Humanae Vitae Question

[Abu]

He is a “cafeteria Catholic” The books and articles I use are the orthodox ones, e.g. William May, John Finnis, JPII, Chris West and etc…
The authors he refers to are John Noonan, Thomas Burch, Charles Curran and the book Turning Point * by Robert McClory.*
Thank you – his “position” is absolutely untenable.

1. The doctrine against contraception is infallible:
   In Casti Connubii, Pius XI 1930, which refuted the disgraceful surrender of the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference of 1930 to contraception, the doctrine is irrefutably clear, as well as in “Vatican II’s *Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World *(Gaudium et Spes) #50-51:
   “In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law. 14”
   And to what does note 14 refer?
   To Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1930, which teaches infallibly (#56) that “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

Vatican I (1870) in Pastor Aeternus proclaimed the dogma on papal infallibility and this was reiterated in Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 25).
Some theologians assume that only papal dogmas are infallible, a gross error.
From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible definitions, to remove all doubt.

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone Canon anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (#750.1); and a category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

The Australian Bishops in 1976:
“The Episcopal Conference informs the Directors of Catholic Family Planning Centres and Priests connected with this work, that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church contained in Humanae Vitae that ‘every action…to render procreation impossible’ is ‘intrinsically evil’….binds the conscience of all without ambiguity and excludes the possibility of a probable opinion opposed to this teaching.” [My emphasis].

 

[Abu]

2) Dissent is totally untenable.
There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

“The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the use of artificial contraception in all its forms, including direct sterilization, is gravely immoral, is intrinsically evil, is contrary to the law of nature and nature’s God…Catholics who practice artificial birth control may not receive Holy Communion without committing sacrilege” – Bishop G.P. Flavin, Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, 1991.

In Evangelium Vitae, 1995, John Paul II affirms that “contraception contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love…is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage.” (#13). The opposite of virtue is vice and God killed Onan for contracepting.

“By describing the contraceptive act as intrinsically illicit, Paul VI meant to teach that the moral norm is such that it does not admit exceptions. No personal or social circumstances could ever, can now, or will ever, render such an act lawful in itself” (Pope John Paul II, Moral Theology Congress, Rome, 1988).

Donum Veritatis (On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian), C.D.F. 1990:
“36. The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent. In fact this freedom does not indicate at all freedom with regard to the truth but signifies the free self-determination of the person in conformity with his moral obligation to accept the truth.”
“38. Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.”

1. Christ did not put every Tom, Dick or Harry to infallibly teach His Church, nor any follower of Karl Rahner as a “parallel Magisterium”.
   All four promises to Peter alone:
   “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
   “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
   “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
   “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Let me know what else you might require.
What facts have you found useful?

 

[Abu]

BruceK
This may be useful.

**#283, 3/10/10, 11:08 pm jilly4ski Re: Why is artificial birth control usage so wrong? **
Extract:
I think the other problem here is that you are comparing NFP to contraceptive sex but are completely leaving out the norm. Which is neither of these. We must compare contraceptive sex to “normal” sex and we must compare the practice NFP to “normal” sex.

When we compare NFP to not using NFP we see that the only thing that is different is the intent. Physically the act has not changed, it is the same no matter if the couple is seeking or not seeking pregnancy, already pregnant, infertile, or menopausal.

When we compare contraception to not using ABC we find that not only the intent is different but the very act has been changed by the couples actions. Either they have purposefully interrupted a working function of their bodies or placed a barrier between themselves,

You keep bringing up the “NFP allows sex without getting pregnant.” But you have yet to acknowledge that NFP does not allow a couple to have sex without getting pregnant, because they must abstain in order for it to work. (If contraception and NFP were the same why don’t people just use NFP ). Not having sex if very different from having sex but purposefully sterilizing the act. The infertile period of a woman’s cycle is naturally given (unlike contraception). God given infertility is different than a couple taking upon themselves to make their act infertile.

 

[BruceK]

**Here’s the latest exchange I’ve been having with this supporter of contraception and his moral justification of such. My words are in bold: **
**[BMe: ]how is it possibly moral to thwart the transmission of life by artificial gadgets, surgical alteration, or the pill? **<<

My Antagonist: <It is moral to artificially thwart the transmission of life because doing so violates no moral principle. artificial birth contol (ABC) like Natural Family Planning(NFP) cooperates with God’s will as revealed through His creation of human sexuality.>

**Ok, but why stop there? Why not legalise abortions under certain circumstances? Some mainline protestant denominations have already done that, and most birth control pills are abortifacient in of themselves. So where do you draw that clear line? <<
**
He replies: You draw the line between those actions which are evil and those which are not: between killing an unborn fetus (evil) and artificial birth control which is not.

What is specifically flawed about his argument and what would be the best rebuttal of such?

 

[Abu]

From BruceK:

Dissenter:
It is moral to artificially thwart the transmission of life because doing so violates no moral principle. artificial birth contol (ABC) like Natural Family Planning(NFP) cooperates with God’s will as revealed through His creation of human sexuality
You draw the line between those actions which are evil and those which are not: between killing an unborn fetus (evil) and artificial birth control which is not.

The fallacy is simply that he makes his own morality and ignores Christ and His Church to which Christ gave His authority and infallibility in defined doctrine on faith and morals (posts #41, 42).

From Canon #202, the baptised are in full communion with Christ’s Church only when they are joined with Christ in His Church through the bonds of profession of faith as well as ecclesiastical governance and the sacraments.

With a self-proclaimed dissenter, who cannot reason from cause to effect and relativises what suits him, why waste your time? Re-evangelise those who are genuinely seeking the fullness of truth.

BTW, God killed Onan for contraception.