Sin to disagree with Pope?

[Ron_Conte]

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

Are you denying that contraception is intrinsically evil?

The purpose for which any act is chosen is the first font of morality, intention. Intrinsically evil acts, such as contraception, are immoral under the second font of morality, because they have an evil moral object. A good intention (or purpose) cannot transform an intrinsically evil act into a moral act.

Compendium of the Catechism: “The morality of human acts depends on three sources: the object chosen, either a true or apparent good; the **intention **of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act; and the circumstances of the act, which include its consequences.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (CCC, n. 2399).

When a sexually-active woman chooses to use a contraceptive pill for the purpose (or intention or intended end) of treating a medical disorder, her intention is good, but the moral object of the act remains immoral. Contraception is intrinsically evil.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.”

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: “It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”

She can take the medication and refrain from sexual relations, so that the pill is not contraceptive. She can seek some other medical intervention and continue with marital relations. But she cannot morally choose to have contracepted sexual relations, because that chosen act is intrinsically disordered.

 

[Abu]

Ron Conte
The U.S. Bishops have taught that there is licit dissent.

They were wrong, which is precisely why 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 precisely why the Holy Father worded his statement like that.

Since when can a national council of bishops encourage contempt for a definitive, infallible doctrine – of the Magisterium?

That is precisely why the Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian, (Donum Veritatis) 1990, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was issued.

No wonder Msgr George A Kelly stresses: “The sensus fidei of the Catholic Church calls for Catholics to be trained to ‘think with the Church’…”(Battle for the American Church Revisited, Ignatius, 1995, p 33).

The monumental error was when dissent was fueled by the ill-considered and arbitrary NCCB pastoral (1968) on Humanae Vitae, in which they tried to establish “norms of licit dissent” which became, for the theologians run amok, “the right of public dissent”, condemned by Cardinal Hickey and Cdl Ratzinger. Thus did Catholic academia become “antimagisterial” Battle for the American Church Revisited, Msgr George A Kelly, Ignatius, 1995, p 73-74].

“Dissenters were offered sanctuary in theology departments of Catholic universities, where, from tenured posts, they dismissed and even scoffed at Magisterial pronouncements, even teaching their students to do so, all without interference from the divinely appointed teachers of the Catholic Church.” What Went Wrong With Vatican II, Dr Ralph McInerny, Sophia Institute Press, 1998, p 109].

As the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed: “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.” (#36). “The obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent.” (#38). Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian, (Donum Veritatis) 1990, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith].

 

[Bookcat]

“Private opinions” of Popes of course are not ‘teachings’. Pope Benedict XVI would tell you that such is not a sin per se to disagree with such…

As to teachings these bits from Canon Law are helpful (of course the way of writing here is legal…for it is CL but it summarizes what is said in other places…too)

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

 

[elts1956]

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.

The way I understand this situation of condoms yes, condoms no is:

1. Pope Benedict XVI did not approve of using condoms in any circumstance.
2. He was speculating (unfortunately out loud, dangerous in this day and age of conscience supremacy ), that a male prostitute who has aids, may make a more correct moral judgement in using a condom to prevent the spread of disease. ie. no condom, the disease may spread, using a condom, protecting his partner.
3. The Pope’s speculation had nothing to do with procreation.

 

[Abba]

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.”

Great thread everyone!

Abu, thank you for your informative posts and quotes. Allow me to ask you, since condom use according to the ‘speculations’ of Pope Benedict XVI, is acceptable for a male prostitute with AIDS would it be acceptable for a married partner with AIDS? The married couple has an obligation to each other aside from that of being open to life. In accordance to this understanding, elderly people continue to have sex even though their time for procreation has gone by. If the man in a marriage has AIDS, considering his obligation as a husband, can he use condoms? Would this follow the logic of the speculations of our Holy Father?

Thank you in advance,

Abba

 

[Bookcat]

Great thread everyone!

Abu, thank you for your informative posts and quotes. Allow me to ask you, since condom use according to the ‘speculations’ of Pope Benedict XVI, is acceptable for a male prostitute with AIDS would it be acceptable for a married couple with AIDS? The married couple has an obligation to each other aside from that of being open to life. In accordance to this understanding, elderly people continue to have sex even though their time for procreation has gone by. If the man in a marriage has AIDS and does not want to transmit the disease to his wife, considering his obligation as a husband, can he use condoms? Would this follow the logic of the speculations of our Holy Father?

Thank you in advance,

Abba

The Pope did not say it was “acceptable” for male prostitute…

 

[Abba]

The Pope did not say it was “acceptable” for male prostitute…

Thank you Bookcat for your comment. I will take a look at the thread again. I am off to Mass now but, I shall return. Thank you.

 

[Bookcat]

Thank you Bookcat for your comment. I will take a look at the thread again. I am off to Mass now but, I shall return. Thank you.

This will help zenit.org/article-31026?l=english

 

[Ron_Conte]

They were wrong…

You are licitly dissenting from a teaching of the U.S. Bishops. Not only the Pope, but also the other Bishops of the Church, are able to exercise the authentic non-infallible teaching authority of the Church. Dissent from a non-infallible teaching can be licit, if one has a reason based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium.

The citation you keep repeating from JP2 refers to illicit dissent, such as dissent from an infallible teaching, or dissent from a non-infallible teaching without a reason based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium.

Cardinal Burke teaches one position, as a doctrine, non-infallibly, that Catholics may never vote for pro-abortion candidates. The U.S. Bishops have issued a teaching document saying otherwise. If you agree with one, you are licitly dissenting from the teaching of the other.

 

[Bookcat]

Cardinal Burke teaches one position, as a doctrine, non-infallibly, that Catholics may never vote for pro-abortion candidates. The U.S. Bishops have issued a teaching document saying otherwise. If you agree with one, you are licitly dissenting from the teaching of the other.

Not getting into the dissent thing right now…no time. (let us all follow the Teachings of the Church!) But just noting that this is not the case…

Cardinal E. Burke does not teach that Catholics may never vote for pro-abortion candidates. Yes of course one may not vote for them if that is the reason one is voting for them for…and yes of course life is the highest priority …that trumps other issues (abortion is a very very grave evil)…but he notes that there are for example cases where both canadates are pro-abortion etc…

One can read for themselves…(around 32 and following)

catholicaction.org/archbishop-burke-s-column/pastoral-letter-on-voting.html

and the US Bishops Conf. never said it is ok to vote for a Pro-abortion canidate as such…they would say no to that as well!

no time here to go into all of this…

 

[Joab_Anias]

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.

Ex Cathedra being rare;

When one fully understands a Pope, why would they disagree publicly on an opinion?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ex Cathedra being rare;

When one fully understands a Pope, why would they disagree publicly on an opinion?

Example:

Pope John XXII taught in a series of sermons that the departed faithful in Heaven do not have the Beatific Vision of God until after the general Resurrection. A number of theologians publicly disagreed with and disputed this opinion; they were correct and the Pope was wrong. Why should they disagree publicly? because God is truth; because Christ came to free us by truth.

papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html

 

[Ron_Conte]

The U.S. Bishops have taught that there are norms for licit dissent, in other words, that within certain limits the faithful may dissent from some non-infallible teachings. This teaching on the norms of licit dissent is a teaching of the Magisterium.

"Norms of licit theological dissent
“There exist in the Church a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought and also general norms of licit dissent…. 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.”
ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/USBPSHV.HTM

The teachings of the Magisterium include infallible teachings, which require the full assent of faith (theological assent), and non-infallible (non-irreformable) teachings, which generally require a different type and lesser degree of assent, called the religious submission of will and intellect (religious assent). But since the non-infallible teachings allow for a limited possibility of error, they also allow for a limited possibility of dissent.

The positions of the USCCB and of Cardinal Burke on voting ethics are not the same. The Catholic voter must choose which of these two teachings, that of the USCCB or that of Cardinal Burke, to follow. Each teaching is non-infallible.

It is not the case that all Bishops are always in agreement in their exercise of the Magisterium. And it is a perhaps a misguided sense of loyalty to the Magisterium that motivates some Catholics to speak as if every magisterial teaching is infallible. But worse still is the assertion that we should believe all non-infallible teachings, on every point, with no regard for whether or not those teachings are true on every point.

The Catholic voter should consider the positions of each candidate and decide, in his or her prudent judgment, which candidate will best promote the common good.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Example:

Pope John XXII taught in a series of sermons that the departed faithful in Heaven do not have the Beatific Vision of God until after the general Resurrection. A number of theologians publicly disagreed with and disputed this opinion; they were correct and the Pope was wrong. Why should they disagree publicly? because God is truth; because Christ came to free us by truth.

papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html

Your link doesn’t support your claim. ???

 

[Joab_Anias]

The positions of the USCCB and of Cardinal Burke on voting ethics are not the same. The Catholic voter must choose which of these two teachings, that of the USCCB or that of Cardinal Burke, to follow. Each teaching is non-infallible.

It is not the case that all Bishops are always in agreement in their exercise of the Magisterium. And it is a perhaps a misguided sense of loyalty to the Magisterium that motivates some Catholics to speak as if every magisterial teaching is infallible. But worse still is the assertion that we should believe all non-infallible teachings, on every point, with no regard for whether or not those teachings are true on every point.

The Catholic voter should consider the positions of each candidate and decide, in his or her prudent judgment, which candidate will best promote the common good.

The synod votes correct? The resulting consensus is Magisterial correct? There is not a split Church.

The Bishops teach proportionality and right conscience.
faithfulcitizenship.org/
faithfulcitizenship.org/church/statements
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Pastorally and legally the teachings and canon on public dissent by politicians is clear.

The only difference I see is in how its decided to pastor those souls. One way over the other may depend on circumstances and neither would constitute dissent. That however has no effect as to the proportionality of social issues that should guide voters in a right conscience.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Your link doesn’t support your claim. ???

The link is to the document of a subsequent Pope who corrected his error.
This situation in the history of the Church is well-known, but here is a link that explains it further:
newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm

See the paragraph more than half the way through the article beginning with:
“In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision…”

 

[Ron_Conte]

The synod votes correct? The resulting consensus is Magisterial correct? There is not a split Church.

The Bishops teach proportionality and right conscience.
faithfulcitizenship.org/
faithfulcitizenship.org/church/statements
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Pastorally and legally the teachings and canon on public dissent by politicians is clear.

The only difference I see is in how its decided to pastor those souls. One way over the other may depend on circumstances and neither would constitute dissent. That however has no effect as to the proportionality of social issues that should guide voters in a right conscience.

Some teachings are infallible – dissent is gravely sinful.
Other teachings are non-infallible – some faithful dissent is possible, beyond that, the dissent is sinful.

Bishops often disagree on matters of faith and morals – where the Magisterium does not yet have an infallible teaching. They often teach disparate ideas under the ordinary Magisterium. This fact makes it obvious that not all dissent from non-infallible teachings is sinful.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

…condomistic intercourse,…

Did you just make up that phrase?

 

[Abu]

Fr Stephen Torraco used it (post #17).