Current Trends in Catholic Philosophy?

[tpw]

To be honest, I can’t respond to your question re: metaphyics. I don’t know whether or not Lonergan held on to Thomist metaphyics. It’s quite possible he integrated it into his system. Would need to re-read Insight - his initial exploration into this modern epistemology.

Critical realism takes seriously the subjective character of the knowing person…something one doesn’t necessarily get from Thomas… The person engaged in the act of knowing is always situated and conditioned by many factors (gender, race, cultural, class, familial, religious heritage, etc.) which must be taken into account when engaging in the act of acquiring knowledge. Note: I said “situated and conditioned” not DETERMINED…

One thing I remember especially from Method in Theology, Lonergan’s work from 1971. Self-knowledge was highlighted as an important factor when studying scripture (or theology). If one enters into the world of biblical texts assuming “one knows exactly what they mean” …all kinds of hidden prejudices, etc. are at work.

It’s always interesting to engage in scripture study with people who come from a dramatically different world view than white, middle class, male Catholicism…One hears the word very differently.

And this isn’t a matter of “cultural relativism” or “multi-culturalism”. It’s a matter of weaving the rich insights of our tradition into the lives of real people… It explains in part of richness of our theological reflections of the past thirty years.

 

[tpw]

Yes, you’re correct on this point. however Rome has silenced them.

John Courtney Murray, SJ and his arguments re: freedom of religion during the 1950’s is a notable example. Rome ordered him to silence. But as the council demonstrated…his arguments were embraced by the church.

This is evidence of what is found truthful inevitably finds its way into the ever-growing, dynamic Catholic philosophical tradition…

tpw

 

[itinerant1]

To be honest, I can’t respond to your question re: metaphyics. I don’t know whether or not Lonergan held on to Thomist metaphyics. It’s quite possible he integrated it into his system. Would need to re-read Insight - his initial exploration into this modern epistemology.

Critical realism takes seriously the subjective character of the knowing person…something one doesn’t necessarily get from Thomas… The person engaged in the act of knowing is always situated and conditioned by many factors (gender, race, cultural, class, familial, religious heritage, etc.) which must be taken into account when engaging in the act of acquiring knowledge. Note: I said “situated and conditioned” not DETERMINED…

One thing I remember especially from Method in Theology, Lonergan’s work from 1971. Self-knowledge was highlighted as an important factor when studying scripture (or theology). If one enters into the world of biblical texts assuming “one knows exactly what they mean” …all kinds of hidden prejudices, etc. are at work.

It’s always interesting to engage in scripture study with people who come from a dramatically different world view than white, middle class, male Catholicism…One hears the word very differently.

And this isn’t a matter of “cultural relativism” or “multi-culturalism”. It’s a matter of weaving the rich insights of our tradition into the lives of real people… It explains in part of richness of our theological reflections of the past thirty years.

My only issue in this thread was with a Transcendental Thomism or “critical realism”. Somehow, I got offtrack with my point. In regard to Lonergan, I was only thinking of specific philosophical problems and was not implying anything about his theology, positive or negative.

In regard to Rahner, there may be some, at least implicitly stated by Rahner, heterodox theological opinions. Nonetheless, my concern here, as I stated, was with a “critical realism.”

Having studied the philosophical problems related to critical realism, first as it existed with the eminent neo-Thomist Cardinal Mercier at the University of Louvain, where no doubt he did much to promote Thomism, to its latter expressions among various neo-Thomists. Basically, I think Etienne Gilson was correct in his exposition of the errors of “critical realism.”

Gilson states,

“We have now examined several types of critical realism and in each instance have come to the conclusion that the critique of knowledge [critical realism] is essentially incompatible and irreconcilable with metaphysical realism. There is no middle ground. You must either begin as a realist with being, in which case you will have a knowledge of being, or begin as a critical idealist with knowledge, in which case you will never come in contact with being.”

 

[tpw]

Was in touch with Dr. Mark Morelli of Loyola Marymount University who both studied under Lonergan at Toronto and has since begun a Lonergan Center at LMU to continue the study and discussion around Lonergan.

Mark assures me that Lonergan falls well within the Aristotealian-Thomistic metaphysical categories, but has used them to integrate more modern findings in the sciences. You may also want to google “Lonergan, metaphysics” to find a good discussion by Tad Dunne in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer-review site for an especially helpful discussion of Lonerganian metaphysics.

All the best,
tpw

 

[itinerant1]

Was in touch with Dr. Mark Morelli of Loyola Marymount University who both studied under Lonergan at Toronto and has since begun a Lonergan Center at LMU to continue the study and discussion around Lonergan.

Mark assures me that Lonergan falls well within the Aristotealian-Thomistic metaphysical categories, but has used them to integrate more modern findings in the sciences. You may also want to google “Lonergan, metaphysics” to find a good discussion by Tad Dunne in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer-review site for an especially helpful discussion of Lonerganian metaphysics.

All the best,
tpw

You have not grasped the nature of the problem I have posted. I think it can be said that one can be orthodox in regard to metaphysics in a general way, while at the same time espousing an epistemological method that unwittingly fails to support the fact we attain true metaphysical knowledge or knowledge of any type.

So, the fundamental question here pertains to epistemology and whether the primary datum of consciousness is “thought” or “being”. If one opts for thought, as the idealist do (example, Descartes’ “I think”) and those “critical” realists who incorporate the idealist critique of knowledge, then one can never philosophically get beyond thought to things. Hence, any explanation of human knowledge has been theoretically undermined by a false methodology.

Many of the various discussions on the web fail to grasp the nature of the epistemological problem and also manifest a failure to correctly understanding Gilson’s challenge to “critical realism” as detrimental to genuine Aristotelian-Thomistic realism and thus to human knowledge itself.

This problem did not exist in Thomism until the popularity of Descartes’ and Kant’s attempt to justify knowledge created pseudo-problems in the history of philosophy. This is where the critical realist shows his sorry neglect for a study of the history of philosophy.

Hence, some modern neo-Thomists believed Thomism should have it’s own critical method. Big mistake! It was an illusory attempt to acculturate Thomism to the times and make it respectable in the eyes of non-Thomistic philosophers.

Those neo-Thomists who have adopted a critical realism and tried to resolve the foregoing dilemma created by a critical realism have thus far failed. This speaks volumes about the nature of the problem. Will that dilemma ever be solved by some neo-Thomist in the “critical realist” vein? I have reasons to believe that it will not. Certainly, Lonergan and his followers do not have any problem free answers.

The solution to what is actually a conundrum lies in returning to the realism of Aquinas. Thomistic realism understands ideas as that “by which” we know and not “that which” we know. Idealism, to the contrary treats ideas a primarily “that which” we know. This was Descartes fundamental error.

David Hume drew the necessary logical conclusion from the idealist epistemological quirk: skepticism. Kant’s attempt to answer Hume’s skepticism and justify Newtonian physics failed to address the fundamental error committed by Descartes, and so Kant’s Critique represents yet another failed experiment.

 

[itinerant1]

Lonergan and Rahner, dissenters extraordinaire?

The subject of the Catholic Church’s constant teaching regarding artificial contraception involves both philosophy and moral theology. The prohibition on artificial means of contraception is based on the interpretation of natural law and is an obligatory matter of Catholic moral teaching. The Church’s position is well expressed in the document Humae Vitae, with which I am in 100% agreement.

However, Bernard Lonergan and Karl Rahner were dissenters against Church teaching in this matter. This does not speak well of their philosophical understanding of natural law and moral theology, not to mention their 60’s style of dissing the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

Source:
“The Toronto Conference on the Theology of Renewal
A congress on the Theology of the Renewal of the Church was held in Toronto in 1967. It was heavily loaded with speakers who were agitating for change in the Church’s teaching against contraception. Among these were Cardinal Leger, Cardinal Suenens, Edward Schillebeeckx, OP, Karl Rahner, SJ, Bernard Häring, CSsR, Bernard Lonergan, SJ, Enda McDonagh (called by some the Maynooth Pope of Modernism), and Elizabeth Anscombe (the title of her talk was “You can have sex without children: Christianity and the New Order”). Fr. Häring saw the teaching against contraception as coming from a pre-scientific mind appropriate to a former society. No speaker defended the Church’s teaching against contraception or sterilization. Thus again, Canada was being led down the slippery slope towards the contraceptive mentality.”

That was 1967. Humae Vitae was promulgated on July 29, 1968.

"After Humanae Vitae, pressure groups sprung up like mushrooms. Among these were the Western Conference of priests, armed with a letter of support for dissent by Fr. Bernard Lonergan, SJ, the Catholic Physicians Guild of Manitoba, Catholics in Dialogue, the Canadian Institute of Theology and 58 “intellectuals” of St. Francis Xavier University (“the cream of Antigonish” their Bishop said.) The chant of all was “Give us Freedom of Conscience.”

"Most significant and most disgraceful was that fifteen Directors of the departments of the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops betrayed their offices and signed what one could call a “Pre-Winnipeg” Statement. They asked for a “Vatican II approach.” They said that a large number of Canadian priests were agonizing “in acute crises of conscience” because of the “apparent directives of Humanae Vitae.” In all my experience I never met a priest suffering from such an acute crisis of conscience.

“So the stage was set for the great Winnipeg betrayal of the Catholics of Canada.”

(Excerpts from Humanae Vitae and Canada: Forty Years After, by Msgr. Vincent Foy)

Question: Did Karl Rahner or Bernard Lonergan ever recant of their errors and make amends for their scandalous behavior?

 

[chrysostim83]

Among these [speakers agitating for change in the teaching on contraception] were Cardinal Leger, Cardinal Suenens, Edward Schillebeeckx, OP, Karl Rahner, SJ, Bernard Häring, CSsR, Bernard Lonergan, SJ, Enda McDonagh (called by some the Maynooth Pope of Modernism), and Elizabeth Anscombe (the title of her talk was “You can have sex without children: Christianity and the New Order”). Fr. Häring saw the teaching against contraception as coming from a pre-scientific mind appropriate to a former society. No speaker defended the Church’s teaching against contraception or sterilization. Thus again, Canada was being led down the slippery slope towards the contraceptive mentality."

The main thrust of this quote, for itinerant1’s purposes, was to show that Lonergan and Rahner dissented from Church teaching in this delicate matter. However, as an aside, I want to correct the false impression given here of G. E. M. Anscombe’s position on contraception. Whoever originally wrote the paragraph above appears to have been misled by the title of Anscombe’s paper, “You can have sex without children;” if the author had bothered to consult her collected papers, he would have discovered that the paper is actually a profound argument against contraception drawn largely from Anscombe’s book on action theory, Intention.

Again, this doesn’t affect itinerant1’s point—I just thought Anscombe deserved a little defense.

 

[tpw]

Good friend…first of all you are aware than NO moral teaching of the church has ever been declared “infallible”? Not one! Why? Because the magesterium, good theologians going at least as far back as Aquinas know that in the concrete details of individual’s lived experience lives become rather messy. The choices they make because of these condition is not simply a matter of black and white, yes and no. That’s why confessors are trained so well…

The issue most thoughtful moral theologians had around humane vitae didn’t have to do with the overall malaise in sexual morality we have seen in the past forty years or so. The real issue had to do with the nature of marital relations around use the of artificial birth control.

Some conservative theologians argue the widespread use of birth control is directly responsible for the decline of marriage in the west. Now, it may be possible that the use of artificial birth control has contributed to marital discord in some cases. I certainly have not seen studies which would document that one way or the other - so a claim like this remains in the realm of pure speculation.

But to make such a claim one would have to discount the impact the rise of modern feminism has played in relations between men and women. For better or worse it’s played a large role in how men and women see themselves and each other.

You would also have to neglect the role economics plays in marital relationships. Sad to say in some cases economic decline has created horror situations. I think of the collapse of the steel industry in the upper midwest in the 80’s and the pure hell that created for many families. That alone contributed to increased divorce.

Rahner and Lonergan’s “errors” as you describe them may best be looked at in the overall context of their discussions - not in some abstract did he or didn’t he manner of looking at the world.

 

[itinerant1]

Good friend…first of all you are aware than NO moral teaching of the church has ever been declared “infallible”? Not one! Why? Because the magesterium, good theologians going at least as far back as Aquinas know that in the concrete details of individual’s lived experience lives become rather messy. The choices they make because of these condition is not simply a matter of black and white, yes and no. That’s why confessors are trained so well…

The issue most thoughtful moral theologians had around humane vitae didn’t have to do with the overall malaise in sexual morality we have seen in the past forty years or so. The real issue had to do with the nature of marital relations around use the of artificial birth control.

Some conservative theologians argue the widespread use of birth control is directly responsible for the decline of marriage in the west. Now, it may be possible that the use of artificial birth control has contributed to marital discord in some cases. I certainly have not seen studies which would document that one way or the other - so a claim like this remains in the realm of pure speculation.

But to make such a claim one would have to discount the impact the rise of modern feminism has played in relations between men and women. For better or worse it’s played a large role in how men and women see themselves and each other.

You would also have to neglect the role economics plays in marital relationships. Sad to say in some cases economic decline has created horror situations. I think of the collapse of the steel industry in the upper midwest in the 80’s and the pure hell that created for many families. That alone contributed to increased divorce.

Rahner and Lonergan’s “errors” as you describe them may best be looked at in the overall context of their discussions - not in some abstract did he or didn’t he manner of looking at the world.

No moral teaching infallible? Oh my! What church do you belong to?

THE AUTHORITY OF THE ENCYCLICAL HUMANAE VITAE
by M. R. Gagnebet O.P.

Infallibility of Humanae Vitae
by Fr Brian W. Harrison, O.S.

Germain Grisez on “Humanae Vitae,” Then and Now

 

[roysheehan]

Hey folks,

What happened when “Old Scholasiticism” hit the wall against Newton’s mechanical universe?

I will suggest you spend some time reviewing the Pontifical Academy of Science to update your currency in philosophy. Science like any other occupation must be weighed in on the moral weight scale and the Vatican posesses that moral weight scale in congress with professionals who are Catholic and posess knowledge of both the sciences and Catholic Doctrine. All the answers reside in that Academy. In order to improve your own understanding in relation to universal experimentation with new technology and Catholic teaching you really need to go there.

 

[itinerant1]

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. (De fide)

The Union Council of Constantinople (869-70), of Lyons (1274), and of Florence (1438-45) having already proclaimed the teaching Primacy of the Pope, which, in its essence, involved infallibility, the Vatican Council defined:

“The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks *ex cathedra–*that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church–by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.” (D 1839, cf. D 466, 694, 1833-35.)

D = H. Denzinger–C. Rahner, Enchridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott

 

[itinerant1]

The main thrust of this quote, for itinerant1’s purposes, was to show that Lonergan and Rahner dissented from Church teaching in this delicate matter. However, as an aside, I want to correct the false impression given here of G. E. M. Anscombe’s position on contraception. Whoever originally wrote the paragraph above appears to have been misled by the title of Anscombe’s paper, “You can have sex without children;” if the author had bothered to consult her collected papers, he would have discovered that the paper is actually a profound argument against contraception drawn largely from Anscombe’s book on action theory, Intention.

Again, this doesn’t affect itinerant1’s point—I just thought Anscombe deserved a little defense.

Thanks for the info on Anscombe.

 

[itinerant1]

The main thrust of this quote, for itinerant1’s purposes, was to show that Lonergan and Rahner dissented from Church teaching in this delicate matter. However, as an aside, I want to correct the false impression given here of G. E. M. Anscombe’s position on contraception. Whoever originally wrote the paragraph above appears to have been misled by the title of Anscombe’s paper, “You can have sex without children;” if the author had bothered to consult her collected papers, he would have discovered that the paper is actually a profound argument against contraception drawn largely from Anscombe’s book on action theory, Intention.

Again, this doesn’t affect itinerant1’s point—I just thought Anscombe deserved a little defense.

I did not know anything about G.E.M. Anscombe until you brought the matter to my attention. I just finished reading some essays by Anscombe and I am very impressed with her learning and orthodoxy. Now I can only wonder how Msgr. Vincent Foy so mischaracterized her views.

Anscombe says, “In fact there’s no greater connexion of “natural law” with the prohibition on contraception than with any other part of morality.” Now that’s what I’m talking about. How can so many Catholic scholars deny what seems to be the obvious interpretation of natural law in regard to contraception?

I must recommend Anscombe’s essay Contraception and Chastity

As for myself, I found in G.E.M. Anscombe another great Catholic philosopher well worth studying. :whackadoo:

 

[tpw]

The ordinary magesterium of the church does NOT teaching infallibly on moral questions. It teaches wisely and thoughtfully and any responsible person will listen…but it does not teach infallibly.

Why? Three reasons…

1. While Vatican I asserted the right of the Pope and by extension the Church to speak, the fact is it has never exercised this right on moral questions. Teachings of the ordinary magesterium though assisted by the Spirit are nonetheless susceptible to error and therefore fallible.
2. The problem of incompleteness. Morality has to do with judgements in concrete circumstances libable to variety and multiplicity. You, me and all other Catholics are faced with decisions all the time where any number of factors are at stake. The most we can hope for is that the church will address important values in her teaching and encourage us to strive to make the best possible choices we can.

An example: Consider the case of Franz Jagerstatter who was canonized in 2008. Jagerstatter was a devout Austrian farmer. During WW II he was drafted into the Nazi army. Though his parish priest, a prison chaplain and his bishop encouraged him to serve for the sake of his wife and three children, Jagerstatter refused to do this on grounds that serving in the Nazi army violated his conscience. Jagerstatter was eventually executed by the Nazis. He is now considered to be the patron saint of conscientious objectors…

1. Inadequacy. Each of us hopefully is engaged in the long and arduous process of growing in holiness. What is right at what time for us in our spiritual life, may not be right at another. Any wise spiritual director / confessor will take this into account when ministering to the needs of a peson who comes for guidance.

Morality is a changing matter…not the core values of course…but the interaction of these values with the world in which we live. You cited Humane Vitae…artificial contraception has been around for hundreds of years. Yet the advent of the “pill” introduced entirely other factors into the moral debate about the use of contraceptives. Though Paul VI in the end decided to maintain the traditional position of the church re: artificial birth control, it’s clear that it was not fully embraced by the faithful.

While it’s clear that the wisdom of Humane Vitae especially its concerns about the increase of prominiscuity and abuse by governments (and by extension international organizations like the wonderful US based International Monetary Fund and World Bank who have mandated governments to force their citizens to use artificial birth control as a criteria to receive loans), it’s not at all clear beyond the realm of speculation - as far as I know - that artificial birth control - in and of itself - is responsible for the high divorce rates in this country.

By the by - there are other growing concerns among environmentalists about the effects of the presence of high levels of estrogen presumably from birth control pills found in sewage. It is thought by some that this presence is responsible for degradation of water supplies and endangering fish and other water creatures…Interesting…

Hope this helps clarify what I meant…

 

[itinerant1]

The ordinary magesterium of the church does NOT teaching infallibly on moral questions. It teaches wisely and thoughtfully and any responsible person will listen…but it does not teach infallibly.

Why? Three reasons…

1. While Vatican I asserted the right of the Pope and by extension the Church to speak, the fact is it has never exercised this right on moral questions. Teachings of the ordinary magesterium though assisted by the Spirit are nonetheless susceptible to error and therefore fallible.
2. The problem of incompleteness. Morality has to do with judgements in concrete circumstances libable to variety and multiplicity. You, me and all other Catholics are faced with decisions all the time where any number of factors are at stake. The most we can hope for is that the church will address important values in her teaching and encourage us to strive to make the best possible choices we can.

An example: Consider the case of Franz Jagerstatter who was canonized in 2008. Jagerstatter was a devout Austrian farmer. During WW II he was drafted into the Nazi army. Though his parish priest, a prison chaplain and his bishop encouraged him to serve for the sake of his wife and three children, Jagerstatter refused to do this on grounds that serving in the Nazi army violated his conscience. Jagerstatter was eventually executed by the Nazis. He is now considered to be the patron saint of conscientious objectors…

1. Inadequacy. Each of us hopefully is engaged in the long and arduous process of growing in holiness. What is right at what time for us in our spiritual life, may not be right at another. Any wise spiritual director / confessor will take this into account when ministering to the needs of a peson who comes for guidance.

Morality is a changing matter…not the core values of course…but the interaction of these values with the world in which we live. You cited Humane Vitae…artificial contraception has been around for hundreds of years. Yet the advent of the “pill” introduced entirely other factors into the moral debate about the use of contraceptives. Though Paul VI in the end decided to maintain the traditional position of the church re: artificial birth control, it’s clear that it was not fully embraced by the faithful.

While it’s clear that the wisdom of Humane Vitae especially its concerns about the increase of prominiscuity and abuse by governments (and by extension international organizations like the wonderful US based International Monetary Fund and World Bank who have mandated governments to force their citizens to use artificial birth control as a criteria to receive loans), it’s not at all clear beyond the realm of speculation - as far as I know - that artificial birth control - in and of itself - is responsible for the high divorce rates in this country.

By the by - there are other growing concerns among environmentalists about the effects of the presence of high levels of estrogen presumably from birth control pills found in sewage. It is thought by some that this presence is responsible for degradation of water supplies and endangering fish and other water creatures…Interesting…

Hope this helps clarify what I meant…

Your post clarifies that fact you do not correctly understand the teaching authority of the Church. Nor do you understand how various practical situations are to be related to and understood in light of a moral doctrine. Furthermore, your personal views are so far off the mark, that I do not consider them to be Catholic.

Catholic Encyclopedia
That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma. (See the article “Infallibility” in the Catholic Encyclopedia)

Vatican Council
Vatican Council in Session IV, cap. 4, says that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra “enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”.

Pope John Paul II
In a Nov. 24 address to members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope John Paul II expressed regret that many Catholics apparently think they are at liberty to dismiss doctrines they don’t agree with unless it is formally stated that they are infallibly proposed.

Different teachings do have different degrees of authority, he said. But he added, “That does not authorize people to think that pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the magisterium require irrevocable assent only when it presents them with a solemn judgment or definitive act.”
**
CCC**
Papal infallibility means that the pope is protected from error when he “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (CCC 891).

This Rock
Concerning the infallibility question, the pope doesn’t need to proclaim ex cathedra the teaching that artificial means of birth control is wrong; it’s already an infallible teaching of the Church by virtue of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic authority of the Roman pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra, in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him. (Lumen Gentium 25)

For further clarification on this issue, please see “What Is the Magisterium?” by Thomas Storck at www.catholic.net.

 

[tpw]

Thanks for quoting ad nauseum.

May I repeat myself…though Vatican I claimed papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals,as a matter of historical record Rome has NEVER declared a moral teaching infallible and for the very reasons I gave.

The only infallible claims Rome has made have been on matters of doctrine both of which pertained to Mary’s role in salvation history.

 

[itinerant1]

Thanks for quoting ad nauseum.

May I repeat myself…though Vatican I claimed papal infallibility in matters of faith and morals,as a matter of historical record Rome has NEVER declared a moral teaching infallible and for the very reasons I gave.

The only infallible claims Rome has made have been on matters of doctrine both of which pertained to Mary’s role in salvation history.

It is unfortunate that you did not truly read the quotes. Your view of infallibility is a post Humanae Vitae Rahnerian view.

In modern times we can point to infallible extraordinary papal definitions such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. And then there are examples of infallible extraordinary Conciliar decrees, which include the Council of Trent’s decree on justification, and Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility.

Furthermore, we have the infallible teachings of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which are quite numerous and are not contained in any single document, but are the common teachings found among the Bishops throughout the world yet united with the Pope.

Note also, that Pope John Paul II specifically clarified that the reservation of ordination to males is infallible under the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church.

In regard to just moral teachings, many theologians today, and all or the vast majority of theologians prior to Vatican Council II, recognize that the core of Catholic moral teaching has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary, day-to-day exercise of the Magisterium by bishops throughout the world yet in union with one another and with the Holy Father.

This was the teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and it was commonly taught by all theologians prior to Vatican II. It is also attested to by Karl Rahner himself in his 1963 book “Nature and Grace.” Rahner later claimed that the Magisterium cannot infallibly teach specific moral norms insofar as they are concerned with man’s concrete human nature. However, Rahner’s new position does not hold water, and it is a position that most likely resulted from his disagreement with Humanae Vitae. Certainly, there was nothing in the documents of Vatican II that would justify Rahner’s new claim.

Back to matters of faith that are defined infallibly. Doctrines in this category are quite numerous and a good guide to these is Ludwig Ott’s book “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.”

 

[itinerant1]

The ordinary magesterium of the church does NOT teaching infallibly on moral questions. It teaches wisely and thoughtfully and any responsible person will listen…but it does not teach infallibly.

Why? Three reasons…

1. While Vatican I asserted the right of the Pope and by extension the Church to speak, the fact is it has never exercised this right on moral questions. Teachings of the ordinary magesterium though assisted by the Spirit are nonetheless susceptible to error and therefore fallible.
2. The problem of incompleteness. Morality has to do with judgements in concrete circumstances libable to variety and multiplicity. You, me and all other Catholics are faced with decisions all the time where any number of factors are at stake. The most we can hope for is that the church will address important values in her teaching and encourage us to strive to make the best possible choices we can.

An example: Consider the case of Franz Jagerstatter who was canonized in 2008. Jagerstatter was a devout Austrian farmer. During WW II he was drafted into the Nazi army. Though his parish priest, a prison chaplain and his bishop encouraged him to serve for the sake of his wife and three children, Jagerstatter refused to do this on grounds that serving in the Nazi army violated his conscience. Jagerstatter was eventually executed by the Nazis. He is now considered to be the patron saint of conscientious objectors…

1. Inadequacy. Each of us hopefully is engaged in the long and arduous process of growing in holiness. What is right at what time for us in our spiritual life, may not be right at another. Any wise spiritual director / confessor will take this into account when ministering to the needs of a peson who comes for guidance.

Morality is a changing matter…not the core values of course…but the interaction of these values with the world in which we live. You cited Humane Vitae…artificial contraception has been around for hundreds of years. Yet the advent of the “pill” introduced entirely other factors into the moral debate about the use of contraceptives. Though Paul VI in the end decided to maintain the traditional position of the church re: artificial birth control, it’s clear that it was not fully embraced by the faithful.

While it’s clear that the wisdom of Humane Vitae especially its concerns about the increase of prominiscuity and abuse by governments (and by extension international organizations like the wonderful US based International Monetary Fund and World Bank who have mandated governments to force their citizens to use artificial birth control as a criteria to receive loans), it’s not at all clear beyond the realm of speculation - as far as I know - that artificial birth control - in and of itself - is responsible for the high divorce rates in this country.

By the by - there are other growing concerns among environmentalists about the effects of the presence of high levels of estrogen presumably from birth control pills found in sewage. It is thought by some that this presence is responsible for degradation of water supplies and endangering fish and other water creatures…Interesting…

Hope this helps clarify what I meant…

Curiously, you did not mention that many people in the Church predicted the new contraceptive mentality would lead to wide spread abortions. And so it has come true.

It’s worth noting that gay activists vehemently support abortion on demand. What should be their interest be in abortion? They share the same ideology promoted by the contraceptive mentality, which is a separation of sexual activity from procreation.

Artificial contraception, gay sex, and abortion are three facets of the same ideology.

 

[tpw]

We agree on the Marian dogmas and their infallibility.

We disagree on the moral norms question. It’s not simply “Rahner” the bogeyman of conservatives. There were a number of theologians who disagreed with the practical question of whether or not married persons were bound in conscience to refrain from the use of artificial birth control.

As I’ve indicated in other places on CA - a case is being made that artificial birth control
ALONE is responsible for the high divorce rate. I’ve not seen any significant study which would support this claim. Anecdotally, it makes sense that in some marriages artifiicial birth control became a problem. But married relationships are complex phenomenon. It would seem a whole host of other problems may have been there in the first place and went unaddressed. Artificial birth control may simply have added fuel to the fire.

Re: male priesthood…while JP II desired to make an infallible declaration on maintaining a male priesthood in fact that was not the final result. Why… I might hazard a couple of guesses.

1).the biblical argument holds little water as it absolutizes gender as a norm for the priesthood in a particular culture during a particular historical period. It would have been absolutely absurd to institute a female priesthood in the 1st century world.

1. Analogously, the argument re: the male priesthood may follow the same line of thought as that at the Council of Jerusalem around circumcision. …that which is peripheral to the gospel does not hold as normative. If the conservatives at the Council of Jerusalem had won out the church would have died within decades…
2. Whether or not we retain a male priesthood remains to be seen. Probably will be case for the next few decades since women are not yet held with great respect in some of the Latin American countries and African countries…As the dignity of women is recognized and grows in these countries…it may well become the case that the church will seriously discuss ordaining women.

But even if that eventually happens…it probably makes more sense to examine the ordination of women as deacons. That makes far more sense…of course that may also be a cultural problem in Latin America and Africa…who knows…not me…but certainly the Spirit…

 

[itinerant1]

We agree on the Marian dogmas and their infallibility.

We disagree on the moral norms question. It’s not simply “Rahner” the bogeyman of conservatives. There were a number of theologians who disagreed with the practical question of whether or not married persons were bound in conscience to refrain from the use of artificial birth control.

As I’ve indicated in other places on CA - a case is being made that artificial birth control
ALONE is responsible for the high divorce rate. I’ve not seen any significant study which would support this claim. Anecdotally, it makes sense that in some marriages artifiicial birth control became a problem. But married relationships are complex phenomenon. It would seem a whole host of other problems may have been there in the first place and went unaddressed. Artificial birth control may simply have added fuel to the fire.

Re: male priesthood…while JP II desired to make an infallible declaration on maintaining a male priesthood in fact that was not the final result. Why… I might hazard a couple of guesses.

1).the biblical argument holds little water as it absolutizes gender as a norm for the priesthood in a particular culture during a particular historical period. It would have been absolutely absurd to institute a female priesthood in the 1st century world.

1. Analogously, the argument re: the male priesthood may follow the same line of thought as that at the Council of Jerusalem around circumcision. …that which is peripheral to the gospel does not hold as normative. If the conservatives at the Council of Jerusalem had won out the church would have died within decades…
2. Whether or not we retain a male priesthood remains to be seen. Probably will be case for the next few decades since women are not yet held with great respect in some of the Latin American countries and African countries…As the dignity of women is recognized and grows in these countries…it may well become the case that the church will seriously discuss ordaining women.

But even if that eventually happens…it probably makes more sense to examine the ordination of women as deacons. That makes far more sense…of course that may also be a cultural problem in Latin America and Africa…who knows…not me…but certainly the Spirit…

The modernist idea that the Church does not teach infallibly in regard to moral norms has no support in the history of the Church. If you think my statement is not correct, I invite you to cite sources from reputable theologians to back up your personal opinion. Otherwise, you must acknowledge that it is just your private, unsupported opinion that you have been stating.

Furthermore, it would be a most strange circumstance that the Biblical authors infallibly taught moral norms whereas the Church does not. Your view implies that Christ no longer guides His Church and the Church may error in the matter of morals.

Whether or not it can be shown that artificial birth control use contributes to divorce does not address the natural law issue, and the Church is the highest and final authority when it comes to interpreting natural law.

The cultural argument about the priesthood does not go very deep into the matter. In fact, it neglects altogether the theological significance of having a male priesthood. Women priests will forever remain the liberal theologian’s elusive fantasy.

An all-male priesthood was not just a matter of cultural norms. Actually, it is the advocacy of women priests that is strictly culturally conditioned. It is the radical feminist agenda of modernity asserting itself in the Church.