Humanae vitae dissent - is it heresy?
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
T
TMC
Guest
That is a strong assertion, but what is it based on? Certainly the Church’s teaching on several topics are different today than it was in the past. And some have moved back and forth, like slavery. So what do you call, for example, the difference in today’s teaching on usury, EENS, the death penalty, and so forth? If they are not changes, what are they?
Emeraldlady
New member
That an individual experts work is not the definitive whole picture doesn’t mean that work should be rejected, but it needs to be read as a perspective that contributes to the whole picture.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
In the 1950s, the biggest complaint was against WASPs or White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Apparently, this has been missed or discounted. That the Catholic Church did not apply enough force or not enough force at the time speaks to the character of the Church. She does not force herself on people. There have been many posts here that amount to, why didn’t the Church slap down this or that? Imagine if the Church actually did that. The outcry would negate everything. It would taint everything.
As I wrote earlier, Al Kresta told listeners on Catholic Radio about what the Church did about Civil Rights in the 1950s and how that has been buried.
Vatican II had nothing to do, at all, with causing any weakness in moral authority. The blame it all on Vatican II crowd appeared right after Vatican II to allow sexual perversion to take hold by various means, to pollute the public mind by spreading corruption under the guise of freedom, and they were joined by the media and pornographers in the 1970s.
As I wrote earlier, Al Kresta told listeners on Catholic Radio about what the Church did about Civil Rights in the 1950s and how that has been buried.
Vatican II had nothing to do, at all, with causing any weakness in moral authority. The blame it all on Vatican II crowd appeared right after Vatican II to allow sexual perversion to take hold by various means, to pollute the public mind by spreading corruption under the guise of freedom, and they were joined by the media and pornographers in the 1970s.
U
Usige
Guest
Heresy as defined by canon law “is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith;” These truths are not limited to theological concepts, but also include magisterial teachings on faith and morals that have been definitively proposed. There is no two ways around the fact that the Church has consistently taught that contraception is to be held as gravely immoral.
At best, willful dissent against the moral teachings of the Church fall under the sin of incredulity or voluntary doubt; both of which are sins against faith. The sins against faith are sins against the first commandment. If one struggles with dissent from teaching, but for various reasons cannot overcome it then that is involuntary doubt which has a lower culpability.
The catechism, writings from the Popes and Holy See all are clear that the faithful are obliged to inform their conscience according to the Church as opposed to the world. We are clearly told that we are to “nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it.” Basically that means that the Church is the arbiter of right and wrong with regard to faith and morals. If someone proposes things in opposition to the faith then the faithful are obligated to reject it.
One can dissent from theological or moral opinions, but the question on contraception passed out of the realm of theological opinion almost 90 years ago when Casti Connubii was promulgated. There is no way to equivocate on what Pope Pius XI meant when he wrote
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
Why do far rightest Catholics do that nowadays?
Edit: for context, I’m a faithful, obedient Catholic in every way shape and form. Not trying to undermine Church teaching in any way. Just wondering about far rightest ideologues belief in greater interference in condemning other Catholics?
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
OK, if you won’t explain the basis of your claim, I guess we will have to disagree. The facts speak for themselves, however.
S
stpurl
Guest
Perhaps it’s because you might have a different idea of what ‘teachings’ encompass.
For example, prior to 1965 in the US Catholics abstained from meat every Friday plus Ash Wednesday; now it is only every LENTEN Friday plus Ash Wednesday. BUT the teaching itself has not changed; the norm remains every Friday etc but the US has an indult --a permission to adapt in a pastoral way–the ‘normative’ teaching.
Or you might say, "prior to Vatican 2 women had to cover their heads and now they don’t.
But while the practice was always encouraged and indeed a part of canon law, it was not a dogmatic or doctrinal teaching. It was a discipline, a custom, a practice. Just as with the fast prior to communion once being from midnight, then 3 hours, now 1 hour, those are customs which can change.
The Church never ‘supported’ chattel slavery in the sense that it ever taught, "It is right and proper to enslave another human body and soul’ and in fact the kind of slavery which was known by the Jewish people (and which the Christians, even Gentiles, understood as ‘slavery’) was not chattel slavery. When chattel slavery began to become known and to spread in Christian countries, the Church was the first to speak against it. So Thistle is right, the Church has not changed any teachings. The way it understands something might become ‘deeper’ (thus for example, we know now scientifically that life begins at conception, while in early days theologians spoke of ‘quickening’, but the Church’s understanding was always that any ending of a pregnancy at whatever point it was known there WAS a pregnancy was wrong.) So again, teachings do not change.
And teaching understanding never does a 180. One never goes from "killing is wrong’ to ‘killing is right’, or from "marriage is between one man and one woman’ to ‘marriage is between one man and another man’.
For example, prior to 1965 in the US Catholics abstained from meat every Friday plus Ash Wednesday; now it is only every LENTEN Friday plus Ash Wednesday. BUT the teaching itself has not changed; the norm remains every Friday etc but the US has an indult --a permission to adapt in a pastoral way–the ‘normative’ teaching.
Or you might say, "prior to Vatican 2 women had to cover their heads and now they don’t.
But while the practice was always encouraged and indeed a part of canon law, it was not a dogmatic or doctrinal teaching. It was a discipline, a custom, a practice. Just as with the fast prior to communion once being from midnight, then 3 hours, now 1 hour, those are customs which can change.
The Church never ‘supported’ chattel slavery in the sense that it ever taught, "It is right and proper to enslave another human body and soul’ and in fact the kind of slavery which was known by the Jewish people (and which the Christians, even Gentiles, understood as ‘slavery’) was not chattel slavery. When chattel slavery began to become known and to spread in Christian countries, the Church was the first to speak against it. So Thistle is right, the Church has not changed any teachings. The way it understands something might become ‘deeper’ (thus for example, we know now scientifically that life begins at conception, while in early days theologians spoke of ‘quickening’, but the Church’s understanding was always that any ending of a pregnancy at whatever point it was known there WAS a pregnancy was wrong.) So again, teachings do not change.
And teaching understanding never does a 180. One never goes from "killing is wrong’ to ‘killing is right’, or from "marriage is between one man and one woman’ to ‘marriage is between one man and another man’.
G
goout
Guest
Please give references of the Church teaching that slavery is endorsed by the Church.thistle:
OK, if you won’t explain the basis of your claim, I guess we will have to disagree. The facts speak for themselves, however.
And not examples of Christians who owned slaves, or who had servants in times when servitude was acceptable cultural practice…
actual Church teaching that slavery is acceptable.
T
TMC
Guest
We are at the point of risking turning this into a slavery thread - of which there have been many. But I will give a few examples that anyone can look at. Pope Pius IX wrote in an Instruction of the Holy Office in 1866 that slavery was acceptable and not contrary to divine law - that was done in a response to a question from a bishop, I believe. That is the most recent instance I am aware of. Aquinas taught similarly - he said slavery was not part of the natural law, but was an acceptable practice. I believe Augustine’s teachings were similar. As I have said, the Church’s teaching on slavery has shifted around a bit - at times the focus was that Christians should not make slaves of other Christians, at times slavery was more generally accepted, at times (as now) it was banned completely.
I know that you are rejecting the fact that the Church owned slaves as evidence of the Church’s teaching, but it seems relevant to me. The Church in America owned slaves right up to the Emancipation. Again, not some Catholic individual - the Church owned slaves. So it seems hard to believe the Church condemned slavery in that period, given that it actually owned slaves.
But, of course, my point is not about slavery. My point is that there are any number of examples of Church teaching changing over the centuries (or evolving or adjusting or whatever one wants to call it.) That is simply historical fact, and I find it interesting that so many deny it.
E
edwest211
Guest
Where are they? Who are they? To identify a target group as “far rightest Catholics” does no good if such a group cannot be found.
G
goout
Guest
Ok, well you fail to prove your point with resources. But that is another bunch of threads.goout:
We are at the point of risking turning this into a slavery thread - of which there have been many. But I will give a few examples that anyone can look at. Pope Pius IX wrote in an Instruction of the Holy Office in 1866 that slavery was acceptable and not contrary to divine law - that was done in a response to a question from a bishop, I believe. That is the most recent instance I am aware of. Aquinas taught similarly - he said slavery was not part of the natural law, but was an acceptable practice. I believe Augustine’s teachings were similar. As I have said, the Church’s teaching on slavery has shifted around a bit - at times the focus was that Christians should not make slaves of other Christians, at times slavery was more generally accepted, at times (as now) it was banned completely.
I know that you are rejecting the fact that the Church owned slaves as evidence of the Church’s teaching, but it seems relevant to me. The Church in America owned slaves right up to the Emancipation. Again, not some Catholic individual - the Church owned slaves. So it seems hard to believe the Church condemned slavery in that period, given that it actually owned slaves.
But, of course, my point is not about slavery. My point is that there are any number of examples of Church teaching changing over the centuries (or evolving or adjusting or whatever one wants to call it.) That is simply historical fact, and I find it interesting that so many deny it.
On the subject of change:
The Church admits and actually embraces development of doctrine, in continuity.
The Gospel of John is development of doctrine.
The Church is alive, and has a Living Magisterium, not a set of dead books. Living organisms grow.
Why would we expect anything different?
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
LOL, I’m sorry, but you have just been saying over and over that there are no changes, and have provided absolutely no support for that. And then you ADMIT that the Church’s teachings change, and just call that “development,” instead of change.
I agree that they Church is alive and that it continues to develop and grow - which is obviously a form of change. So I guess we agree in the end.
G
goout
Guest
Umm you have me confused with someone else.goout:
LOL, I’m sorry, but you have just been saying over and over that there are no changes, and have provided absolutely no support for that. And then you ADMIT that the Church’s teachings change, and just call that “development,” instead of change.
I agree that they Church is alive and that it continues to develop and grow - which is obviously a form of change. So I guess we agree in the end.
Doctrine develops in continuity. You are proposing change out of continuity.
Here’s a simple example of development in continuity as revealed in nature:
An acorn exists, and it develops over time into a large and more developed organism. It changes appearance and size and looks nothing like an acorn, yet the acorn still exists as part of the organism in developed form.
So it is with the Church. Over time it develops and grows. It grows in understanding of revelation and in the expression of it. It also changes pastoral practice to meet the needs of the times.
And it is always in continuity with what came before, not in rupture.
Christ is the seed, and the Church is Christ’s developing body. The human element of the Church must develop in the life of Christ, because Christ is risen and living.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
Yeah, I may have conflated your posts with Thistle’s posts. My apologies.
We can certainly agree that doctrine develops. I agree that the Church always argues that there is some underlying continuity to those changes. That continuity is sometimes more obvious than at other times.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Does that mean that mean that if there is a majority of people doing or not doing something, they are right or what they are doing or not doing is right?
I think I prefer to be among the minority that continues to follow the authority of the Church.
Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able. Luke 13
Last edited:
N
Nicky777
Guest
Bad idea my friend. You are thwarting Gods Will. Try contenancy or natural family planning. But do not obstruct Gods plan for your family. You risk you very soul. God love you.
I’m not sure I follow you. Complaining about what, and by whom?
Emeraldlady
New member
It’s somewhat amusing to observe the denial of extreme right ideology at work around the Catholic world. Extremism has an inbuilt proclivity for cliques which makes them visible and identifiable much as they try to blend in as part of the mainstream. Pope Francis referred to that phenomenon as lobby’s and I suspect he is getting a first hand view of those cliques at work in the Vatican since he has mentioned both the gay lobby and the masons by name.
To me the extreme righteous are the concerted campaign to discredit Pope Francis and undermine his guidance of the Church into the third millenium. This despite the vast majority of Bishops and Priests and expert Church theologians around the world, faithfully giving their full obedience to the Pope.
- Status