Contraception question

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi, I’m single so I ask this not for me, but just out of interest.

I can’t see what the difference is between contraception and NFP. Isn’t the intent the same, not to have children? I understand NFP there is still a chance of pregnancy, and with contraception there supposedly is not.

I just don’t understand what the difference is, can someone explain it to me please?

Contraception is any action used to prevent conception- which is the fertilization of an egg

NFP is a specific set of actions used to prevent conception- which is the fertilization of an egg

However the Pope allows NFP when grave reasons exist

 

[rpp]

I believe that ABC can be used to assist in the intrinsic good of fertility, for I would argue that reducing fertility for some acts, to increase fruitfulness overall (having a good number of healthy children, a number that one can support reasonably), is assisting in the purpose of fertility (bearing healthy Christian children), and so assisting in fertility.

I also hold that ABC used to undermine fertility (to limit the number of children for the sake of selfishness of the couple, or to try to ensure that no children will result from a relationship) is always wrong. And I would also add that this would be the case for 99% of contracepting couples.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying there are some circumstances where Artificial Birth Control is good or at least acceptable. Is that correct?

If so, that is not what the Catechism, which I quoted earlier, says. It describes ABC as “intrinsiclly evil”. It does not matter why you are artificially interfering with God’s creative act and rendering the conjugal act to nothing more than personal sexual gratification, it is always evil. I am sorry if you find this offensice, it is not intended to be. ABC is clearly described as intrinsiclly evil.

The theological principal of “double effect” says you cannot commit and evil with good intentions. That means that since ABC is intrinsiclly evil, you can **never **use it without committing and evil act.

In the case of ABC, since it is a grave matter, making use of it is almost always a mortal sin. (Grave matter + time to think about + act of will = mortal sin) Those who use ABC should not receive Communion until they make a proper confession which includes the firm purpose of amendment not to use it again. Of course we all know that, among other things, for a the Sacrament of Confession to be valid, the penitent (say for example me) **must **have a firm purpose of amendment. That means I do not want to commit the same sin again and will take steps not to. Commiting the sin of using ABC (virtually always a mortal sin because it requires an overt and coordinated act and thought) is easy to avoid.

 

[noma]

If so, that is not what the Catechism, which I quoted earlier, says. It describes ABC as “intrinsiclly evil”. It does not matter why you are artificially interfering with God’s creative act and rendering the conjugal act to nothing more than personal sexual gratification, it is always evil. I am sorry if you find this offensice, it is not intended to be. ABC is clearly described as intrinsiclly evil.

Why should I accept the authority of the Catechism on this matter? How do I know it’s not wrong?

 

[rpp]

Why should I accept the authority of the Catechism on this matter? How do I know it’s not wrong?

If a person ia a Catholic, they must accept the Catechism. It is what defines the Catholic faith. To reject the Catechism, or any part of it, is to reject the faith.

The Catechism is not a collection of good ideas or helpful suggestions, it the the summary all the essential teachings of the Church.

The Catechism is absolutely definitive.

You can trust the Catechism becase it cannot be wrong. It comes from the Pope and Magesterium, who, through the grace of Holy Spirit, were granted the charism of infallibility when the document was prepared and promulgated.

When a person rejects part or all of the Catechism, they are no in communion with the Holy See and at least one of these labels applies to them: apostate, heretic, schismatic, protestant or non-Christian. None of these people are in full communion with the Church and therefore none can receive Holy Communion or the other sacraments until they return to full ccommunion by accpting all that the Church teaches.

There are moral abosolutes, morality can never change. Committing murder, in it’s many forms, will always be sinful. Adultery willl always be sinful. Stealing will always be sinful. ABC will always be sinful.

 

[noma]

You have made some good points, I think, but I do not accept your conclusion.

The Catechism is absolutely definitive. You can trust the Catechism becase it cannot be wrong. It comes from the Pope and Magesterium, who, through the grace of Holy Spirit, were granted the charism of infallibility when the document was prepared and promulgated.

I am unsure what you mean by “absolutely definitive”. If you mean “without error in matters of faith and morals”, the Catechism itself does not make this claim, nor do its proponents. And even if it were proclaimed so, unless it were proclaimed within another ecumenical council or ex cathedra, this would not itself establish the claim.

So unless you can show me where your claims are established, I cannot accept your line of reasoning.

When a person rejects part or all of the Catechism, they are no in communion with the Holy See and at least one of these labels applies to them: apostate, heretic, schismatic, protestant or non-Christian. None of these people are in full communion with the Church and therefore none can receive Holy Communion or the other sacraments until they return to full ccommunion by accpting all that the Church teaches.

Though it may be true that I am in error, I cannot agree that what you say is true, either for the Catechism, or for any teaching of the Church. For people can be in error without being apostate, heretic, schismatic, protestant, or non-Christian. Saints even fall into error.

There are moral abosolutes, morality can never change. Committing murder, in it’s many forms, will always be sinful. Adultery willl always be sinful. Stealing will always be sinful. ABC will always be sinful.

I agree that there are moral absolutes. I do not agree that the Church’s teaching on ABC is one of those absolutes.

 

[Mommyof02green]

If a person ia a Catholic, they must accept the Catechism. It is what defines the Catholic faith. To reject the Catechism, or any part of it, is to reject the faith.

The Catechism is not a collection of good ideas or helpful suggestions, it the the summary all the essential teachings of the Church.

The Catechism is absolutely definitive.

You can trust the Catechism becase it cannot be wrong. It comes from the Pope and Magesterium, who, through the grace of Holy Spirit, were granted the charism of infallibility when the document was prepared and promulgated.

When a person rejects part or all of the Catechism, they are no in communion with the Holy See and at least one of these labels applies to them: apostate, heretic, schismatic, protestant or non-Christian. None of these people are in full communion with the Church and therefore none can receive Holy Communion or the other sacraments until they return to full ccommunion by accpting all that the Church teaches.

There are moral abosolutes, morality can never change. Committing murder, in it’s many forms, will always be sinful. Adultery willl always be sinful. Stealing will always be sinful. ABC will always be sinful.

That reminds me of this question and answer I’ve read:

Q: As Catholics, do we have to accept everything the Church teaches?

A: If you want to call yourself Catholic, but you want to pick and choose for yourself which of the Church’s teachings to accept and which to reject, you give everyone else who calls themselves Catholic the right to do the same thing.

For example, you believe women should be priests…in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1577 states, “Only a baptized man validly receives ordination…For this reason the ordination of women is not possible!” You don’t believe that…well, that’s fine…[RIP] just tear that page out of your Catechism…you just made it a Catechism of your Catholic Church…not mine.

But remember, if you can throw doctrines out, so can everyone else who calls themselves Catholic. That gives Joe Parishioner over at St. Doubting Thomas Catholic Church the right to throw out the Church’s social justice teachings…he doesn’t feel like feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, and all that other “bleeding heart” stuff - Paragraphs 2401 -2463 [RIP]…he just made it a Catechism of his Catholic Church…not mine and not yours.

**You believe contraception is okay? Paragraph 2370 says contraception is intrinsically evil! [RIP] **Joe Parishioner doesn’t like what the Church teaches on the death penalty - Paragraphs 2266-2267[RIP]. You don’t like what it teaches on pages 55-60 [RIP]. He doesn’t like what it teaches on pages 128-140 [RIP]

Can you see what’s happening? I heard it said once that there is a shortage of vocations to the priesthood in the United States, but no shortage of vocations to the Papacy! If we don’t believe in all of it, if we each appoint ourselves Pope and throw out a doctrine here or a doctrine there, then our faith is no longer Catholic.

Source: biblechristiansociety.com/2min_apologetics.php?id=5

So Noma when you don’t accept the Church teaching on ABC you just in a sense have thrown those paragraphes out… Therefore you just made it a Catechism of your Catholic Church…not mine or anyone else that fully accepts the Church teachings on ABC.

 

[noma]

So Noma when you don’t accept the Church teaching on ABC you just in a sense have thrown those paragraphes out… Therefore you just made it a Catechism of your Catholic Church…not mine or anyone else that fully accepts the Church teachings on ABC.

I would still argue that these beliefs are part of our Catholic Church, because these are not definitive teachings that carry with them the weight of being undeniable.

The Catholic Church does not have complete uniformity of belief. It has complete uniformity of belief on dogma. The Byzantine Catholic Church is Catholic, but the Byzantine Catholic Church has a different theology of purgatory and the trinity than the Roman Catholic Church.

And (though I agree this is somewhat more radical), many people have a different theology about ABC than the Pope does. Since I don’t see this as dogmatic, I don’t see this as a belief separate from the Catholic Church, but rather one that adds to the diversity of the Church.

 

[rpp]

I will say, ABC is one area of moral theology that trips up many otherwise well meaning Catholics. Please do think people are ganging up on you or that I am beating you up. My motive is truly intended to be a kind and charitable fraternal correction. I am certain others who view this thread see that as well.

You have made some good points, I think, but I do not accept your conclusion.

I am unsure what you mean by “absolutely definitive”. If you mean “without error in matters of faith and morals”, the Catechism itself does not make this claim, nor do its proponents. And even if it were proclaimed so, unless it were proclaimed within another ecumenical council or ex cathedra, this would not itself establish the claim.

So unless you can show me where your claims are established, I cannot accept your line of reasoning.

What I mean by “absolutely definitive” is that if anything contradicts the the Catechism, it is in error and the Catechism is correct.

What source do **you **accept as definitive Catholic teaching? (Sorry, saying **only **your conscience is not enough. Lost of people, myself included, have holes and imperfections in their conscience.)

On what basis then do you accept or reject teachings found in the Catechism?

To reject a teaching in the Catechism, you will need quite a bit more than just your conscience.

Though it may be true that I am in error, I cannot agree that what you say is true, either for the Catechism, or for any teaching of the Church. For people can be in error without being apostate, heretic, schismatic, protestant, or non-Christian. Saints even fall into error.

You are correct here. I left out the least serious state of being in error. However, being “in error” means that when you are shown to be in error, you accept the teaching of the Church and change it.

When it comes to ABC, we have more than just the Catechism. We have, as was mentioned earlier, Humanae Vitae, the Papal Encyclical from Pope Paul VI where all forms of ABC are explicitly described as intrinsicly evil. This document carries with it the infallible teachings of the Pope. To reject this is a very serious matter. Unfortunately many people reject it and thus build a wall between them and God. I suspect ABC, perhaps more than any other sin, leads many to receive the Body and Bollod of Our Lord unworthily and thus making them guilty of a **very very **grave sin, as the Apostle Paul says “guilty of the body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

I agree that there are moral absolutes. I do not agree that the Church’s teaching on ABC is one of those absolutes.

In addition to the Pope Paul VI, previously cited, Pope John Paul II (see the book Theology of the Body) and Pope Benedict XVI (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger)

In addition to these Popes, even the bishops of the USA disagree with you. usccb.org/laity/marriage/MarriedLove.pdf

Here are some other references about the Catechism:
newadvent.org/cathen/13120c.htm
usccb.org/catechism/general/q&a.htm

 

[noma]

I will say, ABC is one area of moral theology that trips up many otherwise well meaning Catholics. Please do think people are ganging up on you or that I am beating you up. My motive is truly intended to be a kind and charitable fraternal correction. I am certain others who view this thread see that as well.

Thank you. I have only perceived the motivation of the posters here to be charitable, and have appreciated the dialogue. I do not see this changing, and certainly hope it will not.

I am pleased, and thankful for strong Catholics defending a point that they believe is definitively declared.

What I mean by “absolutely definitive” is that if anything contradicts the the Catechism, it is in error and the Catechism is correct.

Then I would refer to the statement that I made referencing this.

What source do **you **accept as definitive Catholic teaching? (Sorry, saying **only **your conscience is not enough. Lost of people, myself included, have holes and imperfections in their conscience.)

I entirely agree. So here is my list of sources:

Reason from logic (A = A).
Mathematical Reason (the basic ring algebra)
Certain scientific reasoning
Undeniable tenets from Natural Law
Sacred Scripture
All ecumenical councils
Any ex-cathedra statement from the Pope (I accept this because it has been declared in an ecumenical council)

ABC cannot be logically demonstrated, or mathematically demonstrated, or scientifically demonstrated to be wrong. I have read the natural law argument, and find it wanting (for reasons already mentioned, but which can be elucidated and expanded).

The only passages of Sacred Scripture that may be talking of this are the passages of Omar, and of God as the Giver of Life. And I do not agree with the common interpretation of Omar (and no definitive interpretation has been declared in any of the other regions), and find the “Giver of Life” statement to be too general to disallow all forms of ABC at all times.

Only one ecumenical council mentions Birth Control explicitely, that I can find, and that is the First Council of Nicea. It speaks about self-castration, and I agree completely with its reasoning.

No ex-cathedra statement from the Pope has been made concerning ABC.

If the Pope made a statement, explicitly ex-Cathedra, stating that all forms of artificial birth control now existing, as a matter of faith, are definitively wrong, or if a council or if Scripture made this assertion, I would immediately accept that ABC was absolutely wrong, and would abandon it immediately.

You are correct here. I left out the least serious state of being in error. However, being “in error” means that when you are shown to be in error, you accept the teaching of the Church and change it.

One of the things I hope to happen is to be shown to be in error. Clearly, if this is done, I must change my position. I have not found that such error has been sufficiently established, so I continue to share my current opinion.

When it comes to ABC, we have more than just the Catechism. We have, as was mentioned earlier, Humanae Vitae, the Papal Encyclical from Pope Paul VI where all forms of ABC are explicitly described as intrinsicly evil. This document carries with it the infallible teachings of the Pope. To reject this is a very serious matter.

Since these statements were not explicitly ex-cathedra, I do not accept them as infallible.

 

[rpp]

I would still argue that these beliefs are part of our Catholic Church, because these are not definitive teachings that carry with them the weight of being undeniable.

The Catholic Church does not have complete uniformity of belief. It has complete uniformity of belief on dogma. The Byzantine Catholic Church is Catholic, but the Byzantine Catholic Church has a different theology of purgatory and the trinity than the Roman Catholic Church.

And (though I agree this is somewhat more radical), many people have a different theology about ABC than the Pope does. Since I don’t see this as dogmatic, I don’t see this as a belief separate from the Catholic Church, but rather one that adds to the diversity of the Church.

I think there are some misunderstandings here.

I will say, ABC is one area of moral theology that trips up many otherwise well meaning Catholics. Please do think people are ganging up on you or that I am beating you up. My motive is truly intended to be a kind and charitable fraternal correction. I am certain others who view this thread see that as well.

Okay. So you seem to deny what the Popes infallibly teach. Lets try a little theological unpacking.

Working on the assumption that ABC is morally neutral (for those just tuning in, that is a premise I do not agree with) let’s examine the consequences.

I will not bother to site references since you have said you do not accept the authorty of those references.

Premise: The conjugal act is sacred.
Premise: The conjugal act is reserved **only **for married couples.
Premise: The conjugal act is an expression of self-donating love.
Premise: ABC is morally neutral.

• If the conjugal act is sacred, then approaching it as a form of recreation is a sacreladge. Sort of like putting a nice slice of cheese on your host when you receive Holy Communion or extinguishing prayer candles in a church.
• If the conjugal act is sacred and it is reserved for married couples only, any resulting children will have both a mother and a father.
• If the marital act is an expression of self-donating love, then withholding anything is equivalent to one spouse withholding love from the other.
• If the marital act is an expression of self-donating love, then it is inherently an unselfish act.
• If ABC is morally neutral, then the real essence of any sexual sin (adultery, fornication, etc.) has to do with the exchange of reproductive fluids, not the act itself.
• If ABC is morally neutral, then a person who uses it with their partner’s knowledge does nothing wrong.
• If ABC is morally neutral, then one spouse is withholding from the other, even if both consent, and this is morally neutral and potentially good.
• If ABC is morally neutral, then abortion becomes morally acceptable in certain situations; for example, if you do it quick enough).
• If ABC is is morally neutral, then using it when comitting and act of fornication (premarital sex) would render that act morally neutral, since no exchange of see takes place. Adultery only occurs when ABC is not used.
• If ABC is morally neutral, then the marital act cannot be sacred because then it is reduced to nothing more than entertainment.

See, ABC messes up a consistant moral approach. Using ABC is not consistent with true morality.

I am sure you will pick this apart. But the bottom line is Those who reject this teaching do so because it interferes with their favorite sin.

“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

 

[rpp]

Noma,

We have been quoting each other quite a bit and the posts are getting kind of long. In this post I am going to address one issue you brought up, Papal Infallibility.

You correctly state that the Pope is infallible only when speaking ex-cathedra. I will add that it is onmatters of faith and morals. If I am nt mistakesm, there have only been two ex-cathedra statements issued, The Immaculate Conception of Mary (This Friday and it is a Holy Day of Obligation) and the Assumption of Mary.

However, we are to be obedient to our bishops and that includes the Pope. This is most particularly true in areas of faith and morals. ABC is certainly a moral issue.

As such, Humanae Vitae, until some subsequent statement should be viewed as having great authority.

One other point, in Genesis, God did punish a man for “spilling his seed” so as not to impregnate a woman. Is that the “Omar” you are referring to?

Others here at Catholic Answers have put a couple of good artcles together. I defer to them:
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

 

[noma]

Premise 1: The conjugal act is sacred.
Premise 2: The conjugal act is reserved **only **for married couples.
Premise 3: The conjugal act is an expression of self-donating love.
Premise 4: ABC is morally neutral.

I agree with all four of these premises.

Assertion 1: If the conjugal act is sacred, then approaching it as a form of recreation is a sacrilege. Sort of like putting a nice slice of cheese on your host when you receive Holy Communion or extinguishing prayer candles in a church.

This assertion contains a hidden premise:

Premise 5: Any sacred action should not be approached as a form of recreation.

I agree with this premise.

If the conjugal act is sacred and it is reserved for married couples only, any resulting children will have both a mother and a father.

Given the regular definitions of the terms used, I agree.

Assertion 2: If the marital act is an expression of self-donating
love, then withholding anything is equivalent to one spouse
withholding love from the other.

This also contains a hidden premise, and also an irregular definition. The hidden premise is: “Withholding anything from the marital act violates the principle of self-donating love”, and we can call this Premise 6. And I am not sure what you mean by “withholding anything” (you may need a “Definition 1”). Does this mean that I cannot withhold any form of pleasure my spouse requests, even if some forms of pleasure would involve masturbation?

Premise 6: Withholding anything from the marital act violates the principle of self-donating love.

Depending on what you mean by “withholding anything”, I may or may not agree with Premise 6.

Assertion 3: If the marital act is an expression of self-donating
love, then it is inherently an unselfish act.

I am not sure I agree with this one. Does it mean that if either
partner has even a slight amount of selfish motive, that the there was no marital act?

The hidden premise here is:

Premise 7: Any expression of self-donating love is unselfish.

Assertion 4: If ABC is morally neutral, then the real essence of any sexual sin (adultery, fornication, etc.) has to do with the exchange of reproductive fluids, not the act itself.

I do not see how this follows.

Assertion 5: If ABC is morally neutral, then a person who uses it with their partner’s knowledge does nothing wrong.

Not necessarily. Because ABC is morally neutral, this would only be a potential, not a necessary, condition.

Assertion 6: If ABC is morally neutral, then one spouse is withholding from the other, even if both consent, and this is morally neutral and potentially good.

This would require a definition of “withholding” that I would not
normally consent to.

This implies (prima fascia):

Definition 1: By withholding anything, we mean in any way lessening the chance (sometimes called “frustrating”) of an intended end resulting from a single given act.

If this is declared to be the definition, then I disagree with Premise 6 on the basis that withholding something still allows for a self-donating love.

Assertion 7: If ABC is morally neutral, then abortion becomes morally acceptable in certain situations; for example, if you do it quick enough).

I also do not see how this follows from your premises.

Assertion 8: If ABC is is morally neutral, then using it when comitting and act of fornication (premarital sex) would render that act morally neutral, since no exchange of see takes place. Adultery only occurs when ABC is not used.

This is implied by Assertion 4, and I cannot see how Assertion 4 follows. Furthermore, I cannot see a serious distinction between Assertions 4 and 8.

Assertion 9: If ABC is morally neutral, then the marital act cannot be sacred because then it is reduced to nothing more than entertainment.

This has another hidden premise, the simplest of which would be:

Premise 7: Anything that violates self-giving becomes at best solely entertaining.

 

[noma]

One other point, in Genesis, God did punish a man for “spilling his seed” so as not to impregnate a woman. Is that the “Omar” you are referring to?

Onan is what I intended. I apologize for the confusion.

 

[setter]

Since these statements were not explicitly ex-cathedra, I do not accept them as infallible.

Here is an article excerpt from a reliable and orthodox source to consider in formulating your stance:

Claim: The Church’s teaching on contraception is not infallibly proclaimed. Non-infallible teachings may be in error and therefore do not have to be obeyed by Catholics. Theologians have shown the Church’s teaching is erroneous.

Response: Even if the Church’s teaching on contraception was not infallibly proclaimed *ex cathedra *in Humanae Vitae, the teaching is infallible because it has been a universally-held doctrine, taught through the centuries by all the bishops in communion with the Holy Father. *Humanae Vitae *was repeating a teaching already infallibly taught elsewhere.

(A growing number of Catholic Scholars–William May is one–assert that Humanae Vitae itself was an infallible document; one might say it infallibly repeated what was taught infallibly before.)

Even if the teaching against contraception were not infallible (not that I’m suggesting it is, mind you), according to the Second Vatican Council the teaching must be obeyed: “Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decisions, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even if he does not speak ex cathedra” (Gaudium et Spes). This means a rejection of the Church’s teaching on sexuality implies a rejection of some of the teachings of Vatican II.

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp

 

[noma]

Here is an article excerpt from a reliable and orthodox source to consider in formulating your stance:

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp

The specific statement:

“This religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” (LUMEN GENTIUM 25)

This specific statement is with reference to the ordinary magisterium, only when they are proclaiming something which finds its origin in what is infallible, either from Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, or the Sacred Magisterium.

We find this affirmed in the statement preceding:

“They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.”

So the ordinary magisterium must be entirely submitted to, especially the statements of the Pope that are not ex-cathedra, if they are drawn from the treasury of Revelation; if they come from an infallible source. Else, though careful reasoning, reflection, and consideration of the infallible teachings of the Church, one may come even to a conclusion that is opposed to the current teachings of the Church.

Though I do not accept that the teaching of the Church about contraception is even about faith and morals, even if it were, this is not infallibly taught, this does not follow necessarily from what is infallibly taught, and so no one need not assent to it to be a good Catholic.

 

[noma]

Here is an article excerpt from a reliable and orthodox source to consider in formulating your stance:

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp

The specific statement:

“This religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” (LUMEN GENTIUM 25)

This specific statement is with reference to the ordinary magisterium, only when they are proclaiming something which finds its origin in what is infallible, either from Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, or the Sacred Magisterium.

We find this affirmed in the statement preceding:

“They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.”

So the ordinary magisterium must be entirely submitted to, especially the statements of the Pope that are not ex-cathedra, if they are drawn from the treasury of Revelation; if they come from an infallible source. Else, though careful reasoning, reflection, and consideration of the infallible teachings of the Church, one may come even to a conclusion that is opposed to the current teachings of the Church.

Though I do not accept that the teaching of the Church about contraception is even about faith and morals, even if it were, this is not infallibly taught, this does not follow necessarily from what is infallibly taught, and so no one need assent to it to be a good Catholic.

 

[noma]

Here is an article excerpt from a reliable and orthodox source to consider in formulating your stance:

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp

The specific statement:

“This religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” (LUMEN GENTIUM 25)

This specific statement is with reference to the ordinary magisterium, only when they are proclaiming something which finds its origin in what is infallible, either from Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, or the Sacred Magisterium.

We find this affirmed in the statement preceding:

“They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.”

So the ordinary magisterium must be entirely submitted to, especially the statements of the Pope that are not ex-cathedra, if they are drawn from the treasury of Revelation; if they come from an infallible source. Else, though careful reasoning, reflection, and consideration of the infallible teachings of the Church, one may come even to a conclusion that is opposed to the current teachings of the Church.

Though I do not accept that the teaching of the Church about contraception is even about faith and morals, even if it were, this is not infallibly taught, this does not follow necessarily from what is infallibly taught, and so no one need assent to it to be a good Catholic.

 

[noma]

Here is an article excerpt from a reliable and orthodox source to consider in formulating your stance:

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp

The specific statement:

“This religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” (LUMEN GENTIUM 25)

This specific statement is with reference to the ordinary magisterium, only when they are proclaiming something which finds its origin in what is infallible, either from Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, or the Sacred Magisterium.

We find this affirmed in the statement preceding:

“They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.”

So the ordinary magisterium must be entirely submitted to, especially the statements of the Pope that are not ex-cathedra, if they are drawn from the treasury of Revelation; if they come from an infallible source. Else, though careful reasoning, reflection, and consideration of the infallible teachings of the Church, one may come even to a conclusion that is opposed to the current teachings of the Church.

Though I do not accept that the teaching of the Church about contraception is even about faith and morals, even if it were, this is not infallibly taught, this does not follow necessarily from what is infallibly taught, and so no one need not assent to it to be a good Catholic.

 

[noma]

Here is an article excerpt from a reliable and orthodox source to consider in formulating your stance:

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp

The specific statement:

“This religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” (LUMEN GENTIUM 25)

This specific statement is with reference to the ordinary magisterium, only when they are proclaiming something which finds its origin in what is infallible, either from Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, or the Sacred Magisterium.

We find this affirmed in the statement preceding:

“They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.”

So the ordinary magisterium must be entirely submitted to, especially the statements of the Pope that are not ex-cathedra, if they are drawn from the treasury of Revelation; if they come from an infallible source. Else, though careful reasoning, reflection, and consideration of the infallible teachings of the Church, one may come even to a conclusion that is opposed to the current teachings of the Church.

Though I do not accept that the teaching of the Church about contraception is even about faith and morals, even if it were, this is not infallibly taught, this does not follow necessarily from what is infallibly taught, and so no one need not assent to it to be a good Catholic.

 

[noma]

Here is an article excerpt from a reliable and orthodox source to consider in formulating your stance:

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp

The specific statement:

“This religious submission of will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. That is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme teaching authority is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” (LUMEN GENTIUM 25)

This specific statement is with reference to the ordinary magisterium, only when they are proclaiming something which finds its origin in what is infallible, either from Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, or the Sacred Magisterium.

We find this affirmed in the statement preceding:

“They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.”

So the ordinary magisterium must be entirely submitted to, especially the statements of the Pope that are not ex-cathedra, if they are drawn from the treasury of Revelation; if they come from an infallible source. Else, though careful reasoning, reflection, and consideration of the infallible teachings of the Church, one may come even to a conclusion that is opposed to the current teachings of the Church.

Though I do not accept that the teaching of the Church about contraception is even about faith and morals, even if it were, this is not infallibly taught, this does not follow necessarily from what is infallibly taught, and so no one need not assent to it to be a good Catholic.