Infallibility of contraception sin

[Bookcat]

Jimmy Akin (of Catholic Answers fame) blog on the question:

jimmyakin.com/2004/11/contraception_i.html

 

[Bookcat]

catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

 

[Bookcat]

Answer from the Catholic Answers Staff:

Question

I was unaware that there was ever an infallible statement made on the use of contraception. Doesn’t the pope have to proclaim a teaching ex cathedra before it becomes an infallible teaching?

Answer

Concerning the infallibility question, the pope doesn’t need to proclaim ex cathedra the teaching that artificial means of birth control is wrong; it’s already an infallible teaching of the Church by virtue of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic authority of the Roman pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra, in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him. (Lumen Gentium 25)

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-a-teaching-have-to-be-declared-ex-cathedra-to-be-considered-infallible

 

[Abu]

Bookcat #21
Concerning the infallibility question, the pope doesn’t need to proclaim ex cathedra the teaching that artificial means of birth control is wrong; it’s already an infallible teaching of the Church by virtue of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The ordinary and universal Magisterium has proclaimed “ex cathedra” and this is present in *Casti Connubii *and Humanae Vitae.

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. For that reason, his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church…”

This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic authority of the Roman pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra, in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him. (Lumen Gentium 25)

See *Ad Tuendam Fidem *(ATF), Bl JPII , 1998 at:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html
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 requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.
Thus, the third paragraph of ATF states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8) and canon 599 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.(9)

Pope Pius XII: “Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no ‘indication’ or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.” (Address to Midwives).
catechism.cc/articles/contraception-heresy-1.htm

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.

 

[Bookcat]

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.

(My mis-speak…apologies)

The focus ought to have been on my part that one does not find it asserted by the Church that such is manifest that it has been “defined” infallibily by Pope or Council. One can say that the various Popes have simply been reminding the Church of the what is in the teaching of Ordinary and Universal Magisterium teaching on the matter (such as happened in the document from Bl. Pope John Paul II that the Church can not ordain women). Not attempting to “define” the matter in an Ex Cathedra manner.

Again this is not to say that it is not infallible via the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. (readers can see the links I posted above).

 

[Bookcat]

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

Yes a very good comparison. *

In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Bl. Pope John Paul II did NOT issue an “infallible doctrinal definition”. It contains no “infallible doctrinal definitions”. He rather is noting a doctrine that is infallible* already* (via the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium). He was drawing attention to this fact without himself further exercising his office via an “ex cathedra” definition.

 

[Bookcat]

In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Pope John Paul II was exercising his office of “confirming the brethren” (cf. Lk 22:32).

His “formal declaration” was not a defining of the doctrine ex cathedra but a handing on what was infallibly taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

A Pope can make formal declarations or proclamations without it being a “infallible doctrinal definition” on his part. He is confirming his brothers in the reality that the matter is already infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

 

[Bookcat]

Again Jimmy Akins commentary on the question of is the fact that Contraception is a mortal sin…infallible?

Jimmy:

"The sinfulness of contraception has been infallibly proposed by the Church and its gravity is grave. These facts are reflected in the Vademecum for Confessors, which states:

"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, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life
(the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal
self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it
harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the
transmission of human life [Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, emphasis added]."

I’ve italicized the two key sentences here. The first addresses the infallibility issue. Those teachings that the Church has proposed as definitive are those that, in popular speech, have been taught infallibly, either by the Church’s ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium; in the case of this teaching, it has been so taught by the ordinary Magisterium. "

jimmyakin.com/2004/11/contraception_i.html

 

[fix]

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?

You have received some good answers.

This is a link that is not about HV, but is relevant to the topic:

first, we must point out the tendency to measure everything on the basis of the distinction between the “infallible Magisterium” and the “fallible Magisterium”.

In this way infallibility becomes the criterion for all authority problems, to the point of actually replacing the concept of authority with that of infallibility. Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the ), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching. In the various critical stances towards the recent documents of the Magisterium it is often forgotten that the infallible character of a teaching and the definitive and irrevocable character of the assent owed it is not a prerogative belonging solely to what has been solemnly “defined” by the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council. Whenever the Bishops dispersed in their individual Dioceses in communion with the Successor of Peter teach a truth to be held in a definitive way (cf. , n. 25, 2), they enjoy the same infallibility as the Pope’s Magisterium or that of a Council.

the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of and (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter). If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium.

 

[manualman]

Look up “Ordinary Magisterium” in the catholic encyclopedia.

As a general rule, doctrines already infallibly defined in the ordinary magisterium are not reiterated by ‘ex cathedra’ pronouncements. To do so would implicitly undermine the ordinary magisterium. For example, there is NO ex cathedra doctrinal pronouncement on the Sacrament of Reconciliation. We know it is one of the seven sacraments because we have ALWAYS known this as part of the constant Traditions of the Church from the very begining. There is no need for an “infallible pronouncement” on the subject.

Contraception is the same way. It isn’t anything new, you realize. Ancient Romans had potions to bring about temporary sterility and even used crude IUDs. Christianity universally and consistently denounced this for 1,930 years before a rebellious faction successfully advanced the notion that what had always been known to be bad was actually good. The secular status quo today has been around barely more than 70 years. It is a philosophy almost as inherently self destructive as that of the Shakers and will end the same way: extinction for those who fall for it.

 

[ValPal]

Contraception is the same way. It isn’t anything new, you realize. Ancient Romans had potions to bring about temporary sterility and even used crude IUDs. Christianity universally and consistently denounced this for 1,930 years before a rebellious faction successfully advanced the notion that what had always been known to be bad was actually good. The secular status quo today has been around barely more than 70 years. It is a philosophy almost as inherently self destructive as that of the Shakers and will end the same way: extinction for those who fall for it.

The Shakers live like Catholic religious, and to use them to make a point about contraception is completely inappropriate.

 

[mark_a]

The Shakers live like Catholic religious, and to use them to make a point about contraception is completely inappropriate.

I’m intrigued! Please expand upon.

 

[Abu]

Bl John Paul II issued Ad Tuendam Fidem in 1998 to clarify the three levels of teaching (in dogma and doctrine) and to express the development in Canon Law (post #22).

HUMANAE VITAE AND INFALLIBITY
BOOK REVIEW: Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità: il Concilio, Paolo VI e Giovanni Paolo II,
by Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M. Published in Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, l986.
Reviewed by Brian W. Harrison
Extracts:
“According to Ford and Grisez “Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium,” Theological Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2, June 1978, pp. 258-312], the Church’s teaching against contraception is a classic example of this third mode of infallibility transmitting the doctrine of Christ. That is, while they do not claim that *Humanae Vitae *is in itself an ex cathedra, infallible definition, Ford and Grisez maintain that the teaching which it contains is infallible and irreformable, by virtue of having been taught constantly and definitively, over a period of many centuries, by a consensus of Popes and Bishops around the world - a consensus which was virtually unanimous until the early 1960s.

“…the key expression in the definition [theVatican I dogma] is not the term ex cathedra, but the word definit - “defines.” The relator (official commentator at Vatican I), Bishop Gasser, explained to the assembled Fathers what the drafting Commission understood by this word.

“As Fr. Lio quotes Gasser, he affirmed to the conciliar Bishops that the word should not be taken as signifying exclusively a ‘forensic’ act by the Pope - one which settles a controversy as to what is heresy and what is a matter of faith. Rather, the meaning is broader: the Pope ‘defines’ a doctrine whenever he ‘passes judgment in a direct and final way’ (suam sententiam directe et terminative proferat) on a point of faith or morals, ‘in such a way that each and every Catholic can be certain as to the mind of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Pontiff; and, indeed, certain that the Roman Pontiff holds this or that doctrine to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certainly true, erroneous, etc. (ita quidem ut certe sciat a Romano Pontifice hanc vel illam doctrinam haberi haereticam, haeresi proximam, certam vel erroneam etc.)’ (in Collectio Lacensis, V, col. 474f.). Since Gasser’s explanation of the Vatican I definition was the one which the Fathers had in mind when they voted, it is of the highest authority, and clearly supports Fr. Lio’s thesis that papal infallibility is not limited to dogmatic definitions - i.e. judgments as to what is revealed (de fide) and what (in direct contrast) is heretical. Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of Vatican I promulgated the dogma of papal infallibility on the understanding that this prerogative of the Roman Pontiff also included the power to judge questions which are not in themselves matters of revealed truth, but closely related to revealed truth.

“In the new Code of 1983, however, the words ‘dogmatically declared or defined’ have been replaced by ‘infallibly defined’ (canon 749:3). Fr. Lio maintains that this revision clarifies the situation: it brings the Church’s law more unambiguously into line with her doctrine by removing any occasion for equating ‘infallible’ with ‘dogmatic’ - an equation which unduly limits the occasions on which Popes teach (or are understood to teach) infallibly.

 

[Bookcat]

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

Yes a very good comparison. *

In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Bl. Pope John Paul II did NOT issue an “infallible doctrinal definition”. It contains no “infallible doctrinal definitions”. He rather is noting a doctrine that is infallible* already* (via the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium). He was drawing attention to this fact without himself further exercising his office via an “ex cathedra” definition.

In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Pope John Paul II was exercising his office of “confirming the brethren” (cf. Lk 22:32).

His “formal declaration” was not a defining of the doctrine ex cathedra but a handing on what was infallibly taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

A Pope can make formal declarations or proclamations without it being a “infallible doctrinal definition” on his part. He is confirming his brothers in the reality that the matter is already infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

 

[Bookcat]

Extracts:
“According to Ford and Grisez “Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium,” Theological Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2, June 1978, pp. 258-312], the Church’s teaching against contraception is a classic example of this third mode of infallibility transmitting the doctrine of Christ. That is, while they do not claim that *Humanae Vitae *is in itself an ex cathedra, infallible definition, Ford and Grisez maintain that the teaching which it contains is infallible and irreformable, by virtue of having been taught constantly and definitively, over a period of many centuries, by a consensus of Popes and Bishops around the world - a consensus which was virtually unanimous until the early 1960s.

Right – they are speaking of what I was noting above.

 

[ValPal]

I’m intrigued! Please expand upon.

Keeping it brief, Shakers confessed their sins, gave up their worldly possessions, and remained celibate (i.e., no marriage). They were also self sufficient. The did not “contracept” but remained celibate because the believed it was holy. They even raised children through adoption, conversion, etc. There is absolutely nothing sinful or wrong in not marrying/having sex if one feels that is their calling, Catholic or otherwise.

Making some comparison between them and contraception is strange, because the exact same analogies can be made for Catholic religious.

 

[Abu]

“As Bishop Gasser’s authoritative explanation at Vatican I made clear, the word ‘define,’ in a papal pronouncement, should not be seen as a kind of magic formula or simplistic ‘rule of thumb’: ‘If the Pope says, “We define such-and-such,” it’s infallible, and if he doesn’t, it’s not.’

“It is often said that Paul VI was himself in doubt about the doctrinal point at issue for some time and took a long while to make up his mind. However, Fr. Lio told the present writer that the Pope assured him personally, at around the time Humanae Vitae was issued, that he had never at any stage been in doubt about the intrinsic evil of contraception. The long time lapse was due only to the need to ponder carefully the precise manner in which this truth - which had already been authoritatively settled by Pius XI in Casti Connubii (1930) - could best be reaffirmed.

“In support of this private information given by Paul VI to Fr. Lio is the documented fact of his personal intervention at the conclusion of Vatican II, when Gaudium et Spes was in the process of being finalized. There was division and uncertainty amongst the Council Fathers, with the result that the drafting Commission wanted to leave the question open in this new magisterial statement. However, as Fr. Lio’s book documents, Paul VI responded to a request from Cardinal Ottaviani and Fr. Lio himself by intervening personally, against the previous wish of the majority of those drafting the document, to insist on the inclusion of a reference to the crucial passage of Casti Connubii in footnote 14 to Gaudium et Spes: 51. This is highly significant, because it shows that the Pope was insisting (and made the Council insist) that whatever future statements he might make about contraception, everyone could know in advance that there would be no going back on Pius XI’s firm decision against unnatural methods of birth control as intrinsically evil. So much for Paul VI’s ‘indecision.’

“It will be clear by now that, if Fr. Lio’s criteria for infallible papal pronouncements are valid, contraception had already been infallibly condemned in this earlier encyclical of 1930, Casti Connubii. **The objection might be raised, then, that Paul VI could not have intended to define infallibly what had already been defined infallibly. Not so, says Fr. Lio. The 1870 definition of papal infallibility lays down no such restrictions, as if ex cathedra definitions were intrinsically unrepeatable, like certain sacraments. Pius XI had indeed settled the immutable character of the teaching, and this was recognized by his successors Pius XII and Paul VI. **However, because of the de facto situation of serious dissent which had arisen by the 1960’s, it was necessary for Paul VI to define the teaching once again. The words introducing the formal judgment given in Humanae Vitae: 14 were carefully chosen: "We must therefore declare once again (iterum debemus edicere)."

“The fact that the word edicere, rather than definire (“define”) is used here does not militate against its being an infallible definition, argues Fr. Lio: *the Vatican I Fathers were not told by Bishop Gasser that there was anything sacrosanct about the word “define.” *All that is necessary is that the Pope clearly express his intention of speaking decisively and with finality on a point of doctrine, in such a way that good Catholics can be certain what the truth is. And, indeed, as Fr. Lio points out, Paul VI had already explicitly made public well beforehand his intention of speaking ‘decisively’ on the subject of contraception. In his allocution of 29 October, 1966, the Pope said, ‘We know that Catholics are awaiting from us, yes, a decisive word (una parola decisiva) concerning the mind of the Church on this very question. But as is obvious, we cannot give this on the present occasion.’

“….in a very uncommon gesture of warm personal commendation given to an individual theologian for a particular work, the Holy Father John Paul II had a message drafted in fine calligraphy and sent to Fr. Lio with his own handwritten signature. Fr. Lio kindly gave me a photocopy of this document, which reads (in translation from the Italian original):

“To the Rev. Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M., with deep thanks for the presentation of your volume Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità, and with warm appreciation for the sentiments of sincere adherence to the Magisterium of the Church which have always guided your activity of research and teaching: I impart to you from my heart a special Apostolic Blessing, a pledge of continuing heavenly assistance towards a fervent perseverance in the love of Truth and the service of souls.
From the Vatican, 31 July 1986.
(Signed) John Paul PP. II.

“Those words from the Successor of Peter should certainly give a much firmer impetus to study Fr. Lio’s book than anything which might be said by this reviewer.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
“According to Ford and Grisez “Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium,” Theological Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2, June 1978, pp. 258-312], the Church’s teaching against contraception is a classic example of this third mode of infallibility transmitting the doctrine of Christ. That is, while they do not claim that *Humanae Vitae *is in itself an ex cathedra, infallible definition, Ford and Grisez maintain that the teaching which it contains is infallible and irreformable, by virtue of having been taught constantly and definitively, over a period of many centuries, by a consensus of Popes and Bishops around the world - a consensus which was virtually unanimous until the early 1960s.
…

What happens to infallibility if the consensus is not there through the history?

 

[ValPal]

What happens to infallibility if the consensus is not there through the history?

It’s not just “consensus,” but consensus under very strict circumstances. A very simple example is Canon Law. That is most certainly “consensus,” but there is a great deal in Canon Law that is not infallible.

 

[manualman]

Making some comparison between them [Shakers] and contraception is strange, because the exact same analogies can be made for Catholic religious.

No, it can’t. Catholic religious do not see human sexuality as something improper or unholy. They see it as something holy and sacred that they have chosen to sacrifice for the sake of a specific calling given to them by God.

The Shakers (as it was explained to me at a Shaker museum village I visited), saw sexual contact as unclean and as a barrier to real holiness. Surely you see the profound difference?

What’s the relevance to contraception? Simple. When you screw up the basic view of human sexuality (whether by denigrating sexual intimacy altogether or denigrating it by subscribing to only a selfish view of its purpose), you disable the engine that pulls the train of long term human survival.

The Shakers died out because they fundamentally misunderstood the purpose and meaning of human sexuality. The Contraceptors will eventually too.