Infallibility of contraception sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter royal_archer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
manualman said:
The Shakers died out because they fundamentally misunderstood the purpose and meaning of human sexuality. The Contraceptors will eventually too.
Click to expand...
Really, this is such a bizarre comparison that it is incomprehensible. People that don’t have sex don’t have biological children. It doesn’t matter what the reason is, whether they are Catholic religious, Bishops, Shakers, etc., nor are they sinning by not having sex.

If you can give me a Catholic reference that states not marrying and not having sex is a MORTAL sin, I would really like to see it. Otherwise, you comparison to contraception, which the Church states is grave matter and a MORTAL sin, is completely unwarranted.

As far as the Shakers go, what finally did them in is were changes in the adoption law about 50 years ago.
 
ValPal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Still, the infallibility has its ‘wrinkle’ due to the fact what happened in the 60’s.
The question stands. Can a teaching be infallible if the consensus of Pope and Bishops was not there over the history?
 
Bookcat said:
Jimmy Akin (of Catholic Answers fame) blog on the question:

jimmyakin.com/2004/11/contraception_i.html
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. The same document that says:
  1. The principle according to which it is preferable to let penitents remain in good faith in cases of error due to subjectively invincible ignorance, is certainly to be considered always valid, even in matters of conjugal chastity. And this applies whenever it is foreseen that the penitent, although oriented towards living within the bounds of a life of faith, would not be prepared to change his own conduct, but rather would begin formally to sin. Nonetheless, in these cases, the confessor must try to bring such penitents ever closer to accepting God’s plan in their own lives, even in these demands, by means of prayer, admonition and exhorting them to form their consciences, and by the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
How do you understand the bold part?
 
Jaaanosik said:
Still, the infallibility has its ‘wrinkle’ due to the fact what happened in the 60’s.

The question stands. Can a teaching be infallible if the consensus of Pope and Bishops was not there over the history?
Click to expand...
Yes, but it cannot conflict with anything previously determined infallible. 100% of the Bishops can disagree with the Pope and the Pope can still make an ex cathedra pronunciation. The Catholic Church is not a democracy where majority rules.
 
ValPal said:
Yes, but it cannot conflict with anything previously determined infallible. 100% of the Bishops can disagree with the Pope and the Pope can still make an ex cathedra pronunciation. The Catholic Church is not a democracy where majority rules.
Click to expand...
There was no ex-cathedra pronunciation. Therefore the consensus is required for the teaching to be infallible.
 
Jaaanosik said:
There was no ex-cathedra pronunciation. Therefore the consensus is required for the teaching to be infallible.
Click to expand...
Consensus of the bishops does not mean the same thing as consensus at a local PTA meeting.

The catholic church is 2,000 years old and has had tens of thousands of bishops. In that time you can count on a few hands the number of bishops who attempted to rationalize the use of contraception and almost ALL of those bishops presided over dioceses in ruinous decline (not a coincidence, btw).

There IS a consensus among bishops in catholic history on the moral teaching that contraception is sinful because it alters the very nature of the relationship. Sins aren’t sins because they are merely on an arbitrary list. They are sins because they harm people’s ability to give and receive love.

P.S. ValPo, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You’re missing my point, which has turned into a tanget anyways.
 
manualman said:
P.S. ValPo, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You’re missing my point, which has turned into a tanget anyways.
Click to expand...
I actually understand what you are trying to get at. The problem with the analogy is that the one minor point is being lost in all the relevant major points. Trying to make a point about contraception with people that don’t contracept, aren’t sinning, and live like Catholic religious goes nowhere fast.
 
manualman said:
Consensus of the bishops does not mean the same thing as consensus at a local PTA meeting.

The catholic church is 2,000 years old and has had tens of thousands of bishops. In that time you can count on a few hands the number of bishops who attempted to rationalize the use of contraception and almost ALL of those bishops presided over dioceses in ruinous decline (not a coincidence, btw).

There IS a consensus among bishops in catholic history on the moral teaching that contraception is sinful because it alters the very nature of the relationship. Sins aren’t sins because they are merely on an arbitrary list. They are sins because they harm people’s ability to give and receive love.

P.S. ValPo, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You’re missing my point, which has turned into a tanget anyways.
Click to expand...
You should check the history first.
Have you heard about the Canadian bishops statement? Are you comparing them to PTA?
 
Jaaanosik said:
You should check the history first.
Have you heard about the Canadian bishops statement? Are you comparing them to PTA?
Click to expand...
You check history. How many of the Canadian bishops in the history of the Church defended contraceptive use? A miniscule fraction. Of those who did, what sort of shape were their dioceses in after that dissent? Got priestly vocations? No. Got flourishing communities of monks and nuns? No. Got catholic populations morally distinguishable from the general public in moral behavioral issues like divorce, fornication, charitable giving, etc? No.

History will see those bishops no differently than the bishops that fell for Arius and his notorious theory.
 
manualman said:
You check history. How many of the Canadian bishops in the history of the Church defended contraceptive use? A miniscule fraction. Of those who did, what sort of shape were their dioceses in after that dissent? Got priestly vocations? No. Got flourishing communities of monks and nuns? No. Got catholic populations morally distinguishable from the general public in moral behavioral issues like divorce, fornication, charitable giving, etc? No.

History will see those bishops no differently than the bishops that fell for Arius and his notorious theory.
Click to expand...
Got this? No.
Got that? No.
How would you know?
 
Jaaanosik said:
Got this? No.
Got that? No.
How would you know?
Click to expand...
I spent a year traveling North America with a team of Americans and Canadians giving retreats to junior high school and high schoolers. I’ve met with literally thousands of young people and it doesn’t take long to learn what they’ve been taught about the faith and what they haven’t been taught. Beyond that, the statistics aren’t that hard to find when you look. Catholic dioceses and institutions that are faithful to catholic teaching are thriving (Lincoln, Nebraska for one, Franciscan University Stuebenville, another). Those that have been hotbeds of dissent, such as Milwaukee, WI are literally bankrupt and falling apart at the seams. Many religious orders that abandoned their charisms no longer even exist or soon won’t. Faithful orders of nuns and monks are opening convents in many places (see here: carmelitemonks.org/).
 
Jaaanosik #36
What happens to infallibility if the consensus is not there through the history?
Click to expand...
The Catholic teaching against contraception has been throughout the ages – firm and consistent.
BTW, the popes have supreme and final authority:
“The definition of Papal Infallibility
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

“So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”
[The dogma on papal infallibility in *Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I].
#46: There was no ex-cathedra pronunciation.
Click to expand...
Against contraception there have been infallible ex cathedra declarations in Casti Connubii, Pius XI 1930, and Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 1965.
Manualman #52
Catholic dioceses and institutions that are faithful to catholic teaching are thriving (Lincoln, Nebraska for one, Franciscan University Stuebenville, another). Those that have been hotbeds of dissent, such as Milwaukee, WI are literally bankrupt and falling apart at the seams.
Click to expand...
Just what I’ve observed elsewhere.
 
Abu said:
The Catholic teaching against contraception has been throughout the ages – firm and consistent.
BTW, the popes have supreme and final authority:
“The definition of Papal Infallibility
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

“So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”
[The dogma on papal infallibility in *Pastor Aeternus
Click to expand...
of Vatican I].

Against contraception there have been infallible ex cathedra declarations in Casti Connubii, Pius XI 1930, and Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 1965.

Just what I’ve observed elsewhere.
HV is not ex-cathedra. ewtn.com/library/curia/hv25year.htm
Canadian bishops statement was valid in whole Canada for 40 years.

There are bishop’s statements from other countries as well.
 
Jaaanosik, #54
HV is not ex-cathedra
Click to expand...
See rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html HUMANAE VITAE AND INFALLIBITY
Posts #31,35.

As you should know bishops’ conferences are not part of the Magisterium, which reality is the individual bishop teaching what the Magisterium teaches – each bishop in his own diocese teaches the same faith (and maintains the same fundamental discipline as the other bishops do in theirs), and through the Popes and the Ecumenical Councils approved by the Popes. What “some might consider” as “a say in the Magisterium” is pure waffle.

Australian Bishops in 1976 taught faithfully:
“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.”
 
Abu said:
See rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html HUMANAE VITAE AND INFALLIBITY
Posts #31,35.

As you should know bishops’ conferences are not part of the Magisterium, which reality is the individual bishop teaching what the Magisterium teaches – each bishop in his own diocese teaches the same faith (and maintains the same fundamental discipline as the other bishops do in theirs), and through the Popes and the Ecumenical Councils approved by the Popes. What “some might consider” as “a say in the Magisterium” is pure waffle.

Australian Bishops in 1976 taught faithfully:
“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.”
Click to expand...
So it’s Rev. Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M., saying it’s ex-cathedra and
Archbishop Vincenzo Fagiolo
President of the Pontifical Council For the Interpretation of Legislative Texts
saying it’s Ordinary Magisterium.
Who do you believe?

Pope and bishops are supposed to be in unison, in union.
Please, show me where it says that you are supposed to bypass your bishop and listen to Pope.
 
What Jaaanosik needs to assent to is the fact that the teaching against contraception is infallible and to dissent from that is to be not in full communion with Christ and His Church –
From Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930, here is the infallible definition:
“the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals …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
 
Any possible past actions by any Bishops have nothing to do with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top