Moral Dissident Marches On In Rochester, NY

[fix]

Arba Sicula:

Where is this infallibly stated?

No doubt and I agree they’re wrong. I just would like to see where these are infallibly said to be so.

UNDERSTANDING THE INFALLIBILITY TEACHING

The Second Vatican Council teaching states that four conditions must be met for an
infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium of bishops around the world. These are:

1. That the bishops be in communion with one another and with the pope.

1. That they teach authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals.

1. That they agree in one judgment.

1. That they propose this as something to be held definitively by the faithful…

Not much has been said about the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium since
Vatican II adopted and Pope Paul VI approved in 1964. For
obvious reasons, this is not a doctrine dissenting theologians call attention to. Even the
Vatican has said very little about it, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church barely
alludes to it (see no. 891).

In 1978, however, two American moral theologians – Jesuit Father John Ford and
Germain Grisez – published what is probably the most important theological article to
date analyzing and applying Vatican II’s doctrine.

The article, in the journal Theological Studies, argued at length that the teaching that
every act of contraception is intrinsically wrong has been proposed infallibly by the
ordinary magisterium.

In reaching this conclusion, Father Ford and Grisez traced the history of the teaching
on contraception over many centuries and examined the manner in which it was
proposed by countless bishops in their individual exercise of teaching authority.

Even if a substantial number of bishops now or at some time in the future were to be
doubtful about the teaching or not accept it, that would have no bearing on the fact
that the conditions for infallible teaching already have been met, they argued.

The Father Ford-Grisez thesis has not been widely embraced by theologians, and the
Vatican officially has not said anything about it. But their argument, though
challenged or ignored by dissenters, has never been refuted. And, as they pointed out
at the time, the same argument, if correct, applies not only to contraception but also to
many other matters taught by the ordinary magisterium.

In a Nov. 24 address to members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Pope John Paul expressed regret that many Catholics apparently think they are at
liberty to dismiss doctrines they don’t agree with unless it is formally stated that they
are infallibly proposed.

Different teachings do have different degrees of authority, he said. But he added,
“That does not authorize people to think that pronouncements and doctrinal decisions
of the magisterium require irrevocable assent only when it presents them with a
solemn judgment or definitive act.”

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/SHAWINFA.TXT

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Looks like the Ford-Grisez thesis is just that - their own thesis “not been widely embraced by theologians, and the Vatican officially has not said anything about it.”

As such, it is not binding in any way.

 

[fix]

Arba Sicula:

Looks like the Ford-Grisez thesis is just that - their own thesis “not been widely embraced by theologians, and the Vatican officially has not said anything about it.”

As such, it is not binding in any way.

**

Magisterial documents and public dissent

**

      **by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B. **

      *Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli* 

      *Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

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 depositum fide), 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. Lumen gentium, n. 25, 2), they enjoy the same infallibility as the Pope’s ex cathedra Magisterium or that of a Council…

Moreover, it must also be kept in mind that if the authority of the Magisterium’s teachings admits of varying degrees, this does not mean that the authority of a lesser degree can be considered on the same level as theological opinions or, when it is not a question of infallibility, that only the arguments count and it is impossible for the Church to have a common certitude in a given doctrinal matter…

Actually, if we consider the *act *of teaching, the Magisterium can teach a doctrine as *definitive *either by a *defining act *or by a *non-defining act. *First of all, the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as *definitive, *and thus to be believed with divine faith or to be held in a definitive way, through a solemn ex *cathedra *pronouncement of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as *definitive *because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of thecharism 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 *confirmation *and *reaffirmation *(generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter). If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an *ex cathedra *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 teachingsof the ordinary, universal Magisterium.cin.org/vatcong/md&pd.html

Could you please give me a citation that proves contraception, within the conjugal act, was ever taught as morally licit by the magisterium?

 

[fix]

In Defense of Humanae Vitae

*by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
*1. Encyclical Not Infallible.

The ideas behind these statements betray confused thinking. A myth has developed in some Catholic circles which claims that only solemnly defined teaching is infallible, or that the Church cannot teach infallibly on matters dealing with the moral order, or in issues affecting natural law. None of these is true.

Most of what the Church believes to be true has never been solemnly defined. According to the famous axiom of Vincent of Lerins, “we must be extremely concerned to hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” Applying this norm to the Church’s teaching on contraception, the verdict of Catholic history is uniform. Since the first clear mention of contraception in Christian writing in the third century, when the Church condemned it, the explicit teaching of Catholicism has been the same. Jerome and Augustine, Caesarius and Martin, Albert and Aquinas, Sixtus V and Charles Borromeo, Alphonsus Liguori and Bishop Kenrick, Pius XI and Pius XII – all typify the unbroken tradition on the subject. No pronouncement of Rome and no teacher approved by Rome has ever taught, “Contraception is good.” Even men like John Noonan who would like to see the doctrine changed, admit “The teaching on contraception is clear and apparently fixed forever” (John T. Noonan, Contraception, New York, 1967, p. xix).

At the outset should be stated what Catholicism commonly holds, that the Church’s hierarchy, in communion with Rome, can teach infallibly even apart from an ecumenical council. The II Vatican Council makes the point emphatically clear.
Although individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held (Constitution on the Church, 25).That contraception belongs to the area of morals is beyond question; that the Catholic hierarchy, under the pope; has proscribed contraception for over a thousand years is also unquestionable. Is it conceivable that the successors of the apostles would have been allowed by the Holy Spirit to mislead the Church for more than a millennium on the morality of one of the most sacred of human relationships?

It is gratuitous to compare such things as interest-taking with the solemn duties of marriage. It is also unwarranted to say that because circumstances required a change in church legislation on religious liberty, the Church’s teaching on the principles of religious liberty has also changed. It is false to assert that Catholic teaching on the ends of marriage has been corrected. If anything, the II Vatican Council was more explicit than ever on the procreative love that should obtain between husband and wife.

therealpresence.org/archives/Faith_and_Morals/Faith_and_Morals_003.htm

 

[bogeyjlg]

Please pray for my home diocese.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

“Different teachings do have different degrees of authority, he said. But he added, “That does not authorize people to think that pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the magisterium require irrevocable assent only when it presents them with a
solemn judgment or definitive act.””

So, the Church should state clearly what the degrees of authority are, and what degree of authority various “pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the Margisterium” fall under.

If the Church wants irrevocable assent, then why not present such doctrinal decisions with “solemn judgements or definitive acts”?

The confusion in the Church, I think, is partly the fault of the Church itself. Not everyone who “dissents” does so out of disrespect for the Church. The lack of clarity and the lack of clear and unequivocal pronouncements on various topics contributes greatly to a lack of understanding.

I wonder if Ford and Grisez ever heard of AIDS? I understand that at least a few bishops in affected areas of Africa have given at least tacit approval to the use of condoms. I would think that the sin of using a condom is far less than the sin of bringing a child into the world doomed to die of AIDS.

 

[bogeyjlg]

“Different teachings do have different degrees of authority, he said. But he added, “That does not authorize people to think that pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the magisterium require irrevocable assent only when it presents them with a
solemn judgment or definitive act.””

So, the Church should state clearly what the degrees of authority are, and what degree of authority various “pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the Margisterium” fall under.

If the Church wants irrevocable assent, then why not present such doctrinal decisions with “solemn judgements or definitive acts”?

The confusion in the Church, I think, is partly the fault of the Church itself. Not everyone who “dissents” does so out of disrespect for the Church. The lack of clarity and the lack of clear and unequivocal pronouncements on various topics contributes greatly to a lack of understanding.

I wonder if Ford and Grisez ever heard of AIDS? I understand that at least a few bishops in affected areas of Africa have given at least tacit approval to the use of condoms. I would think that the sin of using a condom is far less than the sin of bringing a child into the world doomed to die of AIDS.

There has been only one country in the world that has stemmed the tide of AIDS and that is Uganda. Uganda has taught a policy of abstinence outside of marriage and fidelity in marriage. They had at one point an infection rate of 30%. They now have less than a 6% rate. Countries that promote contraceptives cannot claim anything but a rise in the outbreak of aids.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

“but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of *confirmation *and *reaffirmation *(generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter).”

But, we know that all Encyclicals are not infallible, so the Pope should “set forth a formal pronouncment of confirmation and reaffirmation” in those Encyclicals endorsing an ordinary, universal Magisterium declaration as infallible.

This shouldn’t be a guessing game.

 

[contemplative]

contemplative:

I just called the information telephone number (585-670-0667) listed in the announcement above.
A woman answered (must be a private number, not a church office number). As of today, Curran will be speaking in Rochester. She stated that Curran is a priest in good standing in the Diocese of Rochester. Why am I not surprised? I expressed my dissatisifaction in a simple and concise way. I hope more people do the same.

Why is Curran a priest in good standing in the Diocese of Rochester if he openly expresses dissappointment for our Pope Benedict XVI? Takes alota nerve? Don’t ya think? Takes alota gall for Bishop Matthew Clark to allow Curran to speak in a Rochester Catholic church. Don’t ya think?

An excerpt from

My argument with Joseph Ratzinger
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/IMG/trans.gifCharles E. Curran

I sat in a television studio on April 19, 2005, and once again heard the words habemus papam–Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI. My disappointment was much greater than it was fifty years earlier. As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Ratzinger concluded a seven-year investigation of my theological writings in 1986 with the judgment, approved by John Paul II, that “one who dissents from the magisterium as you do is not suitable nor eligible to teach Catholic theology.”
I maintained that my dissent was not from core tenets of Catholic faith, but from noninfallible church teachings. In fact, the U.S. bishops in their 1968 pastoral letter Human Life in Our Day recognized the legitimacy of such dissent if there are serious reasons for it, if the teaching authority of the church is not impugned, and if scandal is not given. My dissent satisfied those criteria. So I asked Cardinal Ratzinger, “Is theological dissent from noninfallible church teaching ever permitted; and, if so, under what conditions is it permitted?” He refused to answer.

 

[fix]

“Different teachings do have different degrees of authority, he said. But he added, “That does not authorize people to think that pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the magisterium require irrevocable assent only when it presents them with a
solemn judgment or definitive act.””

So, the Church should state clearly what the degrees of authority are, and what degree of authority various “pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the Margisterium” fall under.

If the Church wants irrevocable assent, then why not present such doctrinal decisions with “solemn judgements or definitive acts”?

The confusion in the Church, I think, is partly the fault of the Church itself. Not everyone who “dissents” does so out of disrespect for the Church. The lack of clarity and the lack of clear and unequivocal pronouncements on various topics contributes greatly to a lack of understanding.

I wonder if Ford and Grisez ever heard of AIDS? I understand that at least a few bishops in affected areas of Africa have given at least tacit approval to the use of condoms. I would think that the sin of using a condom is far less than the sin of bringing a child into the world doomed to die of AIDS.

I think the problem is dissent, not lack of clarity. Those outside the magisterium clamour for change. Take contraception for instance. The Church has always taught it may not be done within the conjugal act. This is nothing new. Each age brings new challenges, but the moral law does not change. Humanae Vitae said :

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times. (4)…

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong…

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man…

It seems very stright forward to those who are willing to receive the truth.

 

[felra]

If the Church wants irrevocable assent, then why not present such doctrinal decisions with “solemn judgements or definitive acts”?

This sounds like the Church is made up of a bunch of spoon fed children just waiting for the latest loophole.

“Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, (and) not solid food. Everyone who lives on milk lacks experience of the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties are trained by practice to discern good and evil.” (Hebrews 5: 12-14**)**

The confusion in the Church, I think, is partly the fault of the Church itself. Not everyone who “dissents” does so out of disrespect for the Church. The lack of clarity and the lack of clear and unequivocal pronouncements on various topics contributes greatly to a lack of understanding.

I believe that the problem has more to do with the “itchy ear” syndrome and dissent teachers/theologians:

“For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.” (2 Timothy,Chapter 4:3-4 )

I wonder if Ford and Grisez ever heard of AIDS? I understand that at least a few bishops in affected areas of Africa have given at least tacit approval to the use of condoms.

Bishops are called to be shepherds of souls, first and foremost.

I would think that the sin of using a condom is far less than the sin of bringing a child into the world doomed to die of AIDS.

It is this type of faulty thinking which is part of the problem and certainly not part of the solution.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

fix:

I think the problem is dissent, not lack of clarity. Those outside the magisterium clamour for change. Take contraception for instance. The Church has always taught it may not be done within the conjugal act. This is nothing new. Each age brings new challenges, but the moral law does not change. Humanae Vitae said :

Forget Humanae Vitae. Take any doctrine. There must be some definite statement to clarify “the degree of authority” Pope Paul spoke of.

It seems very stright forward to those who are willing to receive the truth.

That’s not a serious answer. One can be willing, but if the Church isn’t clear in a manner any layman can understand?

 

[felra]

This question has been posed to the AAA forum:

Is the ordinary Magisterium always infallible?

…and answered …“Any doctrine proposed repeatedly by the Ordinary Magisterium is rated as infallible.”

IMHO, a “guessing game” is for children or irresponsible or insincere adults. How about take a little self-responsibility for one’s own faith formation and actions?

 

[fix]

Arba Sicula:

Forget Humanae Vitae. Take any doctrine. There must be some definite statement to clarify “the degree of authority” Pope Paul spoke of.

As I said before look in the CCC with the footnotes. The teachings in there are plain and easy to understand. The footnotes give documents with greater detail. The few links I posted are from orthodox sources in union with Rome. The hot button issues have all been addressed multiple times by the magisterium. I cannot see how anyone who has seriously looked into it can claim confusion. Speak with an orthodox priest and he will help you grow in understanding.

What is it you are seeking? The issues in most question have been answered by the Church. We are fortunate in that we have a living authority to address these issues to. What more can we ask?

That’s not a serious answer. One can be willing, but if the Church isn’t clear in a manner any layman can understand?

Now, I quoted HV. How much more clear can the Church be? I do not see it as being unclear. I see it that many want a loophole.

Perhaps you can explain exactly what you are looking for? Contraception, as one example, is intrinsically wrong. No exceptions within the conjugal act.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

felra:

How about take a little self-responsibility for one’s own faith formation and actions?

I think numerous people have, and haven’t always come up with the same answers that the Church has.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

fix:

cannot see how anyone who has seriously looked into it can claim confusion.

You ought to try to teach school. Lots of students study, but are still confused.

Perhaps you can explain exactly what you are looking for? Contraception, as one example, is intrinsically wrong. No exceptions within the conjugal act.

You seem overly concerned with contraception. Forget about it. I was addressing the lack of specific declaration of the degree of authority in some of what the Church teaches.

 

[felra]

Arba Sicula:

felra:

I think numerous people have, and haven’t always come up with the same answers that the Church has.

I couldn’t have stated the problem more clearly or succincly than your above statement. How hard are these “numerous people” looking for the truth and what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals? My experience has almost 100% been >>> NOT TOO HARD. I believe that if more people felt that their very life and eternal destiny depended upon knowing and doing what the Church teaches, then you would see “confusion” dissapear overnight. I believe its a matter of how hard someone wants something that makes the difference.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

felra:

Arba Sicula:

I couldn’t have stated the problem more clearly or succincly than your above statement. How hard are these “numerous people” looking for the truth and what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals? My experience has almost 100% been >>> NOT TOO HARD. I believe that if more people felt that their very life and eternal destiny depended upon knowing and doing what the Church teaches, then you would see “confusion” dissapear overnight. I believe its a matter of how hard someone wants something that makes the difference.

I think that there would be less confusion and more understanding of what the Church teaches if the burden wasn’t so much on the seeker alone. Finding the truth shouldn’t be the same as climbing Mt. Everest - one reaches the summit depending only on how hard he wants to reach it.

 

[fix]

Arba Sicula:

You ought to try to teach school. Lots of students study, but are still confused.

Being confused is not a sin, rejecting the truth that Christ asks is a sin.

You seem overly concerned with contraception. Forget about it. I was addressing the lack of specific declaration of the degree of authority in some of what the Church teaches.

I used that as one issue that gets a lot of ink. Humanae Vitae states clearly what the Church asks of us and folks claim it is confusing??? Huh? It is crystal clear. What else am I missing?

 

[fix]

Arba Sicula:

felra:

I think that there would be less confusion and more understanding of what the Church teaches if the burden wasn’t so much on the seeker alone. Finding the truth shouldn’t be the same as climbing Mt. Everest - one reaches the summit depending only on how hard he wants to reach it.

Well, I would agree that many in the Church have failed us. Priests these past few decades have not preached the truth as clearly or genuinely as I would like it. There are many reasons for this, BUT, our salvation should be the most important thing in our lives. That is our relationship was God.

How many of us know all manner of silly, worthless things like sports stats, yet do not take the time to learn their faith as adults? There are plenty of resources today, too few avail themselves of them.