Privately dissenting humanae vitae while obeying it anyway

[dailey]

I am a convert to the Catholic faith because of Humanae Vitae rather than in spite of it, so I’ll share a bit.

I grew up in a Protestant family where the norm was that some form of artificial birth control was expected to be used (a marriage prep question would be “what kind?”). I absolutely never questioned the legitimacy of using contraception in marriage. But then I started getting these pulls toward the Church. And I was married to a Catholic who was perfectly fine with my use of contraception (in fact, he got rather angry when I told him I wasn’t going to do so any more and why, but I’m getting ahead of the story).

So, I said “If I could just understand this teaching, I would obey it”. I was unwilling to convert until I was willing to follow the teaching because I didn’t think it was appropriate to call myself Catholic if I were still holding out against a teaching of the Church. Now, honestly, I did not think it could be understood. Now those pulls toward the Church got me started praying the Rosary on a daily basis at the beginning of May. At first, I was offering it for control of my tongue because I’d fallen into a rather bad habit of using the same language that the truck drivers did while I had been working receiving. After two weeks, I had gained that control (to the point that I wasn’t even thinking the words in situations that would have previously gotten a streak of 70% swear words). So, I said to myself, “OK, I’ll pray for understanding of that teaching” … I still thought it was impossible to understand, but I felt it was important to consent to all Church teaching before converting instead of just making a sham of it by still being, in my heart, Protestant.

Well, three days of this went by, and I’m praying the Rosary again and I’m alone in the house when I hear a Voice speak to me. The voice says “Obey.” Like an obstinate child, I met the Voice with “but I want to understand!” and the Voice said “I want obedience.” That’s when I realized Who had been speaking and I was flat on the floor.

The funny thing was, shortly after this, we got an issue of a magazine that we were subscribing to which I forget the name of (this was 13 years ago, after all) which would dedicate each issue to a particular topic. And, you guessed it–the topic of that issue was contraception. So I got the understanding I was praying for after all.

In the end, the virtue is obedience. Obey, but pray for understanding.

And yes, things didn’t turn out as I had hoped … my husband was very angry when I told him I was no longer going to contracept as I guess it had been an “easy out” for him as well to have a contracepting Protestant wife and still consider himself a good Catholic. But I tried that dodge too “OK, God, I’ll obey after I convince him that it’s the way to go …” when I tried that, I got a “Who do you think you’re trying to fool?” and that was that.

Yes, this is private revelation and I did discuss it with a priest prior to RCIA. But the message is one that no one can argue against, and I share it because I was once in that position of “I don’t understand this teaching, it seems cruel, it’s incomprehensible, and there are just some times when it’s wrong”. And now I know better.

What a lovely story…thanks for sharing!

 

[manualman]

If you have made the choice to be obedient in spite of not understanding or agreeing with the reasoning the Church gives and are also not attempting to convince others that the Church is “wrong” then you simply aren’t a dissenter. You have an issue you are struggling with. Don’t we all? Which of us doesn’t still commit sins. When we do so, isn’t that an indication that somewhere deep down we still haven’t fully recognized that sin for what it really is?

I say you’re fine. Just keep struggling with the issue in prayer and learning and refrain from active rebellion and I suspect you’ll get MORE graces for it than those who find it easy to obey.

 

[laszlo]

She cannot be mistaken on moral teaching as she is led by the Holy Spirit.

This is not true. The only guaranty is that Jesus Christ and the heaven stands with the decision of the Church.

Everything earthly, human is imperfect, and thus contains some difference for the TRUTH and GOOD, it could be better, so part of the decisions is wrong, and most decisions can be changed later.

This is the way we live. Only the Evil suggest that we know good and evil. (e.g. quoting the previous decisions of the Church against the actual present Church)

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

can a catholic still receive communion if they don’t use contraception personally, but believe the church should allow it in some very rare circumstances (considering the health of the mother)? Is this a form of dissent which can send a person to hell?

If a person rejects a teaching of the Church internally, they commit the sin of heresy. Notice how you phrased the question: You said “you believe the Church should” which shows that you are aware that “the Church doesn’t”. Before providing a quote from an encyclical, let me explain what happens to the soul if we reject a single teaching of the Church that has been proposed by either a dogmatic definition, or by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

In order for us to be saved, we must die in the state of grace. “Grace” is a participation in the supernatural life of God, which is infused into our soul at baptism, thereby making us “a new creation”, a "partaker of the Divine Nature, and “a temple of the Holy Ghost” as we read in the New Testament.

Now, in order for a person to person to possess sanctifying grace in their soul, they must have supernatural faith. Faith is referred to as the “foundation of the supernatural life”. If we do not possess supernatural faith, we cannot possess grace. If we do not possess supernatural faith, we can go to Mass every day, and confession once a week, but without a doubt we will remain in the state of mortal sin – since our sins will not be forgiven as long as we withhold belief from a teaching we are bound to accept.

Now, supernatural faith is a theological virtue. The purpose of this virtue is to help us to believe the truths that God has revealed. When a truth is proposed to our intellect, our will can either accept this truth, or reject the truth. Supernatural faith help move the will to accept the truth.

If a person knowingly disagrees with any teaching proposed by the Church, they sin against faith and loose the supernatural virtue - along with sanctifying grace. As such, they are in a state of mortal sin and cut off from God. It doesn’t matter if the person accepts 99% of what the Church teaches. Simply denying one point is a sin against the virtue of faith and constitutes heresy.
The following is from Pope Leo XIII:
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: "For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others.** Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”** (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). **Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, **since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. *“In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3). *

For this reason the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows:** “All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are pro posed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium**” (Sess. iii., cap. 3).

The ban on unnatural birth control is a teaching that has been proposed by the “ordinary and universal magisterium” - in other words, it is something that has always been taught by the ordinary magisterium, and is therefore considered to be infallible. As such, to retain supernatural faith, we must adhere to it.

Last point: What do we do it we have knowingly rejected an article of faith? If we have rejected a teaching of the Church, we can recover both supernatural faith and supernatural charity (the state of grace) by accepting the teaching we previously rejected, and confessing the sin.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Ultima Ratio’s post goes to the heart of the issue. Focusing on the authority of Humanae Vitae is myopic, as has been pointed out in the thread devoted to its (non)infallibility. The question is the teaching, not the document, and we simply can’t find the Church ever teaching that artificial contraception is licit, while we have more than enough statements against moral liceity to build the case for a teaching always and everywhere. We are thus required to believe it with divine and Catholic faith, and to reject it is to reject that faith to the same degree as to reject a teaching promulgated through an extraordinary definition.

 

[manualman]

I still say it depends on how you define “rejecting it”.

If the person is saying “This is bunk, but I’ll go along because I don’t want to have a fight with my wife and/or priest”, that might indeed still be a sin of defiance against God.

But if the person is saying “God, I just cannot comprehend how this teaching can be true, but I trust you and I’ll obey because I know you love me and will someday help me understand”, that is a VERY different situation.

As Americans, we like to think we should always have everything figured out and decided. Baloney. Life doesn’t work like that. What each of us DOESN’T know about the universe utterly dwarfs what we do know.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

can a catholic still receive communion if they don’t use contraception personally, but believe the church should allow it in some very rare circumstances (considering the health of the mother)? Is this a form of dissent which can send a person to hell?

I still say it depends on how you define “rejecting it”.

If the person is saying “This is bunk, but I’ll go along because I don’t want to have a fight with my wife and/or priest”, that might indeed still be a sin of defiance against God.

But if the person is saying “God, I just cannot comprehend how this teaching can be true, but I trust you and I’ll obey because I know you love me and will someday help me understand”, that is a VERY different situation.

As Americans, we like to think we should always have everything figured out and decided. Baloney. Life doesn’t work like that. What each of us DOESN’T know about the universe utterly dwarfs what we do know.

I have included the OP’s original post, if you read the part I bolded you will see how he means it, at least how it appears that he means it, and I would say it fits your first case more than your second one.

For me, he is saying he knows better.

Dangerous attitude for a lay person, even greater danger for someone who claims to be discerning a vocation. (I apologize but I felt this had to be said)