Infallibility of contraception sin

[Jaaanosik]

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

Please, explain the bold part and how it fits with ex-cathedra infallible teaching.

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.

from vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

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

jimmyakin.com/2004/11/contraception_i.html

 

[Jaaanosik]

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

jimmyakin.com/2004/11/contraception_i.html

The same as your post #42. You are like a robot.

 

[Bookcat]

The same as your post #42. You are like a robot.

…does not compute…does not compute ##%%#@25#%

Yes I know. It is a good one from Jimmy Akin…and very very small…so can get missed in this thread by new readers.

 

[Brendan]

HV is not ex-cathedra. ewtn.com/library/curia/hv25year.htm.

Actually, your own post states the opposie, that HV is infallible as part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

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…Therefore, on the basis of Vatican II’s teaching as well, **the Pope did not speak in “Humanae Vitae” as a private theologian like other theologians, but in virtue of the mandate entrusted to him by Christ, as he himself fittingly stated in his Encyclical **

Did you actually READ the sections of Lumen Gentium that was referenced in your post

Here it is

And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith

Your own text shows that the Pope was not acting as a personal theologian, but as the supreme teacher exponding on matters of faith and morals.

Thus, per Vatican II, the teachings expressed in HV ARE infallible

 

[Jaaanosik]

Actually, your own post states the opposie, that HV is infallible as part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

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…Therefore, on the basis of Vatican II’s teaching as well, **the Pope did not speak in “Humanae Vitae” as a private theologian like other theologians, but in virtue of the mandate entrusted to him by Christ, as he himself fittingly stated in his Encyclical **

Did you actually READ the sections of Lumen Gentium that was referenced in your post

Here it is

Your own text shows that the Pope was not acting as a personal theologian, but as the supreme teacher exponding on matters of faith and morals.

Thus, per Vatican II, the teachings expressed in HV ARE infallible

The point is that HV is not ex-cathedra. Humanae Vitae is teaching of Ordinary Magisterium.
If this is the case then I am asking where is consensus of Pope and bishops.
I am also asking how an infallible teaching aligns with:

8.** 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.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

Just asking questions and looking for good answers.

 

[Brendan]

The point is that HV is not ex-cathedra. Humanae Vitae is teaching of Ordinary Magisterium.

Perhaps you misunderstand what is meant.

Infallible teachings come from three sources. 2 are Extraordinary, Ex Cathedra statements, and Eccumenical Councils.

The primary source for the infallible teachings comes from the Ordinary, or Universal Magisterium. That is the deposit that was given to us from the Apostles and to which the Church has consistently taught.

Read Lumen Gentium 25, which is what the article references. You will see the paralles to the times during which the ordinary universal Magisterium exercises the charism of infallibility. If the Pope speaks, not as a personal theologian, but expounds on a matter of Faith

We can see this in the very text of HV itself

Venerable brothers, beloved sons, all men of good will, great indeed is the work of education, of progress and of charity to which We now summon all of you. And this We do relying on the unshakable teaching of the Church, which teaching Peter’s successor together with his brothers in the Catholic episcopate faithfully guards and interprets

If this is the case then I am asking where is consensus of Pope and bishops.

The consensus does not need to be unaminous, as an idividual bishop, or even a group of bishops, does not constitute ‘the Church’. (Nestorius was a bishop, after all, but we still hold to the correctlness of the teachings on the Hypostatic union).

Rather, it is the consistent teaching of all the Popes on the matter, and the bishop who hold themselves in union with him on the matter.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

I don’t know what your point is with this, it says noting contrary to HV,

Just asking questions and looking for good answers.

Hopefully you are getting them.

 

[Bookcat]

The point is that HV is not ex-cathedra. Humanae Vitae is teaching of Ordinary Magisterium.
If this is the case then I am asking where is consensus of Pope and bishops.

Just asking questions and looking for good answers.

Something can be Infallible via the ordinary and universal Magisterium…

And still have some Bishops at some particular time – not be on board with the Catholic Faith fully…heck we have had Bishops who have started new heresies…and those heresies have even at time spread to many other Bishops.

In my link above Jimmy Akin states that the very language of the document you note there is regarding something that is infallible.

“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.” -VConfessors

“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.” --J Akin

 

[Abu]

How strange that Jaaanosik #58 ignores the following in Vademecum For Confessors Concerning Some Aspects Of The Morality Of Conjugal Life:

“10. On the other hand, to presume to make one’s own weakness the criterion of moral truth is unacceptable. From the very first proclamation of the word of Jesus, Christians realize that there is a “disproportion” between the moral law, natural and evangelical, and the human capacity. They equally understand that the recognition of their own weakness is the necessary and secure road by which the doors to God’s mercy will be opened.44
11. Sacramental absolution is not to be denied to those who, repentant after having gravely sinned against conjugal chastity, demonstrate the desire to strive to abstain from sinning again, notwithstanding relapses.
13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.46, 561).] **This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:

1. when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47
2. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
3. when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion)**.”
   #13 is based on Pope Pius XI’s *Casti Connubii *in which he teaches on this situation].

We have seen conclusively from the very dogma of papal infallibility in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I that “Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

No laxity or dissent from any bishops can change that, nor from any number of so-called Catholics.

The infallible ex cathedra status of the named Encyclicals have been shown by Fr Lio from Vatican I itself, and this precise work lauded by Bl JPII (posts #31,35).

*Ad Tuendam Fidem *in 1998 of Bl JPII, clarified the three levels of teaching.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes, the Church calls HV infallible teaching.
These two facts remain though:

1. Bishops in the Church itself question the teaching on the non-abortive contraception.
2. Conscience rules in this regards.

Because of these two points I am asking how real is this ‘infallibility’?
This is an issue and it’s not going away.

 

[Bookcat]

These two facts remain though:

1. Bishops in the Church itself question the teaching on the non-abortive contraception.
2. Conscience rules in this regards.

Because of these two points I am asking how real is this ‘infallibility’?
This is an issue and it’s not going away.

1. Again something can be infallible and yet even have some Bishops question it just as one had some Bishops question all sorts of things …the humanity of Christ etc. Bishops are personally able to error and even sin. Heck – Scripture even speaks of times to come of apostasy… (not meaning this discussion). Things that are infallible via the ordinary and universal Magisterium -will not cease to be infallible. Nor did they when heresies or other errors spread even widely like Arianism.
2. Conscience does not “rule” in this regard. Rather Catholics are to form their conscience with the very teaching that Contraception is intrinsically evil and are to live according to that teaching as Catholics --doing good and avoiding evil. They are to correct their errors of conscience. And more and more seek “renewal of their minds” as Paul and Pope Benedict discuss --(read past the first paragraph to the end –http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...n-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html) To conform themselves to Christ --living the Yes of their Baptism.

Conscience: cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=109

And these words of Pope Benedict XVI in Spe Salvi are of interest here:

“We must free ourselves from the hidden lies with which we deceive ourselves. God sees through them, and when we come before God, we too are forced to recognize them. “But who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults” prays the Psalmist (Ps 19:12 [18:13]). Failure to recognize my guilt, the illusion of my innocence, does not justify me and does not save me, because I am culpable for the numbness of my conscience and my incapacity to recognize the evil in me for what it is.”

–Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical Letter: Spe Salv

 

[fix]

Yes, the Church calls HV infallible teaching.
These two facts remain though:

1. Bishops in the Church itself question the teaching on the non-abortive contraception.
2. Conscience rules in this regards.

Because of these two points I am asking how real is this ‘infallibility’?
This is an issue and it’s not going away.

It does not have to be infallible to be irreformable and binding. In this case though it is infallible.

In the earlier link I provided it mentions:

The ordinary, universal Magisterium consists in the proclamation of the Bishops in union with the Pope. It is expressed in the fact that the Bishops (including the Bishop of Rome, who is the Head of the College) give a common witness. It is not a question of extraordinary statements, but of the Church’s normal life, of what is preached in ordinary circumstances as universal teaching in the everyday life of the Church. “<This ordinary Magisterium is thus the normal form of the Church’s infallibility>”.’ As a consequence, it is not at all necessary that everything pertaining to the faith become explicit dogma; on the contrary, it is normal for the truth to be proposed simply by its proclamation in common -which includes non only words but also facts; the particular and explicit emphasis of a dogmatic definition is, properly speaking, an extraordinary case, usually required for very precise and particular reasons.

Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only <synchronically,> but also . This means that a morally consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles. “If in some quarter”, the wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, “a majority were to be formed in opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be a majority at all”.2

 

[Jaaanosik]

1. Again something can be infallible and yet even have some Bishops question it just as one had some Bishops question all sorts of things …the humanity of Christ etc. Bishops are personally able to error and even sin. Heck – Scripture even speaks of times to come of apostasy… (not meaning this discussion). Things that are infallible via the ordinary and universal Magisterium -will not cease to be infallible. Nor did they when heresies or other errors spread even widely like Arianism.
2. Conscience does not “rule” in this regard. Rather Catholics are to form their conscience with the very teaching that Contraception is intrinsically evil and are to live according to that teaching as Catholics --doing good and avoiding evil. They are to correct their errors of conscience. And more and more seek “renewal of their minds” as Paul and Pope Benedict discuss --(read past the first paragraph to the end –http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...n-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html) To conform themselves to Christ --living the Yes of their Baptism.

Conscience: cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=109

And these words of Pope Benedict XVI in Spe Salvi are of interest here:

“We must free ourselves from the hidden lies with which we deceive ourselves. God sees through them, and when we come before God, we too are forced to recognize them. “But who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults” prays the Psalmist (Ps 19:12 [18:13]). Failure to recognize my guilt, the illusion of my innocence, does not justify me and does not save me, because I am culpable for the numbness of my conscience and my incapacity to recognize the evil in me for what it is.”

–Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical Letter: Spe Salv

1. Only time will tell how this is going to end up. Maybe God is OK with the present impasse. I am sure the Truth will prevail.
2. You saw the quote from Vademecum (confessor’s handbook), right?

 

[Bookcat]

1. Only time will tell how this is going to end up. Maybe God is OK with the present impasse. I am sure the Truth will prevail.
2. You saw the quote from Vademecum (confessor’s handbook), right?

1. Yes those among Catholics who are confused or in error or sin… from the fall out of the 1960’s cultural problems and from the current surrounding culture of death and hedonism and other problems…hopefully with more and more encountering of Christ and with prayer and penance and discovery of the riches of the Catholic Faith …they will come to know true life in this area. The Truth will set them free. God allows lots of human sins and errors…but he can bring good even out of the muck we make. Maybe the current Religious Liberty battle (where every one of the US Bishops have proclaimed the truth under discussion afresh and are defending our liberty) will assist this renewal of the mind (God again bringing good out of such evil as is being carried out by the Govt).
2. Sure.

 

[fix]

1. You saw the quote from Vademecum (confessor’s handbook), right?

From the link:

1. 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.33

 

[Jaaanosik]

From the link:

1. 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.33

… still it does not invalidate this:

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.

This is part of the issue. The Church acknowledges that they don’t see into the hearts of people. Bishops and popes don’t know what is inscribed into the hearts of married couples in other words what is ‘natural law’. This can be only revealed to them but they insist it’s a natural law. Go figure.

 

[Bookcat]

This is part of the issue. The Church acknowledges that they don’t see into the hearts of people. Bishops and popes don’t know what is inscribed into the hearts of married couples in other words what is ‘natural law’. This can be only revealed to them but they insist it’s a natural law. Go figure.

Such has nothing to do with if something is to be considered definitive and irreformable.

Natural Law condemns Contraception. The fact that a couple --confused by the culture etc–does not see such does not mean that they are following natural law. It means they that they may not see it (and either have not learned the Faith or have rejected an aspect etc etc)

Not “seeing into the hearts of people” is not referring to natural law but to invincible ignorance etc.

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

1. Is such a law perceived by everyone?

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[fix]

… still it does not invalidate this:

This is part of the issue. The Church acknowledges that they don’t see into the hearts of people. Bishops and popes don’t know what is inscribed into the hearts of married couples in other words what is ‘natural law’. This can be only revealed to them but they insist it’s a natural law. Go figure.

I am not following your logic. The natural moral law is objective. The quote you reference is about pastoral treatment of some who may have inculpable ignorance. That means they need help in seeing the Truth. It does not mean they we each have different laws inscribed on our hearts.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Such has nothing to do with if something is to be considered definitive and irreformable.

Natural Law condemns Contraception. The fact that a couple --confused by the culture etc–does not see such does not mean that they are following natural law. It means they that they may not see it (and either have not learned the Faith or have rejected an aspect etc etc)

Not “seeing into the hearts of people” is not referring to natural law but to invincible ignorance etc.

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

1. Is such a law perceived by everyone?

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

This was mentioned in the other thread.
The natural law has spoken via the HV commission. Paul VI was seeking an advice from this commission because for sure he didn’t know what is inscribed in the hearts of married couples.
Nevertheless, he said something different and HV keeps referring to the natural law. Isn’t it strange?
If something is revealed it’s beyond natural. It’s hard to imagine revealed natural law.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I am not following your logic. The natural moral law is objective. The quote you reference is about pastoral treatment of some who may have inculpable ignorance. That means they need help in seeing the Truth. It does not mean they we each have different laws inscribed on our hearts.

It’s supposed to be but is it? See my post above.