Teaching infallible?

[mchium]

No, it is not infallible. As I said, perhaps write to your bishop for clarification on the matter if you are not satisfied with a theologians answer, or that of your local priest.
Infallibility is a much more complex issue than some here would believe, or represent.

The answers you are getting here are well meaning, but not accurate.

(This has nothing to do with peoples enthusiasm for the doctrine, it is simply a scientific answer as to whether it fits very strict criteria. Please dont assume because people tell you something is not infallible, that they are saying it is “optional”.)

I simply havent met ANYONE who has studied theology who considers this statement infallible, be they bishop, priest, or theologian.(yes, I have asked all 3 in the course of my studies)

Also, keep in mind canon law n.749 section 3

It most certainly is an infallible teaching. The Church says so. The individual, personal opinion / interpretation of any priest, bishop or theologian on the issue doesn’t matter one hoot.

What matters is not opinion; what matters is the teaching of the Church, through her magesterium. Nowhere in any document, pronouncement, statement or anything else will you find the Church, herself, stating that she does not mean (infallibly) what she teaches in Humanae Vitae. :nope:

 

[fix]

No, it is not infallible. As I said, perhaps write to your bishop for clarification on the matter if you are not satisfied with a theologians answer, or that of your local priest.
Infallibility is a much more complex issue than some here would believe, or represent.

The answers you are getting here are well meaning, but not accurate.

(This has nothing to do with peoples enthusiasm for the doctrine, it is simply a scientific answer as to whether it fits very strict criteria. Please dont assume because people tell you something is not infallible, that they are saying it is “optional”.)

I simply havent met ANYONE who has studied theology who considers this statement infallible, be they bishop, priest, or theologian.(yes, I have asked all 3 in the course of my studies)

Also, keep in mind canon law n.749 section 3

It is infallible by the universal and ordinary magisterium. Perhaps you can write to the Vatican to clear up your misunderstanding?

In “Humanae Vitae” the Pope taught, with the divine assistance he enjoys (cf. “Lumen Gentium”, n. 25a), what the Church’s ordinary Magisterium had always held to be true and right, and what had been reconfirmed by the extraordinary Magisterium of Vatican II. The arguments of those who claim to pass judgment on the basis of their knowledge do not stand up against this Magisterium: between the two teachings there is a substantial difference of quality and not only of degree. The teaching of “Humanae Vitae” is Magisterium - though ordinary - which contains decisions belonging to a divinely established authority (cf. canon 331; “Lumen Gentium” nn. 18a, 20c, 22b, 23c; “Christus Dominus” n. 2a) and exercised in order to interpret and teach (as in our case) the moral norms of human conduct. If he were not the Pope, he would lose his legitimate power and the intrinsic reason for his ministry; at most he could carry out a scholarly magisterium, which, however, would not be of use to the Church and to which he has not been appointed by the Church’s Founder; he would lack the supernatural “virtus” of assisting and confirming his brethren in the faith and in the moral law (cf. Lk. 22:32, Mt. 16:29; Vatican I, Dogm. Const. “Pastor Aeternus”, DS 3074)…

Archbishop Vincenzo Fagiolo

 

[cialovesyou]

It is infallible by the universal and ordinary magisterium. Perhaps you can write to the Vatican to clear up your misunderstanding?

Can you tell me what the primary and secondary object of infallibility is?
Can you explain the necessity of manifestation in infallible statements?
Also, can you tell me your theological qualifications?
Can you tell me if you also practice medicine and law without qualifications, or is it just theology?
And can you tell me why the document cites the very section of LG 25(A) which stresses the point of non-infallible statements of the ordinary magesterium, yet you are using it as evidence for something as outlined in part (B)?
And finally, since you have managed no doubt to confuse a lot of people, can you tell me why your post cited so many sacred council teachings about the authoritative role of bishops as the local magesterium and authentic teachers of the faith, yet you make no suggestion to the man that he should seek his bishops advice?

 

[mchium]

Can you tell me what the primary and secondary object of infallibility is?
Can you explain the necessity of manifestation in infallible statements?
Also, can you tell me your theological qualifications?
Can you tell me if you also practice medicine and law without qualifications, or is it just theology?
And can you tell me why the document cites the very section of LG 25(A) which stresses the point of non-infallible statements of the ordinary magesterium, yet you are using it as evidence for something as outlined in part (B)?
And finally, since you have managed no doubt to confuse a lot of people, can you tell me why your post cited so many sacred council teachings about the authoritative role of bishops as the local magesterium and authentic teachers of the faith, yet you make no suggestion to the man that he should seek his bishops advice?

Can you tell us why you are so argumentative and hostile toward the Church?

You still have not provided any authoratative documentation from the Church, herself, speaking ‘infallibly’ that indicates that Humanae Vitae is NOT infallible.

 

[cialovesyou]

Can you tell us why you are so argumentative and hostile toward the Church?

How dare you? Who are you to question my love for the Church? How about actually going and reading something on the matter before you start to smeer your fellow catholics with baseless accusations?

You still have not provided any authoratative documentation from the Church, herself, speaking ‘infallibly’ that indicates that Humanae Vitae is NOT infallible.

And thankyou for displaying one of the main points. It must be manifest in itself in order to be considered such.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Not by any definition that would, at the same time, exclude the prohibition of artificial forms of birth control from being infallible, since no Pope at any time has ever gotten up and said, explicitly, “I solemnly define and declare, ex cathedra, that Jesus is God,” any more than they have gotten up and said, “I define and declare ex cathedra that artificial forms of birth control are forbidden.” It is only implicitly understood in various encyclicals, and in the fact that we consider the Scriptures to be divinely inspired - exactly the same as the prohibition against artificial birth control in Humanae Vitae.

FYI
Some contend the Pope lacks the ability to “proclaim” infallibility, they claim the actions of the Holy Spirit can not be invoked by the Pontiff. They also proclaim the actions of the Holy Spirit action can not be avoided by the Pontiff. Same for Magisterium. So in their view no action is ever officially declared infallible, it is based in infallibility by the actions of the Holy Spirit not the Pope or Magisterium.

You may want to read the reverse which is the charismatic movement

 

[fix]

Can you tell me what the primary and secondary object of infallibility is?
Can you explain the necessity of manifestation in infallible statements?
Also, can you tell me your theological qualifications?
Can you tell me if you also practice medicine and law without qualifications, or is it just theology?
And can you tell me why the document cites the very section of LG 25(A) which stresses the point of non-infallible statements of the ordinary magesterium, yet you are using it as evidence for something as outlined in part (B)?
And finally, since you have managed no doubt to confuse a lot of people, can you tell me why your post cited so many sacred council teachings about the authoritative role of bishops as the local magesterium and authentic teachers of the faith, yet you make no suggestion to the man that he should seek his bishops advice?

The answers to some of your questions may be found in the old CE:
SCOPE AND OBJECT OF INFALLIBILITY

The link I provided in the other post should be read in its entirety. It was written by the then president of interpretation of legislative texts in Rome. I assume he is a legitimate authority.

I do not know if you are arguing an academic point about the encyclical in question or denying that the teaching prohibiting contraception is infallible?

Do you hold that the average Catholic cannot grasp this basic teaching? Does one need to be a physician to know that fire burns or that poison is bad if ingested?

The teaching in question was infallible before HV was issued. The Pope simply restated what was already known.

Do you have evidence that contraceptive acts are not intrinsically evil? I mean will that teaching be reversed? When?

As for the role of the local bishop I agree anyone may seek out their bishop to ask a question. Are you implying a local bishop would teach contrary to the faith?

 

[cialovesyou]

The link I provided in the other post should be read in its entirety. It was written by the then president of interpretation of legislative texts in Rome. I assume he is a legitimate authority.

The document provided footnoted the very level of teching which is not infallible. Did you follow the citations?

I do not know if you are arguing an academic point about the encyclical in question or denying that the teaching prohibiting contraception is infallible?

Simple. As enthusiastic as I might be for Humanaw Vitae is not the question. The question is not whether it is right or wrong. The question is whether it is an infallible definition. Answer: No.

Do you hold that the average Catholic cannot grasp this basic teaching?

Infallibility is a complex area, and the very fact that catholics on this forum are telling people Humanae Vitae is, or as I have seen on other threads ‘the catechism is infallible’, displays that it is not clearly understood.

Does one need to be a physician to know that fire burns or that poison is bad if ingested?

Infallibility is a scientific definition, which is in fact very rare in the Church. It is a complex matter. And your next point displays this.I see a lot of confusion about infallibility, yes. I see people who try to tell me the Catechism is an infallible document. (which of course it is not, although it contains references to infallible teaachings)

The teaching in question was infallible before HV was issued. The Pope simply restated what was already known.

Now you have moved from the theological definition of infallibility to a broader definition of truth. Stick to the issue. Infallible is a level of teaching within the Church which is very rare in its exercise. It is not enough that it be implicit within the historical teaching, it must be explicitly and formally pronounced otherwise it is not manifest.(cf. Can 749)

Do you have evidence that contraceptive acts are not intrinsically evil? I mean will that teaching be reversed? When?

No, do I need to? This was never my contention. Someone asked if HV was an infallible teaching. It is not. This is simply a statement of fact. Are you implying that I am somehow against HV? That by truthfully answering the question I am doing a dis-service to the Church? I think those who dont answer this question truthfully do a dis-service to the church actually, because one day the Pontiff may reverse a teaching on some matter which was never infallible, but which many ‘always thought’ was infallible. This is the seeds of resentment, and leaving the communion of the church for that individual. We have a lot at stake here.
I doubt the teaching will be reversed if you want my opinion. But why would you seek my opinion on that? I think you are breaking into a sweat trying to find my ‘agenda’ behind this. (cia wants to undermine HV, cia practices birth control, cia has a problem with the magesterium; none of which are true) That is not the issue here. The issue is that cia’s ‘agenda’ is to make sure catholics are accurately informed on the faith.

As for the role of the local bishop I agree anyone may seek out their bishop to ask a question. Are you implying a local bishop would teach contrary to the faith?

I am glad we have agreed the Bishop is the individuals authoratative teacher on the faith. But why the second question? If I believed the bishop was going to give a wrong answer, I wouldnt be sending people off to the bishop. I just spent all this time trying to explain why it isnt infallible, because I wanted the gentleman(or lady) who started this thread to recieve an accurate answer.

Are you implying after all these posts that my agenda is anything other than trying to accurately explain the faith to the person ?

 

[jmcrae]

We also have to answer the question as it was understood by the person asking it. Usually, when someone asks, “Is this infallible,” they aren’t asking whether the Pope did a gymnastics act while proclaiming it - they only want to know whether they are required to believe and obey it.

The answer to that is, “Yes, you are required to believe it and obey it.” Anything else is pure philosophy.

 

[Janet_S]

If you recall, this is the original post:

In a recent RCIA session in my local parish, one of the candidates asked the priest about the church’s teaching on contraception. I don’t think he really wanted to talk about it and only replied that it is not an infallible teaching. He did not attempt to explain the “why” of this church teaching either. We were all left with the impression that since it is not an infallible teaching, then we were all free to decide for ourselves.
I am confused because I thought this was an infallible teaching. Which is it?

She was wondering whether artificial birth control is something we are free to decide for ourselves.

One thing is sure, it’s not for us individuals to decide whether something is good or evil. If something is evil, our thinking that it’s good won’t change things one iota–it’s still evil.

Individual Catholics can choose to use artificial birth control, but if they do, they will be choosing an intrinsically evil act.

It’s not for individual Catholics to determine whether or not an act is intrinsically evil–the Church has consistently taught for 2000 years that artificial birth control is intrinsically evil.

This is a teaching for all Catholics–not just those who happen to agree with it.

Priests and theologians who try to confuse people about this Church teaching will have a lot to answer for, to God.

 

[cialovesyou]

Good!
Now we can to the world and preach the gospel, and the creative dimension to human love because it participates in the creative love of the Holy Spirit.
What we cant do is tell people any teaching is infallible unless it is manifested as such, that would be lying, and could ultimately harm the Church.
And yes, even an ordinary teaching requires the ‘religious submission’ even if the individual cant muster the ‘assent of faith’ for it.

So let me spell it out. I agree artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. I agree a catholic should follow it. I think the gospel of life can explain it. What I wont do is tell an individual it is an infallible teaching in order to convince them, as that would be lying.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Dido cialovesyou to hold use of a condom as equal to divinity, immaculate conception, ascension, or the 10 commandments is unwise. A read of the full Mosaic Law might assist one to understand. Look at the items in Mosaic Law we (hopefully correctly) have dismissed.

 

[THurifer2]

1. The church says ABC is immoral just because it’s hanging on to an old view, and 2. ABC is blamed for an immoral world which is actually caused by a multitude of factors.

.

Its not an old view to me…I just got done doing an intense 6 month study and reading of Theology of the Body (which basically paraphrases the reason for mans existance) and this work by John Paul II clearly demonstrates the gravity of Contraception without even really mentioning ABC. In short two of the people I have studied this with were shaken to their core at its truth and have stopped using ABC. This book clearly points out why ABC is “disappointing” to Our Lord. TOB blows ABC out of the water.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Its not an old view to me…I just got done doing an intense 6 month study and reading of Theology of the Body (which basically paraphrases the reason for mans existance) and this work by John Paul II clearly demonstrates the gravity of Contraception without even really mentioning ABC. In short two of the people I have studied this with were shaken to their core at its truth and have stopped using ABC. This book clearly points out why ABC is “disappointing” to Our Lord. TOB blows ABC out of the water.

dido you to, that is a better post. Taken in the correct context, JPII did not mention ABC for the same reason PP6 did not write “pill” not ever one is a dummy or fixated

 

[mchium]

How dare you? Who are you to question my love for the Church? How about actually going and reading something on the matter before you start to smeer your fellow catholics with baseless accusations?

*I said nothing at all about your love for the Church. I noted that you were being argumentative and appeared hostile. I meant no personal offense.
*

And thankyou for displaying one of the main points. It must be manifest in itself in order to be considered such.

No, not ‘manifest in itself’ - The Church as stated it clearly. She does not ask us to accept this doctrine as manifestly true in itself - we are to accept it because she teaches it to us infallibly.

We are free to believe whatever we want but we cannot claim fidelity to the Church if deny her teachings.

 

[cialovesyou]

No, not ‘manifest in itself’ - The Church as stated it clearly. She does not ask us to accept this doctrine as manifestly true in itself - we are to accept it because she teaches it to us infallibly.

The point is this…
No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.(cf. can 749)

When you add up the theological opinion on this document, in my experience 80% of theologians say no it is not infallible, and a minority say yes. Even if the split were 50/50 this would indicate that it is clearly not manifest, and therefore should not be considered infallible.

 

[PauloFreire2]

“contraception teaching infallible?”

No, I think it’s misguided. Population control and planned parenthood are necessary and moral, in as much as they contribute to the well-being of the common good. Overpopulation and unwanted pregnancies compound the human plight.

 

[jmcrae]

Overpopulation and unwanted pregnancies compound the human plight.

And artificial forms of birth control have negative effects (sometimes quite severe) on the physical, mental, and emotional health of both men and women.

The solution to the population problem (in areas where this is a problem - I find it astounding that people in Europe and North America think they need to use birth control to save places like Mexico City or Calcutta - our unborn children were never going to have contributed to their overpopulation problems; meanwhile, we are running out of tax-payers and workers - we need to re-populate; not de-populate, by the way - in places where population is actually a problem, the solution is not artificial birth control - it’s education about family management, including Natural Family Planning, better education for girls, and breaking out of the cycle of poverty through longer education, delayed marriage, and celibacy in the single life. None of which can potentially harm anyone’s mental, physical, or emotional health.

We also need to change our attitude toward children. Every one mouth comes with two hands, and it is not a requirement that children need to be spoiled in order to feel loved - they, too, can be taught to help out.

 

[LittleDeb]

“contraception teaching infallible?”

No, I think it’s misguided. Population control and planned parenthood are necessary and moral, in as much as they contribute to the well-being of the common good. Overpopulation and unwanted pregnancies compound the human plight.

I would absolutely love to discuss this with you. My research on this and how much I disagree with this statement could fill a thread all its own. But I don’t want to hijack here. You have proven yourself open to intelligent discussion in other threads. Please, please open a thread on this here in moral theology and let me know so I can join it.

 

[LittleDeb]

The point is this…
No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.(cf. can 749)

When you add up the theological opinion on this document, in my experience 80% of theologians say no it is not infallible, and a minority say yes. Even if the split were 50/50 this would indicate that it is clearly not manifest, and therefore should not be considered infallible.

This is where I believe there to be error on the definition of infallibility presented here. Stubborn refusal on the part of those theologians to see what is manifestly evident does not mean it is fallible. To have this many people (especially theologians) being pro-contraception is a relatively new phenomenon. For a time, I too was very stubborn about it. That doesn’t mean that the Truth wasn’t right in front of me. It was because of my own pride that I refused to see it.

If we had polled the theologians 200 years ago most of them would have said that the teaching condemning contraception was indeed infallible. As I stated earlier, the document of HV doesn’t stand up to dogmatic declaration because of lack of assent. However it does not undo the infallible teaching it contains.