Humanae Vitae: Infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DiscerningDave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DiscerningDave

Guest
Ok, I have done some research on this and still find conflicting thoughts, ideas, and opinion. What I am looking for is something handed down from the magisterium.
I have a theology teacher stating HV is not infallible, that it is just a
“suggested” guideline, but one should do what is in their moral conscience concerning birth control. I think that is a irresponsible statement and need some documentation to refute this person in class next time, if they are incorrect.

Please, I ask for no opinions on this matter, just the church’s official stance on this matter.

Thank you in advance.
 
HV is not infallible. Period. It does, however, reaffirm the teaching of the Church on the regulation of birth. So, it is AUTHORITATIVE without being INFALLIBLE!
 
documents are not infallible, teachings are. HV teaches something that has been taught by the church in all times and in all places. that makes the teaching pretty dogmatic.
 
Almost all theologians agree that 1950 was the last time a Pope spoke Infallibly, if you’re in doubt, consult the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
 
In “Humanae Vitae” the Pope taught, with the divine assistance he enjoys (cf. “Lumen Gentium”, n. 25a), what the Church’s ordinary Magisterium had always held to be true and right, and what had been reconfirmed by the extraordinary Magisterium of Vatican II. The arguments of those who claim to pass judgment on the basis of their knowledge do not stand up against this Magisterium: between the two teachings there is a substantial difference of quality and not only of degree. The teaching of “Humanae Vitae” is Magisterium - though ordinary - which contains decisions belonging to a divinely established authority (cf. canon 331; “Lumen Gentium” nn. 18a, 20c, 22b, 23c; “Christus Dominus” n. 2a) and exercised in order to interpret and teach (as in our case) the moral norms of human conduct. If he were not the Pope, he would lose his legitimate power and the intrinsic reason for his ministry; at most he could carry out a scholarly magisterium, which, however, would not be of use to the Church and to which he has not been appointed by the Church’s Founder; he would lack the supernatural “virtus” of assisting and confirming his brethren in the faith and in the moral law (cf. Lk. 22:32, Mt. 16:29; Vatican I, Dogm. Const. “Pastor Aeternus”, DS 3074)…
Click to expand...
Archbishop Vincenzo Fagiolo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts
Click to expand...
 
Here it is in a nutshell:

There are two ways in which the Church teaches infallibly, the ordinary magisterium (moral truths and teachings the Church has always subscribed to and the (IIRC) extraordinary magisterium (ecumenical councils and ex cathedra statements). One of the things that the Vatican is and has always been very concerned about is that it must not allow the extraordinary to undermine the legitimacy of the authority of the ordinary.

For 1900+ years all christendom believed that contraception was an intrinsically evil behavior. Thus it is sinful. This makes it an infallible teaching under the ordinary magisterium. The extraordinary magesterium exists to address difficult disputed questions not previously clearly ruled upon and to stamp out widespread heretical ideas. The general acceptance of contraception is only about 90 years old. By Church standards, this is too soon to take the ‘nuclear option’ of an ex cathedra statement to address a widespread heretical idea. It may come to that someday, but by historic standards, now would be way too soon.

For now, trust the ordinary magisterium - which is well summarized in Humanae Vitae.
 
This is from the Catechism -

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “**every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159 **

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2370
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top