Infallibility of contraception sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter royal_archer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

royal_archer

Guest
Just looking for the official reference where contraception was declared a sin in an infalliable way. Anyone have a reference or, even better, a link?
 
The infallibility is found in the constant teaching since the Fathers.

While it would be nice to point out a particular document (i.e. Humanae Vitae) as being a single, infallible statement, there are many who attempt to discredit it due to verbiage issues.
 
royal_archer said:
Just looking for the official reference where contraception was declared a sin in an infalliable way. Anyone have a reference or, even better, a link?
Click to expand...
It is kind of an academic point.

Whether or not the use of contraception has been irrevocably defined as inherently evil, it is currently clearly against Church teaching and therefore sinful.

Or is it the permanence and not the sinfulness you are questioning?

Chuck
 
royal_archer said:
Just looking for the official reference where contraception was declared a sin in an infalliable way. Anyone have a reference or, even better, a link?
Click to expand...
Start with Sacred Scripture and the story of Onan, who willfully* “spilled his seed on the ground”* to prevent any child from being born----which was a wicked act in the eyes of God. (Genesis 38). But the use of contra-ception (against-conception) is a willful attempt to use the sexual organs while twharting the purpose of the organs.

But just as we rely on the Sacred Tradition of the Church in order to know what books make up the Bible, (the Bible does not state what books make up the Bible), so too the use of contraception has always been considered a serious sin and the constant teaching of the Church. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of Life, thus the use of chemicals, rubber balloons and all sorts of contraptions to thwart a conception is not making love—but rather to directly make war against God, whose first commandment to man was to be fruitful and multiply. (Gen. 1:28)
 
There are some people who get out their Vatican I infallibility checklists and claim that Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae meets the criteria for infallible teaching. And they may be correct. The Church, however, has not formally made this determination (though She could do so at any time - and I believe She eventually will - and prove that the checklist guys got it right). The only way we can know for sure if a particular teaching is infallible is if the Church tells us so.

But it really matters only to theologians. As far as the laity goes, having a particular encyclical declared infallible makes absolutely no difference whatsoever - it is every bit as binding before this declaration as it was after. Catholics are expected to accept ALL teachings of the Magesterium, regardless of whether they have been formally declared infallible.
 
a teaching does not have to be proclaimed ex cathedra to be infallible. The ordinary magisterium CAN(it isnt always infallible) be infallible if a teaching on faith and morals has been taught over a constant period of time. This is certainly the case with artificial contraception therefore it is infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium. example: the assumption was already infallible before 1950 when it was proclaimed ex cathedra. It was infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium. (teaching over a constant period of time.)

Ok so why do we need the extraordinary magisterium(ex cathedra, ecumenical councils when they define something)? Because sometimes it is difficult to to determine if a teaching has been taught over a constant period of time… So at times when there is a question and when the Church feels it is time the Church will define a doctrine, in order to remove all doubt whatsoever, using the extraordinary magisterium.

p.s. I do agree that some will argue that Paul VI in Humane Vitae defined ex cathedra(extra ordinary magisterium) the immorality of artificial contraception.
 
royal_archer said:
Just looking for the official reference where contraception was declared a sin in an infalliable way. Anyone have a reference or, even better, a link?
Click to expand...
It has been the teachings even in the Old Testament and the constant teaching of The Church.
 
royal archer #1
Just looking for the official reference where contraception was declared a sin in an infalliable way. Anyone have a reference or, even better, a link?
Click to expand...
It is high time that all Catholics got this right and thus are able to help others.

Ex cathedra does not refer to the “extraordinary Magisterium”. Both the Encyclicals Casti Connubii of Pius XI, 1930, and *Humanae Vitae *of Paul VI, 1968, condemned contraception infallibly as gravely wrong, the latter was issued after the advent of the contraceptive “Pill”, and abortion has always been condemned by Christ’s Church.

From Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930, here is the infallible definition:
“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: 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.”
See: tinyurl.com/4ajk

From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson to me on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

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) against contraception, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone 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 three levels of teaching are:
**1) ****Dogma – infallible **(Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
**2) Doctrine – infallible **(Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.

Vatican II, reiterated the teaching of Vatican I on papal infallibility, and its documents are readily available [from the EWTN Library (http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp, or the Vatican Library) for anyone with the will to know what Christ’s Church is teaching, like most of the documents of Vatican I, and the papal documents before and since Vatican II.

Thus CCC #88 clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio 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) (Canon #750.1).

**A category two 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). So both the dogmas and the infallible (definitive) doctrines that are secondary truths, require an assent of faith, though there is a distinction between theological faith and ecclesial faith.
**The category 3 truths **are non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith].

Also, the 1983 revision of Canon Law replaced in Canon 749:3 “dogmatically (‘dogmatice’) declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”. This removes any occasion for equating “infallible” with “dogmatic”, an equation which unduly limits papal infallibility. Such a limitation is clearly not contained in the Vatican I dogma on papal infallibility.
 
Abu said:
…
From Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930, here is the infallible definition:
“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: 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.”
See: tinyurl.com/4ajk
…
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I was hoping for! expecially the link!

Thank you.!
 
royal_archer said:
That is exactly what I was hoping for! expecially the link!

Thank you.!
Click to expand...
See also subsequent Church documents that affirm that understanding like:The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity. (Vademecum for Confessors, 2.4)
 
Abu said:
From Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930, here is the infallible definition:
“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: 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.”
See: tinyurl.com/4ajk
Click to expand...
Such can be said not to be an “infallible definition” (like the Immaculate Conception etc).

Does not mean it is not an infallible doctrine…but “definitions”…are very precise and very particular things.

(he is there stating the constant teaching anew in the face of the current events of his time…I see where the confusion enters here…but I would say he is using the language that was customary then…

not “defining” a dogma

if Pope Pius XI HAD “defined” it then–it would be quite manifest as a defined dogma in all the years since. Many things that are indeed “infallible” are never “defined” per se by the extraordinary Magisterium)
 
Presumably the 10 Commandments apply to all Catholics, Protestants and Jews, so I think any form of contraception that actually aborts the fetus like IUDS, morning after pills, etc. can be said to infallibly reject the Fifth Commandment, “Thou shall not kill”, resulting in the mortal sin of murder. (Other external barrier methods like condoms would not fall into this category, but might be covered by some of the previous posts.)
 
Bookcat #12
Such can be said not to be an “infallible definition” (like the Immaculate Conception etc).
Click to expand...
The infallible definition (a definitive act) against contraception in *Casti Connubii *is an infallible doctrine, not a dogma.
Definitive = Clearly defined or formulated/Supplying or being a final or conclusive settlement.
As post #9 explains from Dave Gregson of EWTN, infallibility is “…exercised in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra…”

From ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm
“6. The second proposition of the *Professio fidei *states: “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area,13 which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed.

“Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra’
“9. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an ‘ex cathedra’ pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council.”
if Pope Pius XI HAD “defined” it then–it would be quite manifest as a defined dogma in all the years since. Many things that are indeed “infallible” are never “defined” per se by the extraordinary Magisterium)
Click to expand...
Not being a dogma has not detracted from the “ex cathedra” status nor the infallibility of the definition. Like Humanae Vitae, *Casti Connubii *has defined infallibly against contraception.

No. 43 Roman Theological Forum
THE EX CATHEDRA STATUS OF THE ENCYCLICAL HUMANAE VITAE
by Brian W. Harrison
“We have now carefully examined, word for word, the four characteristics of an ex cathedra definition specified in the dogmatic definition of 1870, in the light of Bishop Gasser’s authoritative explanation of the text and the subsequent teaching of Vatican Council II. We have also examined Humanae Vitae, presenting evidence that the definition in article 14 of the encyclical clearly manifests all four characteristics. We conclude, therefore, that this definition is indeed an ex cathedra proclamation - infallible and irreformable in itself.

“Finally, in article 14, the summit itself is reached, and the solemn definition is proclaimed.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

Where Vatican I uses “define” (definit), Vatican II uses “proclaims by a definitive act” (definitive proclamat)
“As we saw, Gasser explained that what this means is that the teaching be pronounced “directly and conclusively”.72 The key notion here is that of finality - *of terminating *whatever doubt or controversy there may be about the doctrine in question.” (op.cit., Fr Harrison)

Casti Connubii came in answer to the capitulation to contraception at the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930, and so was a definitive condemnation of that error that threatened to subvert marriage.
 
Thank you for the detailed and deep responses to my overly shallow question. Per the term infallibility, which I used in a very generic way, let me make sure my laymens explanation is essentially correct: The decision is now beyond the point where the mere will of man can alter it. Not only will the church not change this decision, they essentially do not have the power to change it.
 
Abu said:
The infallible definition (a definitive act) against contraception in *Casti Connubii *is an infallible doctrine, not a dogma.
Definitive = Clearly defined or formulated/Supplying or being a final or conclusive settlement.
Click to expand...
The understanding of this matter here is incorrect.
 
Bookcat said:
Such can be said not to be an “infallible definition” (like the Immaculate Conception etc).

Does not mean it is not an infallible doctrine…but “definitions”…are very precise and very particular things.

(he is there stating the constant teaching anew in the face of the current events of his time…I see where the confusion enters here…but I would say he is using the language that was customary then…

not “defining” a dogma

if Pope Pius XI HAD “defined” it then–it would be quite manifest as a defined dogma in all the years since. Many things that are indeed “infallible” are never “defined” per se by the extraordinary Magisterium)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top