Humanae vitae dissent - is it heresy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church teaching on the intrinsic evil of contraception is a dogma, so yes its heresy. Whether it is formal or material heresy would depend on the person who dissents.
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
Its irrelevant what individuals think. The Church teaching is clear. The Church is not in error. These priests you mention are and worse still it means they are encouraging the faithful to commit sins.
Click to expand...
I agree that Church teaching is clear. I don’t think it is irrelevant what Catholics think about that teaching.
 
TMC said:
I agree that Church teaching is clear. I don’t think it is irrelevant what Catholics think about that teaching.
Click to expand...
You missed my point which is that it is irrelevant what individual priests say. If what they say contradicts the Church it is the priests who are wrong. It is only relevant what the Church actually teaches.
 
thistle said:
You missed my point which is that it is irrelevant what individual priests say. If what they say contradicts the Church it is the priests who are wrong. It is only relevant what the Church actually teaches.
Click to expand...
I understand your point, I think. I agree that what an individual priest (or any Catholic) may say or think does not change Catholic teaching. It is, however, relevant when a teaching is rejected by the majority of the faithful.
 
TMC said:
when a teaching is rejected by the majority of the faithful.
Click to expand...
Not in this case since the teaching on contraception is a dogma. Dogma is not a democracy or a vote.
 
TMC said:
I understand your point, I think. I agree that what an individual priest (or any Catholic) may say or think does not change Catholic teaching. It is, however, relevant when a teaching is rejected by the majority of the faithful.
Click to expand...
How do you know that the majority of Catholics reject the teaching?
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Not in this case since the teaching on contraception is a dogma. Dogma is not a democracy or a vote.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that it is a dogma, but I agree that dogma is not established by a vote of the faithful. Of course, neither is doctrine or practice, for that matter.
 
thistle said:
How do you know that the majority of Catholics reject the teaching?
Click to expand...
I agree that it is often hard to figure out what doctrines are accepted by the faithful, but in this instance there has been a lot of polling. The polling consistently shows that large majorities of Catholics do not accept this teaching. I am not saying that automatically means the teaching is wrong, but it is also not irrelevant.
 
TMC said:
I don’t believe that it is a dogma
Click to expand...
The teaching of the evil of contraception was taught from the earliest times in the Church, from the 300’s, and has been in many Encyclicals, all the way up until now. Its surely a Dogma.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
The teaching of the evil of contraception was taught from the earliest times in the Church, from the 300’s, and has been in many Encyclicals, all the way up until now. Its surely a Dogma.
Click to expand...
I do not agree that the teaching has been as consistent as many claim, but I am not sure that is relevant. I do not believe that the length of a teaching is the determinate factor in what is or is not dogma. But that is not really my point. My point is that the fact that most Catholics, and many (if not most) clergy and theologians disagree with this particular teaching is not irrelevant. The sensus fidelium is always important, and any doctrine that so many disbelieve deserves additional attention.
 
TMC said:
I agree that it is often hard to figure out what doctrines are accepted by the faithful, but in this instance there has been a lot of polling. The polling consistently shows that large majorities of Catholics do not accept this teaching. I am not saying that automatically means the teaching is wrong, but it is also not irrelevant.
Click to expand...
The teaching will not change. Infallible teachings cannot change and non-infallible teachings theoretically could be changed but none have been changed in 2000 years.
 
What you are putting forth here is heresy. Length of time does matter. The evil of contraception is a contstant teaching of the Magesterium. It doesnt matter that so many dissent, they went against the Pope, the Pope has the final word. Those that dissent against the teaching are atleast material heretics.
 
thistle said:
The teaching will not change. Infallible teachings cannot change and non-infallible teachings theoretically could be changed but none have been changed in 2000 years.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to drag us off topic, but this statement is obviously untrue.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
What you are putting forth here is heresy. Length of time does matter. The evil of contraception is a contstant teaching of the Magesterium. It doesnt matter that so many dissent, they went against the Pope, the Pope has the final word. Those that dissent against the teaching are atleast material heretics.
Click to expand...
I’ll ask you not to call be a heretic.

I am not advocating dissent, I am only acknowledging that it exists and stating the obvious - that the sensus fidelium is relevant and important.
 
In any case, whether you are right or wrong, it serves no purpose to refer to someone as a heretic.
I wish people who are not qualified would stop using the word heretic. And don’t say that you can speak however you want. You do not have the license to speak however you want. You have freedom of speech, but not license to speak in the name of the Church.

If you were discussing heresy in an historical or academic context that would be different. Please do not accuse other people of being heretics.
 
It’s all about the mindset of following God’s will. Do we trust in Thy or my? And that goes for NFP because that can also lead to a contraceptive mentality.

For example if a couple want to marry and they decide to use NFP to hold off having children because they want to get more financially stable. Should they get married under that mindset?
 
The Sensus Fidelium doesnt matter when something is defined throughout history as the Constant teaching of the Ordainary and Universal Magisterium.
 
I stand by what I said. “What he is putting forth is heresy.”
 
goout said:
If you were discussing heresy in an historical or academic context that would be different. Please do not accuse other people of being heretics.
Click to expand...
Concern for one’s soul comes before the concern of hurting someone’s feelings. I know they have fallen by the wayside but Christ did give us the Spiritual Works of Mercy as well as the Corporal.

One might argue that for all the dissent against the teachings of Christ nowadays, the word hasn’t been used enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top