Humanae vitae dissent - is it heresy?

[goout]

Using terms you are not qualified or competent to use is not concern for another’s soul, it’s overreaching arrogance.
It does not further the good of the other, it inflames the discussion to no point.

 

[billsherman]

I’ve seen the hatred of the past presented before. I was there in the past, referring to the 1950s and early 1960s. It was not perfect. There was crime and all the rest. What we did experience was a low crime rate and we did not lock our doors at night.

The “past” is often cited by people “who were there” as a rather tranquil time, and they often blame various elements of the 1960s as the cause of rising crime afterward (I am not attacking your experience here, just noting a general trend). Scholars have proven, however, that while crime rates were relatively lower in the 1950s because of a downward trend resulting from mass participation in World War II, crime rates have always fluctuated greatly. The 1920s, for example, were a pretty seriously dangerous decade. Check out this interesting link for more statistical fun: http://www.jrsa.org/projects/Historical.pdf

Also, you should not assume your experience is in any way universal. An African American in Mississippi, for example, would likely have a far different memory of the 1950s than a White American in New York.

 

[edwest211]

The Church always chooses its words carefully in encyclicals. It is not blind faith but a well-reasoned argument backed up by previous Church teaching and Biblical references.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

What we did experience was a low crime rate and we did not lock our doors at night.

Not to let the thread drift, but I have never understood this “didn’t have to lock the doors when I was growing up” thing. I grew up in a small town with very little crime, in the 1960s, yet we always locked our doors, most of all at night or when leaving the house unoccupied.

 

[edwest211]

I’ve seen this argument before and the starting premise is always wrong. Knowingly or not, this is done to spread confusion. The attempt to assign certain things to one individual is also wrong. I’ve done a lot of research related to World War II to the present. The patterns in the West have been documented and are in agreement. A bit of background:

At the end of the war in 1945, investors, real estate companies and home builders all had a hand in the GI Bill, the VA Home Loan program and other initiatives designed to build cookie-cutter neighborhoods. The Korean War, which ran from 1950 to 1953, is little talked about or ignored, or left as little-documented history.

I observed the slow, gradual degradation of life in the West that really started in earnest in 1964. The primary goals were the destruction of the family and undermining the authority of the Church by misrepresenting its teachings, and by convincing Catholic institutions of higher learning to cut their ties with the Church. By introducing anarchists and dissidents into our neighborhoods starting right after Vatican II. And making sure that Vatican II got the false blame. Time does not change anything, only people do.

 

[billsherman]

I observed the slow, gradual degradation of life in the West that really started in earnest in 1964. The primary goals were the destruction of the family and undermining the authority of the Church by misrepresenting its teachings, and by convincing Catholic institutions of higher learning to cut their ties with the Church. By introducing anarchists and dissidents into our neighborhoods starting right after Vatican II. And making sure that Vatican II got the false blame. Time does not change anything, only people do.

I’m not going to get in an argument with you - I already made my point, and I stand by it - but I do want to point out that only a small minority of people in the Western Hemisphere, and an even smaller minority worldwide, take any direction from the Catholic Church. This was true in 1950 as well (if you doubt this read up on the Church’s response to Jim Crow segregation and the massive backlash against it in the 1950s and 60s). Undermining its authority would only provoke change among some Catholics. Since 1870 the authority of the Church has rapidly declined among even Catholics - to the point that on this very website you can find no shortage of professed Catholics calling the Pope a heretic and sometimes not so quietly suggesting he resign.

 

[LittleFlower378]

I dont believe the Pope can teach heresy, so yes I do have blind faith in the Pope in that regard. He is protected from teaching heresy.

 

[LittleFlower378]

that only a small minority of people in the Western Hemisphere, and an even smaller minority worldwide, take any direction from the Catholic Church.

Wonderfull! Many turned away from Jesus in the Gospels as well. Although imagine the blessing we would receive as a nation if we took direction from the Church!

 

[edwest211]

The last sentence sums up the commitment of the dissenters and those who promote radical change. Based on my research, this has been true of the Church since the beginning. Again, based on research, Catholics in Africa are taking the lead in following the faith. The Body of Christ in the West was gradually poisoned and confused by using a number of methods. I read the following from a Church official regarding the current state of the Church and everyday Catholics: “Too many Catholics are living like pagans.”

If that is seen as vague by some, I’ll offer a few examples. The slow decline in sexual morality. Late 1950s, early 1960s: no sex until marriage. And most of us listened. Throw in people living as very bad examples right after Vatican II and preaching their false gospel to us. “We got freedom, man.” “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” And “We’ll burn this country down if we have to!” So, mom, dad, the Church - all out the window. Forget about them, live like us. In the late 1960s: “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? All you do is listen to the Pope. You should think for yourselves.” Translation: All you do is make us feel uncomfortable by living according to Church teaching. You should live like us. Loose women, booze and drugs.

 

[edwest211]

And that is starting to bear fruit. The lies and the deceptions are gradually being rejected by some.

 

[JanetF]

As someone who would never turn blind faith over to any one that way, I have to ask, don’t you see how dangerous that is?

Just asking because I have always been curious about that.

I don’t think you are understanding LittleFLower378. I’m pretty sure she’s addressing the Pope in his teaching authority. Not necessarily agreeing with every sentence uttered during a press conference, but when he’s teaching from the Chair, it’s a no-brainer.

 

[edwest211]

When no one would be left at home, we locked our doors. We were vigilant and responsible. It was a time period where my dad could take the bus going to and from work and there was no graffiti, no cut up seats. In small towns today, I see the same things I saw growing up in the 1960s.

 

[Dovekin]

In small towns today, I see the same things I saw growing up in the 1960s.

And when the small towns cease to be small towns, what happens.

I grew up in the 50s and 60s and I can assure you I saw lots of graffiti and torn up seats on buses and trains. The dfference is not some made up change of generations in the 60s, but growth in numbers and growth in diversity.

What you describe is a creation of the media. Your use of terms like “dissenters” shows a prejudiced reading pushed by conservatives. The real history shows a division in the Church before and after the Council. Before and during the Council, John XXIII and PaulVi chose “experts” to study birth control. Those individuals did not turn into dissenters because Paul VI disagreed with them. Nor did they suddenly stop being experts whose opinions were reapected by others.

Media reports in newspapers like the Wanderer have tried to condemn those who disagreed with Paul VI for years. It is not helpful. People who advised the Pope did not suddenly become heretics. People who agreed with them did not suddenly become “infiltrators” in a church they had served for years. It is not about accepting or rejecting Humanae Vitae. It is about respecting one another.

 

[edwest211]

“growth in numbers and growth in diversity” I think I know what that means but I’m not sure.

But back to politics. When searching for credible information about any topic, I first look for bias. It took me a while to learn how to sift through books for this. In order to cover the spectrum and get my facts straight, I’ve read the Far Left to the Far Right. Conservative and Centrist.

There is a real history but it involves studying credible sources and verifying any claims or accounts through a process of fact checking. I do it at work and for myself.

The Pope is first a servant. His title should be respected. Those who disagreed with Pope Paul VI about Humanae Vitae were doing what? Acting appropriately? And when experts think they are doing the right thing only to have the Pope correct them?

In June 1967, Pope Paul VI had to deal with another issue involving human sexuality. He wrote in SACERDOTALIS CAELIBATUS

"Priestly celibacy has been guarded by the Church for centuries as a brilliant jewel, and retains its value undiminished even in our time when the outlook of men and the state of the world have undergone such profound changes.

"Amid the modern stirrings of opinion, a tendency has also been manifested, and even a desire expressed, to ask the Church to re-examine this characteristic institution. It is said that in the world of our time the observance of celibacy has come to be difficult or even impossible.

"2. This state of affairs is troubling consciences, perplexing some priests and young aspirants to the priesthood; it is a cause for alarm in many of the faithful and constrains Us to fulfill the promise We made to the Council Fathers. We told them that it was Our intention to give new luster and strength to priestly celibacy in the world of today. (1) Since saying this We have, over a considerable period of time earnestly implorred the enlightenment and assistance of the Holy Spirit and have examined before God opinions and petitions which have come to Us from all over the world, notably from many pastors of God’s Church.

Some Serious Questions

"3. The great question concerning the sacred celibacy of the clergy in the Church has long been before Our mind in its deep seriousness: must that grave, ennobling obligation remain today for those who have the intention of receiving major orders? Is it possible and appropriate nowadays to observe such an obligation? Has the time not come to break the bond linking celibacy with the priesthood in the Church? Could the difficult observance of it not be made optional? Would this not be a way to help the priestly ministry and facilitate ecumenical approaches? And if the golden law of sacred celibacy is to remain, what reasons are there to show that it is holy and fitting? What means are to be taken to observe it, and how can it be changed from a burden to a help for the priestly life?

 

[edwest211]

“4. Our attention has rested particularly on the objections which have been and are still made in various forms against the retention of sacred celibacy. in virtue of Our apostolic office We are obliged by the importance, and indeed the complexity, of the subject to give faithful consideration to the facts and the problems they involve, at the same time bringing to them—as it is Our duty and Our mission to do—the light of truth which is Christ. Our intention is to do in all things the will of Him who has called Us to this office and to show what we are in the Church: the servant of the servants of God.”

 

[Emeraldlady]

But back to politics. When searching for credible information about any topic, I first look for bias. It took me a while to learn how to sift through books for this. In order to cover the spectrum and get my facts straight, I’ve read the Far Left to the Far Right. Conservative and Centrist.

There is a real history but it involves studying credible sources and verifying any claims or accounts through a process of fact checking. I do it at work and for myself.

As one individual though, we still have to recognise that no matter how much research we do, or how unbiased we think it is, everyone is affected by a myriad of factors that color method and conclusions.

 

[JMMJ]

I don’t think you are understanding LittleFLower378. I’m pretty sure she’s addressing the Pope in his teaching authority. Not necessarily agreeing with every sentence uttered during a press conference, but when he’s teaching from the Chair, it’s a no-brainer.

Yes, I get that but my question still remains. I guess I wonder what it would take to change one’s mind.

 

[edwest211]

You may wish that to be true but it isn’t. Otherwise, why not reject historical documents? Why not reject scholars and experts in their respective fields of study? Or peer-reviewed papers? This assumption is wishful thinking. It is another attempt to say “only you think that.”

I suggest you get a copy of The Creation of the Media by Paul Starr. That book won a Pulitzer Prize.

 

[Anicette]

I don’t think to agree with contraceptives makes a catholic an heretic. It
Heresy concerned theological dogmas, such as Trinity, Incarnation, resurrection…
As far as I understand, it makes someone a dissent.

 

[billsherman]

Why not reject scholars and experts in their respective fields of study? Or peer-reviewed papers? This assumption is wishful thinking. It is another attempt to say “only you think that.”

I must misunderstand you, because this is precisely what you did in a reply to me. I cited an actual research report, prepared by actual experts in crime statistics, and you rejected its conclusions by substituting your own personal experience:

If that is seen as vague by some, I’ll offer a few examples. The slow decline in sexual morality. Late 1950s, early 1960s: no sex until marriage. And most of us listened. Throw in people living as very bad examples right after Vatican II and preaching their false gospel to us. “We got freedom, man.” “Don’t trust anyone over 30!” And “We’ll burn this country down if we have to!” So, mom, dad, the Church - all out the window. Forget about them, live like us. In the late 1960s: “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? All you do is listen to the Pope. You should think for yourselves.” Translation: All you do is make us feel uncomfortable by living according to Church teaching. You should live like us. Loose women, booze and drugs.

On a related note, I would like to impress on you that the Church has had limited moral authority for a long time. For example Archbishop Rummel slowly began desegregating the Archdiocese of New Orleans in the late 1940s and pledged to desegregate all Catholic schools by 1957. The white laity revolted, were joined by the vast majority of clergy (there was only one African American priest in the Archdiocese), and Rummel backed off. Catholic schools remained segregated in New Orleans until 1962, more than two years after public schools desegregated.

Racial segregation is clearly a moral evil - the Church has condemned racism on many occasions - but here is a pre-Vatican II example of the Church failing to take the proper course and choosing sides with the majority of its parishioners over its own moral proclamations. I cannot accept pointing to the 1950s as an idyllic decade when racial segregation was rampant. And I cannot accept Vatican II as being the cause of the Church’s moral authority weakening, when its reaction to civil rights shows that the Church sometimes choose the wrong side a decade before the council.