

 

[mark_a]

A condom interferes with and thwarts a natural human act of intercourse, which is innately good. It is, therefore, intrinsically evil.

Its like washing your feet with your socks on.

Its like an inmate and visitor trying to kiss through the glass partition during a prison visit.

 

[JReducation]

I can’t understand what is controversial here. Some have suggested that Humanae Vitae is infallible, but many have said it is not. It is possible to hold that a teaching is not infallible and still uphold it. For example, the Archbishop of the Phillipines gave a sermon on the 40th anniversary of HV that explicitly said HV was not infallible, but went on to explain why it is nonetheless correct. The reporter backed this bishop into a corner by asking him if HV could possibly be wrong - if its not infallible it could possibly be wrong. That is what ‘not infallible’ means.

This is exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger’s successor has said. It must be obeyed, even though there are parts of the document that are not infallible. The reason why it must be obeyed is because it is consistent with natural law until proven otherwise.

JR

 

[Letchitsa1]

Right. A sincere confession is a good one. We recieve grace. What I cannot figure out from the quote is why would frequent confession would be bad simply because people confess the same sin. Would infrequent confession solve the problem?

I could be wrong, but I understood it to mean we shouldn’t be just going through the motions. As long as people are going frequently because they feel obliged to and not out of sincere intent to reform their lives, they are not really going for the right reasons. From what I understand, this happened fairly often in the past. That said, however, I don’t think the way we are doing things today is much better. For some reason - we seem to have gone to the opposite extreme and skipped over the happy middle ground in the process.

 

[mercygate]

It looks like we are in agreement. To be honest I have problems with the church’s teachings against barrier methods of contraception even in marriage but I accept it because it is the clear teaching of the Church. But as far as Humane Vitae my reading of it seems to indicate it is addressed only to married couples.

Right. Because it is addressed to “the faithful,” members of the Catholic Church, none of whom, by definition, is involved in fornication.

 

[Letchitsa1]

This is absolute nonsense. What gives you the right to insult another people?
The Church of England, originally founded by a corrupt King, was made what it is by Thomas Cranmer and other reformers. Read the 39 Articles and the BCP then give us a more charitable response.
Would you like it if I insulted your people?

Also you have no historical knowledge of this event seemingly, because it wasn’t ‘sexual desires’ of Henry VIII that made him want to divorce Catherine of Aragon, it was because he wanted a son and he thought she couldn’t give him one.

All in all I am offended by your post.

I stand by my original point - that I don’t look to Church or state leadership in England for any kind of moral guidance because from what I have seen - both are corrupt.

As for my historical knowledge of the event, it goes like this…Henry VIII wanted a son, his wife couldn’t produce one. Not realizing that it is the man that determines the gender of the child and not the woman - he wanted to divorce his wife and marry a new wife with the hope that the new wife would provide him the desired son. The Church said his marriage was sacramentally valid, so he split, did what he wanted anyways, and used his own church to justify the sin of adultery that he committed when he divorced his wife and married another. So, in essence, he did form his own church with the express intent of committing adultery and justifying it as moral.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Right. Because it is addressed to “the faithful,” members of the Catholic Church, none of whom, by definition, is involved in fornication.

mercygate! I’m not sure you need to take that line of reasoning regarding the question of whether or not HV is addressed to married couples!

There are numerous instances in the body of the text in which the Pope speaks of the the good of the marital or conjugal act, and married life in general. That is where the argument comes from that the Pope intended to address only married couples.

Wouldn’t your reasoning above also apply to married couples who are committing extortion? None of the faithful would be committing the grave sin of extortion, right?

Surely HV still applies to sinful married couples, doesn’t it?

Did those space aliens that captured estesbob shoot a confusitron ray at you?

VC

 

[Soutane]

from the Telegraph (UK):

I think this bishop should change his surname to Spong.

 

[JReducation]

I think this bishop should change his surname to Spong.

Too much is being made about little. The bishop did not say that one should dissent with Humanae Vitae. He said that it is not an infallible statement. This was already stated by Cardinal Ratzinger’s successor to the Sacred Congregation. The part of the Humanae Vitae that the Congregation defends as infallible is the part that addresses conception and abortion, not the part on artificial birth control.

The Bishop did not say that the document was wrong. He said that he didn’t know. Obviously he’s thinking about it, but is not about to share his private thoughts with the public. There is nothing wrong with keeping your thoughts to yourself. Catholic bishops are allowed to think.

Read Cardinal Levada’s doctoral dissertation in Sacred Theology for a clearer understanding on how a moral decree becomes infallible.

Also the Bishop did not encourage dissent. As Cardinal Levada says, even when a teaching is not infallible, it must be obeyed. The Bishop should have said this or maybe he did and the press did not include it. Who knows?

Look at what the AP did to the priest who allegedly said that those who voted for Obama could not receive communion. It turned out that he had said no such thing. In fact, he said that there was nothing immoral about voting for Obama, but for formally supporting abortion, not the candidate for whatever other reasons. He said that the press had distorted his letter.

Fortunately, his statement was in a letter and he was able to produce the original letter and prove what he had said vs. what the AP said he had said.

We have to be careful with what bloggers and reporters state the clergy says.

JR

 

[RobertLGarrett]

You made a statement. I answered. You resonded. I answered again with the only answer available in current moral theology. What do you want to hear?

JR

Answers from someone who actually read what I wrote.

I wrote…

RobertLGarrett:

Actually, they were both taking culpability into account, as they were giving advice to me and my sinful act. They couldn’t have both been right - my sinful act could not have been both mortal and venial. So, again, whom does one listen to?

You wrote…

JReducation:

In answer to your first point an action can be a mortal sin without the person being guilty.

You didn’t bother to answer to the fact that one priest judged me guilty and the other priest judged me not guilty for the same issue and same circumstances.

I wrote in my first post…

RobertLGarrett:

One of my wife’s reservation in going off birth control was that it also controlled her acne. When I said that, the priest jumped on it and said, “well then the contraception is a secondary effect.”

You wrote…

JReducation:

In answer to your second question, you did not say before that the priest had jumped the gun. That’s why I said, “partially right.”

I love the fact that you almost used the exact same wording in your claim of what I did not say.

I wrote…

RobertLGarrett:

a close friend of mine was divorced but “doesn’t believe” in annulments and still remarried. She confessed to a priest, and he told her there is no need to confess and she can receive the sacraments. I told her the priest was in error, but she was told by a priest…end of story.

And you wrote…

JReducation:

As to the divorce, a person who is divorced is** not in state of sin if he or she has not entered into a second marriage.**

Three for three!

So, I’m sorry if I actually expected you to read what I wrote before responding.

 

[JReducation]

Answers from someone who actually read what I wrote.

You didn’t bother to answer to the fact that one priest judged me guilty and the other priest judged me not guilty for the same issue and same circumstances.

I love the fact that you almost used the exact same wording in your claim of what I did not say.
Three for three!

So, I’m sorry if I actually expected you to read what I wrote before responding.

I do apologize for reading your post very quickly and missing key words. I meant no disrespect.

Let me go back to your first one about the confession. I’m not in the confessional at the time, so I’m trying to place myself in that situation. One priest says it’s a mortal sin. The other priest says not. My guess is that they are coming at the same action from two perspectives and they are both right. If one looks at the action, one can say that an action is a mortal sin. If one looks at the individual, one can say that the individual is not guilty of mortal sin.

Also, some actions are in grey zones. I’ll use masturbation as an example. The old wording was that it was mortally sinful. The wording in the CCC is that it is a disordered act. It stands to reason that a disordered act can be a mortal sin, but it can also be disordered because of the individual’s lack of psychological maturity, regardless of his or her age. Two confessors or two spiritual directors may arrive at two conclusions and both may have some degree of validity.

Whom do you listen to? Because you have chosen two confessors, go with your conscience. If it were one confessor, I would say go with his direction. If there is failure in his guidance it is on his shoulders, not yours. Utlimately, the confessor is morally responsible for the guidance that he provides, unless it’s something that’s blatantly wrong. The best rule is the advice of St. Augustine. Do not act when in doubt.

Both can be looking at culpability, but are coming from different angles. My suggestion in these cases, if it’s an on-going problem is to stick with one confessor so as not to get confused by two different perspectives. It’s not a matter of one priest is right and another is wrong. Each is probably looking from a different perspective. He calls it from his point of view.

This is one of the most difficult tasks in hearing confessions or being a spiritual director. I don’t hear confessions, but do many spiritual directions and teach others how to do spiritual direction. This is a tough one, because you have to make judgement calls based on Church teaching and what you believe that you are dealing with. You are acting in good faith and that’s the best that a confessor or spiritual director can do. To avoid difficulties, use the same one as often as possible.

In the case of the Birth Control. The priest may have jumped the gun and based on his leap, he arrived at the wrong conclusion. That does not make him a bad priest or bad confessor. The principal that he applied is a valid one, but does not fit this scenario.

In the case of the divorced person, there are situations in which the confessor has sufficient reason to believe that the first marriage is invalid, but there is difficulty proving it. The confessor has to make a judgment call. The Church allows a confessor to make a judgment call based on what he knows about the case. The call is made based on matter that takes place within the confessional and no one is at liberty to discuss it. It’s a tough one. If it were my friend, I would not discuss this with her again. Stay away from topics that have been discussed in the confessional. If someone wants to share them with you, tell them that it is not appropriate to discuss matters of confession outside. This takes you out of the middle and having to make a judgment with little information. Since you were not in the confessional, you do not know what the penitent really said and what the confessor really said. The report sounds like something is missing.

A good confessor tries to get the penitent’s situation corrected or at least suggests that they try to do so. We were not in the confessional. We have only the penitent’s word on it.

If this person is really interested in more details, she can approach the diocesan tribunal.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[RobertLGarrett]

I do apologize for reading your post very quickly and missing key words. I meant no disrespect.

Let me go back to your first one about the confession. I’m not in the confessional at the time, so I’m trying to place myself in that situation. One priest says it’s a mortal sin. The other priest says not. My guess is that they are coming at the same action from two perspectives and they are both right. If one looks at the action, one can say that an action is a mortal sin. If one looks at the individual, one can say that the individual is not guilty of mortal sin.

Also, some actions are in grey zones. I’ll use masturbation as an example. The old wording was that it was mortally sinful. The wording in the CCC is that it is a disordered act. It stands to reason that a disordered act can be a mortal sin, but it can also be disordered because of the individual’s lack of psychological maturity, regardless of his or her age. Two confessors or two spiritual directors may arrive at two conclusions and both may have some degree of validity.

Whom do you listen to? Because you have chosen two confessors, go with your conscience. If it were one confessor, I would say go with his direction. If there is failure in his guidance it is on his shoulders, not yours. Utlimately, the confessor is morally responsible for the guidance that he provides, unless it’s something that’s blatantly wrong. The best rule is the advice of St. Augustine. Do not act when in doubt.

Both can be looking at culpability, but are coming from different angles. My suggestion in these cases, if it’s an on-going problem is to stick with one confessor so as not to get confused by two different perspectives. It’s not a matter of one priest is right and another is wrong. Each is probably looking from a different perspective. He calls it from his point of view.

This is one of the most difficult tasks in hearing confessions or being a spiritual director. I don’t hear confessions, but do many spiritual directions and teach others how to do spiritual direction. This is a tough one, because you have to make judgement calls based on Church teaching and what you believe that you are dealing with. You are acting in good faith and that’s the best that a confessor or spiritual director can do. To avoid difficulties, use the same one as often as possible.

In the case of the Birth Control. The priest may have jumped the gun and based on his leap, he arrived at the wrong conclusion. That does not make him a bad priest or bad confessor. The principal that he applied is a valid one, but does not fit this scenario.

In the case of the divorced person, there are situations in which the confessor has sufficient reason to believe that the first marriage is invalid, but there is difficulty proving it. The confessor has to make a judgment call. The Church allows a confessor to make a judgment call based on what he knows about the case. The call is made based on matter that takes place within the confessional and no one is at liberty to discuss it. It’s a tough one. If it were my friend, I would not discuss this with her again. Stay away from topics that have been discussed in the confessional. If someone wants to share them with you, tell them that it is not appropriate to discuss matters of confession outside. This takes you out of the middle and having to make a judgment with little information. Since you were not in the confessional, you do not know what the penitent really said and what the confessor really said. The report sounds like something is missing.

A good confessor tries to get the penitent’s situation corrected or at least suggests that they try to do so. We were not in the confessional. We have only the penitent’s word on it.

If this person is really interested in more details, she can approach the diocesan tribunal.

Fraternally,

JR

JR,

I appreciate your comments on the confessors. Unfortunately, I have don’t have a regular confessor and am not sure if I’m likely to have one soon or not…but I am working on it. My former priest (who was moved a couple hours away) turned me down for spiritual direction. My current parish priest is not a good choice IMHO. The priests I visit when I am on the road change because of the large number of priests at the parish I frequent (they offer Confession before every Mass…three Masses per day during the week. I can’t predict which one will be in one of the two confessionals when I go to Mass). One of the priests offered spiritual direction for a month or two, but I’m not sure that is a good idea because I need something long term. I met another priest who visited our parish on Advent Mission. I confessed to him and think he may be a good choice, and he happens to be near one of the hotels I stay at every other week on the road. I may approach him.

Regarding the remarried individual. Can an annulment requirement be resolved in Confession? That is a surprise to me. Regarding your other comment, it was only brought up the one time in a discussion about annulment - I had no idea she was divorced/remarried. I dropped it, just as you are recommending, but I find it disturbing that someone would be able to skip out on the annulment requirement of the Church. I definitely think the priest was wrong in this case.

I am happy to hear that you are a spiritual director. We need good ones…there is a shortage. Please pray for me.

Pax Christi,
Robert

 

[JReducation]

JR,

I appreciate your comments on the confessors. Unfortunately, I have don’t have a regular confessor and am not sure if I’m likely to have one soon or not…but I am working on it. My former priest (who was moved a couple hours away) turned me down for spiritual direction. My current parish priest is not a good choice IMHO. The priests I visit when I am on the road change because of the large number of priests at the parish I frequent (they offer Confession before every Mass…three Masses per day during the week. I can’t predict which one will be in one of the two confessionals when I go to Mass). One of the priests offered spiritual direction for a month or two, but I’m not sure that is a good idea because I need something long term. I met another priest who visited our parish on Advent Mission. I confessed to him and think he may be a good choice, and he happens to be near one of the hotels I stay at every other week on the road. I may approach him.

Regarding the remarried individual. Can an annulment requirement be resolved in Confession? That is a surprise to me. Regarding your other comment, it was only brought up the one time in a discussion about annulment - I had no idea she was divorced/remarried. I dropped it, just as you are recommending, but I find it disturbing that someone would be able to skip out on the annulment requirement of the Church. I definitely think the priest was wrong in this case.

I am happy to hear that you are a spiritual director. We need good ones…there is a shortage. Please pray for me.

Pax Christi,
Robert

I’ll pray that you find a steady confessor or at least a spiritual director. A spiritual director need not be a priest. It can be a lay theologian or a religious. If you want a regular confessor, you can do so by appointment. You don’t have to go to confession with the masses on the parish schedule. Many parishes accept that too.

I’m wondering if the priest who denied you spiritual direction and the one who offered it for a short-term did so because they are not trained in the spiritual life. Spirituality and Mystical Theology are electives in the seminary. They are not required courses for secular priests and secular deacons. They are only required for religious men and women. It is a highly specialized area of theology that would make the the training too long.

On average religious take about five years of spirituality and mystical theology before making final vows. This is outside of the theology degree that they get at the university or seminary. That’s why seminaries offer it as a one semester elective, to give the seminarians an overview of the spiritual life. It’s the same with Canon Law. Priests have an overview of Canon Law. They do not spend more than a few months studying it. It’s too long.

You may want to try a religious house if you’re looking for a spiritual director or a retreat house. They always have people trained in the spiritual life as spiritual guides. Some have degrees from very reputable schools with proper superfized internships. We had a five year theology program with two years of internship.

As to the marriage case. An annulment cannot be granted in the confessional. That can only be granted by a tribunal. However, the confessor who knows his penitent well should be able to tell if the person needs such a decree. Sometimes it is obvious that a marriage was not valid. In which case you do not refer the person to the tribunal. What surprises me, is that if the person’s prior marriage is not valid, that the priest would not direct the person to get married in the Church this time around. I’m assuming that the first marriage is invalid. I was not there with the person and the confessor.

That’s why I say that it is best to leave those convesations regarding matters of confession betweenthe penitent and the priest. Often people on CAF jump too quickly to tell others that the confessor is wrong.

You can’t say that without being in the confessional. Yes there are rules in the Church. But there are also things that are said in the confessional that people don’t say on these forums.

I can come here and say that my confessor told me that murder was not a mortal sin and not tell you that I murdered a pesky fly. JUST A HYPOTHETICAL STATEMENT!!!

Of course everyone will jump and say that the confessor is wrong, based on the information that I am providing.

This often happens in conversations outside of CAF too. People tell part of the story.

Hope this helps.

JR

 

[childofmary1143]

I’m sorry, but I’m not seeing any malice or ill intention in his responses. I’m seeing a bishop be a bishop. He’s speaking to the press and he’s being very tactful. Everyone knows how the press likes to tear apart anything that bishops say or don’t say.

As to Humanae Vitae, that question was settled by the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine in the Faith by Cardinal Levada. The only part of Humanae Vitae that is infallible is that part that specifically addresses abortion. The rest has to be obeyed, but it is not infallible and was not intended to be an infallible statement. Read his quote from his doctoral dissertation and other statements.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levada

JR

I don’t know about malice or ill intentions but I see a Bishop who is evasive and not forthcoming about artificial birth control. Yes I agree that the press likes to tear things apart but the interview was with a Catholic newspaper, not a secular one, and so I assume that it will not omit anything that the Bishop says.

I don’t disagree that Humanae Vitae is only partly infallible, it was never my contention that it was entirely infallible, but that it was something that had to be obeyed which you agree with.

I am critical of the responses of this Bishop because I am well aware of how the hierarchy has dealt and deals with artificial birth control and how they encouraged it at the time that HV was written and the fact that you never/rarely hear about it.

No where in that article does he actually say that Catholics are not permitted to use artificial birth control. For me, that is very telling.

 

[grampben]

I don’t know about malice or ill intentions but I see a Bishop who is evasive and not forthcoming about artificial birth control. Yes I agree that the press likes to tear things apart but the interview was with a Catholic newspaper, not a secular one, and so I assume that it will not omit anything that the Bishop says.

It’s not ‘secular press’, it’s one of the most intolerant conservative opinions in Britain on a blog for the website of the most conservative paper in the quality press.

 

[mercygate]

mercygate! I’m not sure you need to take that line of reasoning regarding the question of whether or not HV is addressed to married couples!

There are numerous instances in the body of the text in which the Pope speaks of the the good of the marital or conjugal act, and married life in general. That is where the argument comes from that the Pope intended to address only married couples.

Wouldn’t your reasoning above also apply to married couples who are committing extortion? None of the faithful would be committing the grave sin of extortion, right?

Surely HV still applies to sinful married couples, doesn’t it?

Did those space aliens that captured estesbob shoot a confusitron ray at you?

VC

No. I am not confused. The good of the couple is never served by distorting the marital act.

Humanae vitae, as a document, does not specifically invoke infallibility but in that it reiterates the constant teaching of the Church on contraception, it reiterates the binding teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium. And it does specifically address contraception because the subtitle of the document is “on the regulation of birth.”

 

[fix]

Just some more info:

In “Humanae Vitae” the Pope taught, with the divine assistance he enjoys (cf. “Lumen Gentium”, n. 25a), what the Church’s ordinary Magisterium had always held to be true and right, and what had been reconfirmed by the extraordinary Magisterium of Vatican II. The arguments of those who claim to pass judgment on the basis of their knowledge do not stand up against this Magisterium: between the two teachings there is a substantial difference of quality and not only of degree. The teaching of “Humanae Vitae” is Magisterium - though ordinary - which contains decisions belonging to a divinely established authority (cf. canon 331; “Lumen Gentium” nn. 18a, 20c, 22b, 23c; “Christus Dominus” n. 2a) and exercised in order to interpret and teach (as in our case) the moral norms of human conduct. If he were not the Pope, he would lose his legitimate power and the intrinsic reason for his ministry; at most he could carry out a scholarly magisterium, which, however, would not be of use to the Church and to which he has not been appointed by the Church’s Founder; he would lack the supernatural “virtus” of assisting and confirming his brethren in the faith and in the moral law (cf. Lk. 22:32, Mt. 16:29; Vatican I, Dogm. Const. “Pastor Aeternus”, DS 3074)…

 

[Verbum_Caro]

No. I am not confused. The good of the couple is never served by distorting the marital act.

Humanae vitae, as a document, does not specifically invoke infallibility but in that it reiterates the constant teaching of the Church on contraception, it reiterates the binding teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium. And it does specifically address contraception because the subtitle of the document is “on the regulation of birth.”

mercygate,

Maybe I’m confused.

I thought you said that the reason that HV only applies to married couples is because the Pope addressed it to the faithful.

I’ve never heard this argument before as to why HV was only addressed to married couples. The argument I am familiar with is that the actual text only mentions married couples, the marital act, married fecundity, etc.

I suggested that if you say HV only applies to married couples because it is addressed to the faithful, and therefore is not addressed to unmarried people who fornicate – under that reasoning would HV only apply to married couples who also don’t, say, commit extortion, because they to are not the faithful?

I’m merely suggesting that the reason you gave for why there is an argument that HV is addressed only to married couples is not the argument I am familiar with, and I’ve never heard it. Can you direct us to another source for more information on the argument that addressing the “faithful” means no fornicators?

Or did I totally misunderstand your post? Apologies in advance if I did!

Thanks,
VC

 

[mercygate]

mercygate,

Maybe I’m confused.

I thought you said that the reason that HV only applies to married couples is because the Pope addressed it to the faithful.

I’ve never heard this argument before as to why HV was only addressed to married couples. The argument I am familiar with is that **the actual text only mentions married couples, the marital act, married fecundity, etc. **

I suggested that if you say HV only applies to married couples because it is addressed to the faithful, and therefore is not addressed to unmarried people who fornicate – under that reasoning would HV only apply to married couples who also don’t, say, commit extortion, because they to are not the faithful?

I AM confused by this question. Hv does not discuss extortion. If there were an encylical that addressed extortion, it would not be about extortion, it would be about justice. Extortion would come into the picture as an example of injustice. By the same token Hv is not “about” contraception but “about” “human life.” Contraception comes in to the picture off the street because it had arisen as a threat to human life. Sexual intercourse, in the fully human life, IS a MARITAL act – not something usurped by others for personal satisfaction or recreation.

I’m merely suggesting that the reason you gave for why there is an argument that HV is addressed only to married couples is not the argument I am familiar with, and I’ve never heard it. Can you direct us to another source for more information on the argument that addressing the “faithful” means no fornicators?

I believe it is self evident from the usual Catholic understanding of the natural law.

Or did I totally misunderstand your post? Apologies in advance if I did!

Thanks,
VC

Perhaps we both misunderstand one another? Are you suggesting that fornicators, who are flouting the teachings of the Catholic Church, will be in any way receptive to Catholic teaching on contraception?

 

[mercygate]

Cardinal Levada, who succeeded Cardinal Ratzinger to the Congregation on the Faith has also said the Humanae Vitae is not infallible. He wrote a very long dissertation for his Sacred Theology Doctorate on this topic.

"The human process of formulating moral norms is marked by an essential dependence upon the data of human experience… The variabilities which marked the human process of its discovery and formulation made such particular applications inherently unsuited to be considered for infallible definition… For such formulations must remain essentially open to modification and reformulation based upon moral values as they are perceived in relation to the data and the experience which mark man’s understanding of himself… Even though there is nothing to prevent a council or a pope from extending [infallibility] to questions of the natural moral law from the point of view of their authority to do so, nevertheless the “prudential” certitude which characterizes the non-scriptural norms of the natural law argues against such an extension…" (Doctoral Dissertation 1970)

He goes on to state that it must be obeyed. But he clarifies that John Paul II credited as infallible teaching what Humanae Vitae says about abortion.

What the English bishop is saying about Humanae Vitae is the same thing as the Prefect for the Congregation on the Faith. It is not infallible dogma. He does not encourage dissent. I don’t see that coming through in the interview, unless there is something missing from the interview.

JR

Intersting quote from Levada’s doctoral dissertation in 1970. Having considerable exposure to arguments from “experience,” I am painfully aware that those who push experience as equivalent to reason are usually those whose “experience” contradicts Christian moral precepts. It does not surprise me in the least that Levada was thinking like this in 1970. It was a popular train of thought; I hope it is losing steam.