Sin to disagree with Pope?

[mo0004]

If the Pope makes a statement (as he did recently on the use of certain devices by certain men), is it is sin (if so, is i mortal) to
(a) Publicly disagree witht he Pope’s teaching.
(b) Offer no comment publicly, but privately disagree?
If the “disagree-er” alos questions the Pope’s infallibility in this one matter, does this make it a sin (or raise the level from venial to mortal?)

Thank you in advance.

 

[Anthony_V]

mo0004,

Hello. I understand your concern. First let me answer your questions, and then I’ll attempt to clear things up a bit for you:

A) Disagreeing with the Pope is disagreeing with Jesus Christs’ Earthly authority. So in essence, yes.

B) Again, yes. Sin is sin no matter the public or private affiliation.

One thing you must understand is that the Church is not physically infallible (i.e., opinions, etc), but morally infallible(discerning right and wrong).
Secondly, allow me to clear up the issues behind this proclamation.

1. The Pope did NOT suggest that the use of condoms is moral in marital sex.
2. Nor did he suggest that condoms are the answer to homosexual male prostitutes.
3. In fact, everything he stated was morally neutral and would have little impact on morals except in a medical sense.

What he was stating is that male prostitutes who are addicted to that lifestyle (and sincerely wish to opt out) may use condoms to prevent the spread of STDs. Anyone who is trying to halt an addiction has a 99% chance of falling back at least once. In that instance, condoms are suggested to, not make the homosexuality less evil, but to make the effects of it less harmful in a medical sense. I hope that clears things up.

 

[Corki]

The Pope is not impeccable. He is capable of human error. It is not a sin to disagree with the Pope in a matter of his personal opinion or on a matter not related to faith or morals.

If one did so publically in such a way that is disrespectful or his office or which minimizes his authority, that *could *be sinful.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

If the Pope makes a statement (as he did recently on the use of certain devices by certain men), is it is sin (if so, is i mortal) to
(a) Publicly disagree witht he Pope’s teaching.
(b) Offer no comment publicly, but privately disagree?
If the “disagree-er” alos questions the Pope’s infallibility in this one matter, does this make it a sin (or raise the level from venial to mortal?)

Thank you in advance.

The pope is only infallible when he is speaking, as pope, on behalf of the whole Church, defining an issue of faith and morals. This is an “ex cathedra” statement (meaning “from the Chair,” that is, the Chair of Peter). So, in defining the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, we know that the pope was protected by the Holy Spirit.

Nevertheless, on *all *issues (including those in which he does not enjoy the Holy Spirit’s express protection from error), the pope remains “Papa,” and just as you should respect your biological father enough to avoid impugning his good name unnecessarily, the same respect is owed the pope. When you find yourself disagreeing with the pope: (A) find out what he actually said – and what he means (you’d be amazed how often bad media coverage or misunderstanding is the basis for these things); and (B) if you still have an issue you struggle with, speak up only as need be. Certainly, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with getting help in a spiritual struggle, but avoid anything that might be gossip or the like.

To address your specific concern, the pope didn’t say what you’ve heard he said about condoms. Catholic Culture (catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=474) put it bluntly:

Pope Benedict has not changed the Church’s teachings, or even intimated that they might be subject to change. The Holy Father has not called for a new debate on the morality of contraception. He has not suggested that condom use might sometimes be morally justifiable.

This is one of those cases which falls into (A). I think if you know and understand the Church’s teaching (which is against contraception in all its forms, not condoms) and know and understand what the pope said on it, you’ll probably not have a problem with it at all. What he was saying just wasn’t controversial.

Of course, if you still disagree, you’re free to. This was part of a private interview that the pope was giving with a longtime biographer: it wasn’t an encyclical, or an official pronouncement at all.

 

[Newbie2]

**The Pope is not impeccable. He is capable of human error. It is not a sin to disagree with the Pope in a matter of his personal opinion or on a matter not related to faith or morals.**If one did so publically in such a way that is disrespectful or his office or which minimizes his authority, that *could *be sinful.

Yes, exactly. This speaks to the issue of infallible teaching.

The latest “controversy” over condoms are, methinks, borderline. While the Pope was not speaking in a teaching manner, nonetheless there are many Catholics who are confused about what he said and what it means.

Not to seem uppity, but Joe Average Catholic with no experience in the study of theology is likely to have serious questions about condom usage, this being fueled by commentary by the secular world.

 

[thistle]

The Pope’s comments on the use of condoms in certain circumstances in no way related to their use as contraceptives. Condoms for contraceptive purposes are and always will be forbidden.
The Pope was saying that in some situations (like the example of the male prostitutes) their use may be allowed to prevent disease.
In other words they might be allowed to prevent death but never allowed where the sole or main purpose is to prevent life.

 

[Abu]

Belloc Fan
in defining the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, we know that the pope was protected by the Holy Spirit.

Actually the Assumption of Mary is a dogma, and any definitive papal doctrine of faith or morals is infallible, such as in the encyclical Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968) and the Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (John Paul II, 1991) on male-only priests.

thistle
The Pope was saying that in some situations (like the example of the male prostitutes) their use may be allowed to prevent disease.

The Pope did not “allow” condoms which are very poor at preventing AIDS, and there is no change in doctrine.

Facing Realitycatholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=474
The Vatican newspaper has betrayed the Pope
by Phil Lawler, November 22, 2010
"Notice that in his hypothetical example, the Pope spoke of a “male prostitute,” presumably involved in homosexual acts. So the question of contraception—the main reason for the Church’s opposition to condoms—was removed from the equation. This prostitute is engaged in profoundly immoral acts. The Pope does not suggest that the use of a condom would make his prostitution less immoral; he says only that by recognizing the imperative to protect his sexual partner, the theoretical prostitute is making a small step toward proper moral reasoning.

“Here the Pope was making a theoretical point, not a practical one. He was not teaching, but explaining a point. He was not speaking with authority—in fact, earlier in the book he had explained why nothing the Pope says in an interview should be regarded as authoritative—but speculating. Nothing in what the Pope said, or the way he said it, reflects any change in the Church’s teaching.”

 

[Rv_Cain_Spencer]

If the Pope makes a statement (as he did recently on the use of certain devices by certain men), is it is sin (if so, is i mortal) to
(a) Publicly disagree witht he Pope’s teaching.
(b) Offer no comment publicly, but privately disagree?
If the “disagree-er” alos questions the Pope’s infallibility in this one matter, does this make it a sin (or raise the level from venial to mortal?)

Thank you in advance.

It is wrong, for a start. Of course it is a sin.

 

[thistle]

Actually the Assumption of Mary is a dogma, and any definitive papal doctrine of faith or morals is infallible, such as in the encyclical Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968) and the Apostolic Epistle Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (John Paul II, 1991) on male-only priests.

The Pope did not “allow” condoms which are very poor at preventing AIDS, and there is no change in doctrine.

Facing Realitycatholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=474
The Vatican newspaper has betrayed the Pope
by Phil Lawler, November 22, 2010
"Notice that in his hypothetical example, the Pope spoke of a “male prostitute,” presumably involved in homosexual acts. So the question of contraception—the main reason for the Church’s opposition to condoms—was removed from the equation. This prostitute is engaged in profoundly immoral acts. The Pope does not suggest that the use of a condom would make his prostitution less immoral; he says only that by recognizing the imperative to protect his sexual partner, the theoretical prostitute is making a small step toward proper moral reasoning.

“Here the Pope was making a theoretical point, not a practical one. He was not teaching, but explaining a point. He was not speaking with authority—in fact, earlier in the book he had explained why nothing the Pope says in an interview should be regarded as authoritative—but speculating. Nothing in what the Pope said, or the way he said it, reflects any change in the Church’s teaching.”

Its interesting that you know this for certain when the clergy all round the world is in a state of confusion. By what authority do you have this certain knowledge? You may or may not be right but how do you know better than the clegy?
I have spoken to three priests and none of them know what this means. They are trying to get clarification as to whether condoms may be used in situations to prevent disease (essentially AIDS).
The only thing I have been able to get answers on are that the Church teaching has not changed with regard to condoms being used for contraceptive purposes but a state of confusion now exists with regard to their use to prevent disease.

 

[Abu]

thistle
I have spoken to three priests and none of them know what this means. They are trying to get clarification as to whether condoms may be used in situations to prevent disease (essentially AIDS). The only thing I have been able to get answers on are that the Church teaching has not changed with regard to condoms being used for contraceptive purposes but a state of confusion now exists with regard to their use to prevent disease.

While some priests are so busy that they may not have seen the considered explanations quoted, any who have real doubts would appear to be poorly formed.

The first thing is to never rely on the secular media for anything Catholic and this is a cardinal rule which all priests would do well to follow. The Holy Father was being interviewed and a book written – there is no change in doctrine on morals. Everything that is immoral stays immoral – God is immutable (changeless), and Christ’s Church teaches His truth infallibly. In marriage condomistic intercourse is a grave evil regardless of any infection.

As the Pope himself makes clear in his interview Book it is not authoritative and could never be. That is not how doctrine is defined.

There is nothing to contracept in sodomy – it doesn’t matter what you use – the grave sin exists. A condom doesn’t add to it and offers little protection against AIDS. Sodomy is never justified, nor adultery nor fornication. The habit of using a condom might come to be taken as normal, so that an ensuing real marriage would be tainted by grave evil through condomistic intercourse, hence “(w)hen, with respect to the distribution of condoms to reduce the risk of AIDS, the Pope says the Church ‘of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality’, he is doing exactly the sort of extrinsic moral analysis required for this case.” (Dr Jeff Mirus).

Evil may not be done to achieve a good.

catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=735
**On the Culture
The Pope, the Condom, and the Elephant
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | November 22, 2010 **
“Note this well. The Church’s teaching on contraception is that contraception is intrinsically evil when used to frustrate the procreative purpose of the marital act. In anticipation of exactly the sort of confusion we are witnessing today, I addressed this issue nearly four years ago in Contraception: Why It’s Wrong. The point to remember is that contraception is intrinsically evil only within marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual intercourse itself is intrinsically evil; outside of marriage, there is no marital act that must be kept open to life and love; outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.

“This is exactly the kind of moral analysis the Pope was doing in the discussion which is now so much in the news."

 

[thistle]

While some priests are so busy that they may not have seen the considered explanations quoted, any who have real doubts would appear to be poorly formed.

The first thing is to never rely on the secular media for anything Catholic and this is a cardinal rule which all priests would do well to follow. The Holy Father was being interviewed and a book written – there is no change in doctrine on morals. Everything that is immoral stays immoral – God is immutable (changeless), and Christ’s Church teaches His truth infallibly. In marriage condomistic intercourse is a grave evil regardless of any infection.

As the Pope himself makes clear in his interview Book it is not authoritative and could never be. That is not how doctrine is defined.

There is nothing to contracept in sodomy – it doesn’t matter what you use – the grave sin exists. A condom doesn’t add to it and offers little protection against AIDS. Sodomy is never justified, nor adultery nor fornication. The habit of using a condom might come to be taken as normal, so that an ensuing real marriage would be tainted by grave evil through condomistic intercourse, hence “(w)hen, with respect to the distribution of condoms to reduce the risk of AIDS, the Pope says the Church ‘of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality’, he is doing exactly the sort of extrinsic moral analysis required for this case.” (Dr Jeff Mirus).

Evil may not be done to achieve a good.

catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=735
**On the Culture
The Pope, the Condom, and the Elephant
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | November 22, 2010 **
“Note this well. The Church’s teaching on contraception is that contraception is intrinsically evil when used to frustrate the procreative purpose of the marital act. In anticipation of exactly the sort of confusion we are witnessing today, I addressed this issue nearly four years ago in Contraception: Why It’s Wrong. The point to remember is that contraception is intrinsically evil only within marriage. Outside of marriage, sexual intercourse itself is intrinsically evil; outside of marriage, there is no marital act that must be kept open to life and love; outside of marriage, the morality of contraception must be determined on other grounds, namely extrinsic grounds.

“This is exactly the kind of moral analysis the Pope was doing in the discussion which is now so much in the news."

We are not talking about contraception.
It is clear that where condom use would be solely or mainly for contraceptive purposes it will never be allowed. That is not the issue. The issue is whether their use would be allowed in certain circumstances where the use would be primarily for reducing the risk of infection.
Condoms are one means of contraception. Contraception (outside NFP) is forbidden. However the use of contraceptives for medical reasons is not totally forbidden. A wife who has period problems may use the contraceptive pill to overcome the problems. In such a case the primary reason for using the pill is not contraception.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Anthony V;7299388Hello. I understand your concern. First let me answer your questions:

The above post contradicts what the Pope himself has said about disagreeing with the Pope.

“It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search ‘for the face of the Lord’ (cf. Personal sin 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial good will without which there can be no understanding.” (Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, 30 September 2006, Jesus of Nazareth, Foreword, p. xxiv).

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

Also, there is no such term as ‘physically infallible’. The Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church never issues opinions. A Pope or a Bishop might state a personal opinion, but acts of the Magisterium are never opinions. And the infallibility of the Magisterium includes not only morality, but also matters of faith.

“And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.” Lumen Gentium, n. 25.

 

[OraLabora]

It is wrong, for a start. Of course it is a sin.

Unless you forgot the smilies and are saying this tongue-in-cheek, no, it is not wrong. The Pope himself said he may be wrong:

First of all, a Q&A with a journalist carries no weight as an expression of official Catholic teaching. Elsewhere in the same book Benedict concedes that popes can have private opinions which are wrong, so until some formal edict comes down the pike, Benedict’s language has to be seen as interesting but non-binding.

(source: BBC News, John L. Allen)

Unless the pope is speaking ex-cathedra, or is defending previously defined dogma, he’s able to have an opinion, and of course, be wrong like anyone else. As said, he’s not impeccable.

 

[Rv_Cain_Spencer]

Unless you forgot the smilies and are saying this tongue-in-cheek, no, it is not wrong. The Pope himself said he may be wrong:

(source: BBC News, John L. Allen)

Unless the pope is speaking ex-cathedra, or is defending previously defined dogma, he’s able to have an opinion, and of course, be wrong like anyone else. As said, he’s not impeccable.

I was asumming that of course he was speaking dogmatically.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I was asumming that of course he was speaking dogmatically.

The teaching of the Pope, as an act of the Magisterium (not his opinion), is still not infallible dogma, unless his teaching meets all of the criteria established by Vatican I…

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”
   [Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4.]

and reiterated by Vatican II…

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “in virtue of his office, when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (cf. Lk 22:32),”
3. “by a definitive act, he proclaims”
4. “a doctrine of faith or morals” (“And this infallibility…in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends”)
5. “in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with”
   [Lumen Gentium, n. 25]

otherwise, his teaching is non-infallible and non-irreformable.

Such non-infallible teachings are subject to the norms for licit dissent, that is, to a certain limited possibility of disagreement by the faithful, without sin, if that disagreement has some basis in the teachings of Tradition and Scripture, and other teachings of the Magisterium.

 

[Abu]

Ron Conte
Such non-infallible teachings are subject to the norms for licit dissent, that is, to a certain limited possibility of disagreement by the faithful, without sin, if that disagreement has some basis in the teachings of Tradition and Scripture, and other teachings of the Magisterium.

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

This is because the teaching of Vatican II in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 25, is clear as to even non-infallible doctrine on faith or morals:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

For the non-infallible doctrines the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, 23, affirms: “This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.” And #36: “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”

 

[Abu]

Thistle
The issue is whether their [condom] use would be allowed in certain circumstances where the use would be primarily for reducing the risk of infection.

This has never been a possibility for the reason Fr Torraco gives.

Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on July-12-2007 (EWTN ):
In the case of having condomistic intercourse with a spouse infected with AIDS, the principle of double effect is not applicable. The second criterion of the principle of double effect states that the act in question (in this case, condomistic intercourse) must be morally good in itself. However, that is not the case because condomistic intercourse contradicts and violates the inner meaning of the marital act.
[The late Fr Stephen Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network]

 

[thistle]

This has never been a possibility for the reason Fr Torraco gives.

Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on July-12-2007 (EWTN ):
In the case of having condomistic intercourse with a spouse infected with AIDS, the principle of double effect is not applicable. The second criterion of the principle of double effect states that the act in question (in this case, condomistic intercourse) must be morally good in itself. However, that is not the case because condomistic intercourse contradicts and violates the inner meaning of the marital act.
[The late Fr Stephen Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network]

Are you denying that it is permitted **for medical puposes **for a woman to use a contraceptive pill?

 

[Abu]

Thistle
Are you denying that it is permitted for medical puposes for a woman to use a contraceptive pill?

Why should I?
The difference is very clear from the late great Fr Stephen Torraco.

**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on March-23-2007 (EWTN): **
Use of the contraceptive pill for medically indicated as distinct from contraceptive reasons is morally permissible. Having said that, I hasten to add that you would do well to contact the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha (402-390-6600). They could offer you the most medically advanced and morally upright information.

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on July -17-2009 (EWTN):
Taking birth control pills for medically indicated reasons is not contraception. Indirect abortion is not direct abortion.

**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on July-17-2009 (EWTN): **
What I stated was that in the case of actions that are always morally unjustifiable, the physical and moral object of the actions (the “what” of the act, as in WHAT am I doing?) are identical. In such actions, the intention (WHY am I doing it?) and the circumstances (HOW, WHEN, or WHERE am I doing it?) are irrelevant to the fact that the actions are morally unjustifiable by the object alone (the WHAT). In the case of actions such as taking contraceptives for medically indicated reasons, the physical object differs from the moral object. In fact, in such cases, it is a misnomer to call the pills “contraceptives.” In such cases, the WHAT of the act is healing uterine pathology. By itself, this WHAT is morally permissible. One would need to consult the intention and circumstances to ensure that the action is good in all its sources.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

Pope John Paul II was speaking about illicit dissent.
He was condemning the idea that Catholics can dissent without limits.
The U.S. Bishops have taught that there is licit dissent.
By saying that there is no licit dissent,
you are dissenting from a teaching of the U.S. Bishops.

Human Life in Our Day
A Statement Issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
November 15, 1968

Norms of Licit Theological Dissent

1. There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent. This is particularly true in the area of legitimate theological speculation and research. When conclusions reached by such professional theological work prompt a scholar to dissent from non-infallible received teaching, the norms of licit dissent come into play. They require of him careful respect for the consciences of those who lack his special competence or opportunity for judicious investigation. These norms also require setting forth his dissent with propriety and with regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced on it.
2. The reverence due all sacred matters, particularly questions which touch on salvation, will not necessarily require the responsible scholar to relinquish his opinion but certainly to propose it with prudence born of intellectual grace and a Christian confidence that the truth is great and will prevail.
3. When there is question of theological dissent from non-infallible doctrine, we must recall that there is always a presumption in favor of the magisterium. Even non-infallible authentic doctrine, though it may admit of development or call for clarification or revision, remains binding and carries with it a moral certitude, especially when it is addressed to the Universal Church, without ambiguity, in response to urgent questions bound up with faith and crucial to morals. The expression of theological dissent from the magisterium is in order only if the reasons are serious and well-founded, if the manner of the dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church and is such as not to give scandal.