Need help refuting an argument against Papal Infallibility

[phil19034]

A while ago on another site, I was debating an atheist apostate who was once a priest who was trained in the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary. I was trying to show evidence of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and he countered my arguments by mentioning a historical issue which he claims refutes Papal Infallibility.

While the Catholic Church has always condemned abortion, many theologians erroneously thought that abortion was only murder if the fetus is “animated” since they lacked the scientific knowledge that proves that life does begin at conception. There were therefore different penalties to earlier and later abortions. Then in 1588, Pope Sixtus V issued the bull Effraenatam which said that all abortion is murder.

However, according to the ex priest, in 1591 Pope Gregory XIV revoked it and issued the bull Sedes Apostolicae which declared that the soul enters the fetus later after conception. He said that it refutes Papal Infallibility because both Effraenatam and Sedes Apostolicae contain statements concerning faith and morals and they contradict each other.

1. the infallibility has to take place from the Chair and has to be declared by the Pope. A Papal Document isn’t really a declaration of Papal Infallibility. He also has to bind it on all the faithful
2. when the soul enters the body isn’t faith and morals, it is science. Reason: the faith and morals part is that all living life must have a soul. Even plants have a soul. Anything alive has a soul. What people where arguing is when the child comes to life. They didn’t know that kids can wiggle their fingers long before mom can feel them. And they didn’t know all the activity that takes place in cells. And they didn’t know about DNA. So what the Pope said was really a question for science.

Btw- we also do not know that exact moment of soul implantation. But based on the science we can assume that it happens within the first 8 days. Because thats when identical twins happen. But we don’t know the exact moment so we stick with conception as to not make the same scientific mistake again

God Bless

 

[commenter]

while ago on another site, I was debating an atheist

If someone is an atheist, I wouldn’t bother trying to persuade him of infallibility.
First, he probably isn’t an ex priest. Whether he is or not, he’s just try to get a rise out of you, having fun.

There are no arguments for infallibility he will listen to.

Either ignore him, or encourage him to justify atheism. It’s much easier to attack papal infallibility than to refute the existence of God.

If he wants to refute the existence of God, you might have a fruitful argument. If not, forget it.

 

[Genesis315]

These bulls prescribed different ecclesiastical penalties for abortion–they weren’t definitive judgments about a point of morals. Gregory XIV provided lesser penalties for the abortion of an “unanimated” fetus than for an “animated” one, but neither acts were considered morally upright at any time by the Church.

The Church in principle has always taught that both contraception and murder are contrary to the divine and natural law. However, there is no infallibility when it comes to scientific facts. In this case, whether a particular concrete act is one or the other is a question of factual circumstances, not a question of moral principles. Before there is a new life, it would be an act of contraception; after a new life has been created, it would be an act of murder. The mechanics of conception, however, is a scientific fact. The principles are fixed, even if our knowledge of scientific facts to which we apply the principles can be improved.

 

[Genesis315]

I’m not sure where the myth of few instances comes from–I think it probably has its roots in false irenicism in the ecumenical sphere. At the First Vatican Council, when some bishops wanted to condition papal infallibility on the Pope following some procedure or using some verbal formula, the relator for the Commissio de fide (charged with providing official doctrinal explanations of Council documents to the Council Fathers) said this could not be done, because there were already so many instances with various procedures or even none at all:

But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?

The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop ... - Vinzenz Gasser - Google Books

“Thousands and thousands” might be a bit hyperbolic, but the point remains–it has been a lot!

On topic, St. John Paul II did provide an infallible judgment with regard to abortion in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae (the footnote even goes to the Lumen Gentium passage on infallibility):

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 73

In this case, in fact, we have the infallibility of the entire episcopate at the time holding it as definitive, the consistent teaching of the whole Church over time, and on top of all that a definitive act of the Roman Pontiff.

(the Church teaches infallibly lots of ways that always overlap–in fact, every definition by a Pope is on a doctrine which had previously been taught anyway, since Vatican I specifically says it is not to give new doctrine, but rather to confirm what has already been taught; even with regard to the famous Marian definitions, the Popes first consulted the bishops and received their unanimous judgment).

The same is true as to his definition concerning the all-male priesthood. I think there is some confusion because it was not a dogmatic definition–ie of a doctrine that is strictly revealed–but rather of a doctrine that must be definitively held based on it being necessarily connected to revealed truth (the Church, including through the Pope, teaches these truths infallibly as well and they were included in the Vatican I definition).

 

[po18guy]

I honestly believe that, with such a tormented, lost soul, you are wasting your time. He has heard the truth, originally accepted it, but has now fallen into his prior practices. Saint Peter wrote of such persons in 2 Peter 2.

Your time is far better spent praying for him, since you cannot stop him fro spreading untrue allegations.

 

[Genesis315]

Just to add to my prior post, Vatican I explains how papal definitions have come about:

1. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].
2. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

 

[Ana_v]

If ensoulment is necessary for humanity and murder is defined that way, yes. Do we know? No.

If we don’t know what murder is, or what a human person is, how can one say (with moral certainty) that “abortion is murder”?

 

[EZweber]

If we don’t know what murder is, or what a human person is, how can one say (with moral certainty) that “abortion is murder”?

Because murder can only be logically defined to be more inclusive, not less.

 

[twf]

The Church moves very slowly. Doctrine develops very slowly. We have a lot more clarity on this issue now than we did in 1500 (when many believed in papal infallibility but there was no formal definition). In terms of Catholic dogmas, papal infallibility is a pretty recent definition.
That said, in recent decades, the Church has been moving away from the more legalistic approach to the faith that arose in the late Middle Ages. In the current environment, I can’t imagine papal infallibility would have been defined at all. A definitive list would have been a more likely “product” in the days of moralist manuals than it is now. The Orthodox Churches claim an equivalence of infallibility (without, I think, using that term), but are far more nebulous than we are with it.

Your comparison to state law is a little off I think. Catholic Canon Law has been clearly defined. It was definitively codified in 1917, for the first time, and updated in 1983. “Infallible teachings” are more akin to accepted political doctrines and protocols than laws.
In the Westminster system of parliamentary government, the office of Prime Minister, the most important office in the government, is based on accepted tradition rather than defined law. Until something breaks, it works.

 

[TheLittleLady]

If someone accepts the authority of the Pope, they are Catholic.

Good luck convincing a former Catholic now atheist. That was the first thing they rejected.

 

[po18guy]

If someone accepts the authority of the Pope, they are Catholic.

Good luck convincing a former Catholic now atheist. That was the first thing they rejected.

And, it is for this exact reason that words will utterly fail to re-convert. Most of Christ’s disciples walked way from God in the Flesh! Do we expect that we are better evangelists than Christ? Better philosophers? Better logicians?

Really…

On the other hand, the Holy Spirit, through prayer…

 

[JacobHarrison]

Well people here have given good answers on what counts as papal infallibility when they explained that matters of science such as when life begins is not a matter of faith and morals so I feel better now and more confident in my faith. I think that you should discuss your questions on morals that you had while you were in the seminary with others here as they might be able to provide good answers that can cause you to regain your faith.

 

[Isearch]

But some questions about science and history do overlap with faith and morals to the point that it is impossible to ignore them being questions related to faith and morals. One example to demonstate this fact is the doctrine of the Resurrection. So, it is difficult to ignore the objection you have given above in your discussion of papal infallibility by exclaiming that it is merely about science.

 

[JacobHarrison]

But how does the question of what is life overlap with faith and morals? In my biology classes, I learned of the criteria that makes something a living organism which is that it has cells, requires energy, responds to stimuli, has homeostasis, grows and develops, and has an ability to reproduce. The criteria that determines that bacteria are life and viruses are not does not overlap with faith, and in the past people didn’t know that early fetuses from the moment of conception have that criteria.

 

[Isearch]

It overlaps in morals because if the early people of an era had believed that early fetuses weren’t fully human yet, then moral theology of that era wouldn’t have classified abortion as an act of murder, but as an immoral act of contraception. And this was exactly what happened.

 

[Ghosty1981]

It overlaps in morals because if the early people of an era had believed that early fetuses weren’t fully human yet, then moral theology of that era wouldn’t have classified abortion as an act of murder, but as an immoral act of contraception. And this was exactly what happened.

The moral question is “can we murder human life” not “is this human life”. The Church answers questions about the former, but science answers the latter. Even back in the times when abortion was not considered murder before the “quickening” this was based on the science of the time, and the Church did not define the time of ensoulment so much as it followed the prevailing secular understanding of when and how life develops.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ana_v]

If we don’t know what murder is, or what a human person is, how can one say (with moral certainty) that “abortion is murder”?

That potential for inclusivity in the definition of murder, or the definition of murder being reformable, doesn’t in and of itself establish that abortion is murder under the current definition.

Consider this: It is hypothetically possible that in the future we will discover that certain highly intelligent animals exhibit agency or other qualities which persuade us to regard them as persons.

In the meantime, do we consider it murder for us to kill them? E.g. Gorillas? Dolphins?

It is hypothetically possible that there are undiscovered forms of intelligent life on other planets.

Should such ever be discovered, we would have to debate the ethics of whether it is moral to kill or subjugate such beings.

But the fact is, in any ethical debate, we have to base our arguments on actual definitions, not on the myriad of ways definitions may be modified in the future.

My overall point is simply this:

In order to say “abortion is murder”, we must define what “murder” and “abortion” is.

 

[EZweber]

That potential for inclusivity in the definition of murder, or the definition of murder being reformable, doesn’t in and of itself establish that abortion is murder under the current definition.

Consider this: It is hypothetically possible that in the future we will discover that certain highly intelligent animals exhibit agency or other qualities which persuade us to regard them as persons.

In the meantime, do we consider it murder for us to kill them? E.g. Gorillas? Dolphins?

It is hypothetically possible that there are undiscovered forms of intelligent life on other planets.

Should such ever be discovered, we would have to debate the ethics of whether it is moral to kill or subjugate such beings.

But the fact is, in any ethical debate, we have to base our arguments on actual definitions, not on the myriad of ways definitions may be modified in the future.

Your points are valid, but I am not saying I don’t have a definition of murder. I am saying that there are multiple possible definitions of murder and we don’t know which one the Pope used.

 

[EZweber]

I should also note that I think the Church has clarified that animals such as gorilas and dolphins are not rational. I don’t have specific documents, but I believe that it is the official stance.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Btw- we also do not know that exact moment of soul implantation. But based on the science we can assume that it happens within the first 8 days. Because thats when identical twins happen.

That is true, we do not know. That is why to say “abortion is certainly murder from the first instant of conception” takes only a probable opinion and treats it as though it is dogma. Some pro-life people fall into this trap. We have to make the assumption, even if we are wrong, but we cannot prove it.

As far as identical twins are concerned, that’s far above my pay grade, and far above anybody’s pay grade. It could be that one soul is infused at the moment of conception, and then Almighty God infuses the second soul when the embryo separates into two distinct persons. To speculate “which twin has the original soul?” is the ultimate unanswerable question.

And then there is the question of whether frozen embryos have souls, and whether those are human souls or something less. No way to know. No way to say they do, no way to say they don’t.