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

[Neil_Anthony]

article:

He thinks there should be greater emphasis on the virtues. "Why do people never go back to the Beatitudes, ‘blessed are the poor in spirit’? You know, are you poor in spirit? No. Does that bother you? No. Do you practise birth control? Does that bother you? Yes. We’ve got a very distorted view of what we think Christian morality is.

Is is a venial sin or a mortal sin to not be poor in spirit?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

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?

Maybe we are. I can see your point about HV, I just thought it was odd to say that because it was addressed to the faithful it only applies to married couples. Many encyclicals are addressed to the “faithful” – it is a salutation that I don’t think limits the encyclical to a certain group of people (other than perhaps the baptized, or baptized Catholics).

Note too that I am talking about the *encyclical *itself, what it says, not natural law which applies to all.

As for unmarried people caring what the Church says about contraception, I have no idea. They *might? *I don’t know. I know that it is possible to sin in one area but still hold the Church’s teaching in other areas.

As for HV itself applying directly only to married people. It seems to me that the Pope was speaking of sexual activity within the context of marriage only. I know, I know, you said sexual intercourse, in the fully human life, is a marital act. I agree. But it that a gloss applied to HV? It seems when HV says marital act it means intercourse in marriage and not intercourse outside of marriage. So if HV is addressing only intercourse inside of marriage when it talks about conjugal union and the marital act, is contraception wrong for fornicators (unmarried) **because of Humane Vitae?? **



Or do we say, rather, that there are other reasons that contraception is wrong for unmarried people. THAT is the issue that I am wondering about.

Here is one article that touches on the idea: Contaception, Why It’s Wrong, by Dr. Jeff Mirus.

I think its worth the read, just to see some of these topics fleshed out, and to see one approach to the issue.

Let me just say, though, that I understand these issues are a battlefront for us – Catholics v. secular world; Loyal catholics v. cafeteria catholics, etc. So, everyone’s guard is up. I hope that those who know me on these boards know that I have ardent love for the Magisterium. I don’t care about being right or wrong, all I care about is being loyal to what the Church teaches.

So let me say, just so everyone understands the colors I am flying, what I am not saying. I am *not *saying that HV shouldn’t be followed. I am *not *saying that HV doesn’t shed light on the proper ends of human sexulality (even outside of marriage). I am *not *saying that HV can’t help us analyze the moral status of intercourse outside of marriage.

All I am saying is – let’s try to take HV on its own merits. I’m concerned about wanting to make HV say more than the Pope actually said. This doesn’t mean HV doesn’t imply some other things. . . but these need to be thought out and explained.

What do you think?
(Remember, I am on your side! Don’t shoot! I’m not a double-agent! )

VC

 

[mercygate]

Maybe we are. I can see your point about HV, I just thought it was odd to say that because it was addressed to the faithful it only applies to married couples. Many encyclicals are addressed to the “faithful” – it is a salutation that I don’t think limits the encyclical to a certain group of people (other than perhaps the baptized, or baptized Catholics).

Note too that I am talking about the *encyclical *itself, what it says, not natural law which applies to all.

As for unmarried people caring what the Church says about contraception, I have no idea. They *might? *I don’t know. I know that it is possible to sin in one area but still hold the Church’s teaching in other areas.

As for HV itself applying directly only to married people. It seems to me that the Pope was speaking of sexual activity within the context of marriage only. I know, I know, you said sexual intercourse, in the fully human life, is a marital act. I agree. But it that a gloss applied to HV? It seems when HV says marital act it means intercourse in marriage and not intercourse outside of marriage. So if HV is addressing only intercourse inside of marriage when it talks about conjugal union and the marital act, is contraception wrong for fornicators (unmarried) because of Humane Vitae??



Or do we say, rather, that there are other reasons that contraception is wrong for unmarried people. THAT is the issue that I am wondering about.

Here is one article that touches on the idea: Contaception, Why It’s Wrong, by Dr. Jeff Mirus.

I think its worth the read, just to see some of these topics fleshed out, and to see one approach to the issue.

Let me just say, though, that I understand these issues are a battlefront for us – Catholics v. secular world; Loyal catholics v. cafeteria catholics, etc. So, everyone’s guard is up. I hope that those who know me on these boards know that I have ardent love for the Magisterium. I don’t care about being right or wrong, all I care about is being loyal to what the Church teaches.

So let me say, just so everyone understands the colors I am flying, what I am not saying. I am *not *saying that HV shouldn’t be followed. I am *not *saying that HV doesn’t shed light on the proper ends of human sexulality (even outside of marriage). I am *not *saying that HV can’t help us analyze the moral status of intercourse outside of marriage.

All I am saying is – let’s try to take HV on its own merits. I’m concerned about wanting to make HV say more than the Pope actually said. This doesn’t mean HV doesn’t imply some other things. . . but these need to be thought out and explained.

What do you think?
(Remember, I am on your side! Don’t shoot! I’m not a double-agent! )

VC

OK. You ask what I THINK. I think that *Hv *was prompted by the cultural pressure on the Church that resulted from the wholesale change in policy that had occurred in the non-Catholic world beginning with Lambeth in 1930 and that was aggravated by the pill, which, because it did not involve mechanical devices or coitus interruptus, appeared to shift the sand on the topic. Throw in the sexual revolution, and you have a compelling need to address the topic of contraception.

I THINK the question should not be whether Humanae vitae applies to unmarried couples or whether it is “infallible.” It was written to give a concise treatment of the foundational principles that place sexual intercourse within marriage and to show how it fits into a Christ-centered marriage.

Any unmarried person who is fornicating and still worries about whether contraception is sinful needs to refocus. Yes: contraception is still sinful. Yes: fornication is sinful. Is it “less” sinful to contracept because you stand a better chance of eliminating the consequences of a natural human act of intercourse? No.

I THINK the question of whether Hv applies to unmarried people simply does not apply. It derails the point.

 

[fix]

This is from the last Pope GENERAL AUDIENCE OF 18 JULY [1984]:

The norm of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae concerns all men, insofar as it is a norm of the natural law and is based on conformity with human reason (when, it is understood, human reason is seeking truth). All the more does it concern all believers and members of the Church, since the reasonable character of this norm indirectly finds confirmation and solid support in the sum total of the theology of the body. From this point of view we have spoken in previous analyses about the ethos of the redemption of the body.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks for the reply mercygate,

I agree substantially with your post. I am curious as to whether or not you see my point about not going beyond what HV says. If the secular world wants to engage us regarding the question why contraception is always wrong, I don’t think we can just point them to HV. I think we would need to explain and draw out some of the things implied by HV.

mercygate:

I THINK the question of whether Hv applies to unmarried people simply does not apply. It derails the point.

I do too, but in a different way. If you look at my first post on the thread I said, essentially, that whether or not HV applies to married people only is immaterial because contraception is wrong for unmarried people too.

VC

 

[mercygate]

Thanks for the reply mercygate,

I agree substantially with your post. I am curious as to whether or not you see my point about not going beyond what HV says. If the secular world wants to engage us regarding the question why contraception is always wrong, I don’t think we can just point them to HV. I think we would need to explain and draw out some of the things implied by HV.

I do too, but in a different way. If you look at my first post on the thread I said, essentially, that whether or not HV applies to married people only is immaterial because contraception is wrong for unmarried people too.

VC

I think I’m starting to see your point. The point is that Hv BEGINS from a position of natural law. The secular world needs to get a lesson on natural law before it can comprehend WHY contraception is considered ‘always wrong’ by the Catholic Church. *Humanae vitae *must be taken in the context of Christian/Catholic marriage.

 

[JReducation]

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.

Actually, the Cardinal still stands by this and calls the Sacred Congregation to stand by this. That being said, we must understand what the term “experience” means to people like Levada and Benedict XVI.

They both use is very frequently in their theological writings and their university papers to this day. But in lay man’s language it means to understand things better in light of new knowledge. Reason plays an essential coponent here.

When something is not given the benefit of infallibility, because there is no grounding in scripture for it, but its grounding comes from natural philosophy, as is the case for artificial birth control, you say that you are leaving it open for the possibility of a better understanding of natural philosophy, if it should ever happen. In the meantime, based on what you know about natural law and applying the rules of natural philosophy, your conclusion stands and must be obeyed.

This is why we suddenly hear Benedict XVI saying that faith cannot exist without reason and reason leads to faith. It’s a very Augustinian and Franciscan approach to theology. It’s called going from the heart to the mind. The heart receives the gift of faith and the mind evaluates it to make sure that it’s the real thing and to understand it.

Aquinas went the other way. You started in the mind and reasoned things out, then you went to the heart and see if it passed the test of faith.

In this case the Cardinal and the Holy Father are saying, whatever we believe must pass the scrutiny of reason, because reason leads to truth. This is the experiential component of which the Cardinal speaks here, because the entire process is an experience.

I hope this is better or clearer.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[mercygate]

Actually, the Cardinal still stands by this and calls the Sacred Congregation to stand by this. That being said, we must understand what the term “experience” means to people like Levada and Benedict XVI.

They both use is very frequently in their theological writings and their university papers to this day. But in lay man’s language it means to understand things better in light of new knowledge. Reason plays an essential coponent here.

When something is not given the benefit of infallibility, because there is no grounding in scripture for it, but its grounding comes from natural philosophy, as is the case for artificial birth control, you say that you are leaving it open for the possibility of a better understanding of natural philosophy, if it should ever happen. In the meantime, based on what you know about natural law and applying the rules of natural philosophy, your conclusion stands and must be obeyed.

This is why we suddenly hear Benedict XVI saying that faith cannot exist without reason and reason leads to faith. It’s a very Augustinian and Franciscan approach to theology. It’s called going from the heart to the mind. The heart receives the gift of faith and the mind evaluates it to make sure that it’s the real thing and to understand it.

Aquinas went the other way. You started in the mind and reasoned things out, then you went to the heart and see if it passed the test of faith.

In this case the Cardinal and the Holy Father are saying, whatever we believe must pass the scrutiny of reason, because reason leads to truth. This is the experiential component of which the Cardinal speaks here, because the entire process is an experience.

I hope this is better or clearer.

Fraternally,

JR

You make it sound a whole lot better than it plays out on the ground among advocates of “experience” theology. On the ground it translates into: “my experience tells me that contraception is just fine, so let’s shove reason out the window and go with my experience because reason is an artificial construct but my feelings are ‘real’.”

 

[JReducation]

You make it sound a whole lot better than it plays out on the ground among advocates of “experience” theology. On the ground it translates into: “my experience tells me that contraception is just fine, so let’s shove reason out the window and go with my experience because reason is an artificial construct but my feelings are ‘real’.”

GOOD GRIEF NO!!!

That’s not how the term experience is used in theology at all. Experience in theology has to do with the discovery and understnding of Truth regardless of how I feel about it.

JR

 

[mercygate]

GOOD GRIEF NO!!!

That’s not how the term experience is used in theology at all. Experience in theology has to do with the discovery and understnding of Truth regardless of how I feel about it.

JR

You know that. I know that. But out here in the field, the word “experience” means “MY” experience. “MY” interpretation of MY experience. “MY” feelings. Shudder.

 

[JReducation]

You know that. I know that. But out here in the field, the word “experience” means “MY” experience. “MY” interpretation of MY experience. “MY” feelings. Shudder.

Personal experience is important and should never be denied, but it must always be screened in light of reason. Not all personal experiences are generalizeable and some are not rational.

JR

 

[mercygate]

Personal experience is important and should never be denied, but it must always be screened in light of reason. Not all personal experiences are generalizeable and some are not rational.

JR

As Little Edith Ann used to say: "And that’s the TROOOOOTHHHHHHH!

 

[fix]

In a time of great rejection of Church authority, especially in regard to sexual sins*,* I think the report really does not help.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Sounds like a certain Bishop needs to go to a refresher RCIA class

 

[JReducation]

Sounds like a certain Bishop needs to go to a refresher RCIA class

What did he say that is contrary to the teaching of the Church?

JR

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What did he say that is contrary to the teaching of the Church?

JR

Well, he doesn’t know if the Church could be wrong in Humanae Vitae. Some remedial catechesis should clear that up.

Also he seems confused about the difference between lacking a virtue and being in sin. Again, catechesis

 

[JReducation]

Well, he doesn’t know if the Church could be wrong in Humanae Vitae. Some remedial catechesis should clear that up.

Also he seems confused about the difference between lacking a virtue and being in sin. Again, catechesis

He said that he didn’t know if the document, Humanae Vitae was correct. Cardinal Levada (sp?) the the successor of Cardinal Ratzinger to the Sacred Congregation on the faith has said the same thing. He said that the Document is deliberately not attributed with infallibility, because there are things that are yet to be discovered through experience. There are parts of it that are obviously infallible. But not the whole of it.

He is not confused on lacking a virtue and being in sin. He is saying that they are not the same thing. Which is taught in Catholic Mystical Theology. They are not. St. Teresa of Avila already stated this. One can lack a virtue, but not be in sin.

JR

 

[childofmary1143]

He said that he didn’t know if the document, Humanae Vitae was correct. Cardinal Levada (sp?) the the successor of Cardinal Ratzinger to the Sacred Congregation on the faith has said the same thing. He said that the Document is deliberately not attributed with infallibility, because there are things that are yet to be discovered through experience. There are parts of it that are obviously infallible. But not the whole of it.

He is not confused on lacking a virtue and being in sin. He is saying that they are not the same thing. Which is taught in Catholic Mystical Theology. They are not. St. Teresa of Avila already stated this. One can lack a virtue, but not be in sin.

JR

Regarding Humanae Vitae, his answer was terrible. It doesn’t matter if Cardinal Levada has said the same thing as well. A teaching doesn’t need to be infallible for it be to followed and yet he inserts an excuse for not obeying it by saying it may not be correct. Are you not aware of how the clergy in the USA and Canada “gave a pass” to couples when Humanae Vitae was issued?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

He said that he didn’t know if the document, Humanae Vitae was correct. Cardinal Levada (sp?) the the successor of Cardinal Ratzinger to the Sacred Congregation on the faith has said the same thing. He said that the Document is deliberately not attributed with infallibility, because there are things that are yet to be discovered through experience. There are parts of it that are obviously infallible. But not the whole of it.

He is not confused on lacking a virtue and being in sin. He is saying that they are not the same thing. Which is taught in Catholic Mystical Theology. They are not. St. Teresa of Avila already stated this. One can lack a virtue, but not be in sin.

JR

Well you have quite a talent for presenting what people say in the best possible light. I suppose that’s a good talent to have though, especially on Christmas Have a Merry Christmas.

 

[TheRiver]

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

Does anyone recall when Ratzinger was silenced by Pope Pius XII for his unorthodox and “heretical” views. Ratzinger who is now pope.

Perhaps he should have been excommunicated

You’ll find that in the Vatican they don’t hold hands and sing happy days. Most disagree with each other. The church hasn’t infallibly declared HV or the issue of birth control, infact Benedict has left the case opened for further examination.

I believe HV is true. But I agree with the bishop on the issue of salvation, it means nothing to the young people (or most anyways), frankly for me I don’t see eternity being longer than a week away from Tuesday, and I’m Catholic. JPII also did not speak to the young people in these kinds of terms, he talked to them on a level they could relate to, stuff they wanted to know, life issues, these directly and indirectly touch on salvation, this bishop is right in what he says.

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.”

Not surprising, there are many that think like this. I disagree with him here though, but it’s nothing to get upset about. At the first few councils, bishops were at each others’ throats, this is normal…disagreements are NORMAL.

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.

I agree with him, and so did JPII, he got through to them by other means.

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.”

Also true, St. Padre Pio would chase some people away from the confessionals, he wanted them to be truly sorry for their sins first, he wouldn’t absolve them all the time.

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.

I suggest you read more into church history if you want to know “shocking” things, these aren’t shocking, these are quite normal points of view and they have validity to them, also I think since this is a simple interview, he hasn’t gone into much depth.

I think it’s you rather who is out of touch with the magesterium, not him.