Teaching infallible?

[astegallrnc]

Why I disagreed with you is because in one of your posts you simply stated “there is no direct evidence that OCP’s have an abortifacient effect” without being clear that there has never been a study designed to determine this.

This statement taken by itself is misleading. There is a difference between saying 1) a direct cause has been thoroughly studied, and there is no evidence and saying 2) it has never been studied, thus there is no evidence.

I posted links to articles discussing this so that no one would be misled. I find it silly to copy and paste when I can post a link though I do this when time permits or if IMO it is necessary. This is what I posted: no direct evidence exists demonstrating this prevents implantation in ovulatory pill cycles. There is little information on the lining of the endometrium in ovulatory pill cycles. Here are some articles discussing the debate: Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications****Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptivepolycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm

In this case, a direct cause has never been studied.

Yes, that is correct and why the pill is a potential abortifacient. It is misleading to state the “pill is an abortifacient” as an absolute fact. All I did was insert the word potential, mentioned why it is a potential “The changes in the endometrium may prevent implantation”, and provided links for others consideration. Even the package insert states “other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)”. The pill reduces “the likelihood of implantation”. The insert does not state it absolutlely will prevent it.

With the indirect evidence we have that OCP’s have abortifacient action–that OCP’s do not suppress ovulation 100%, that OCP’s cause the endometrial lining to thin, and that thinning of the endometrial lining can prevent implantation–we as healthcare providers have the duty to tell our patients what we know, not what we don’t know.

No one disagreed with you. BTW, I have read studies that report the pill is 99% effective in preventing ovulation. Yes, I have read the studies on break-through ovulations.

We both agree that there is indirect evidence that OCP’s could prevent implantation. This is what the drug companies report as well.

I never diagreed with this. In fact, I stated “[T]he changes in the endometrium may prevent implantation. I understand the the changes in the endometrium are well documented…” I also understand that ovulatory post-pill cycles have insufficient luteal phases per charting patters (NFPers are familiar with this info), so IMO there is strong evidence supporting the pill “prevents” implantation. However, I understand the other side of the argument and prefer to avoid debates on “there is not proof the pill is an abortifacient”.

Honestly, I don’t see this as a disagreement but whatever.

God bless y’all!

 

[Janet_S]

Honestly, I don’t see this as a disagreement but whatever.

God bless y’all!

Once I understood your position, I realize we don’t disagree.

What I disagreed with initially was what I thought you were saying in this post:

The changes in the endometrium may prevent implantation. I understand the the changes in the endometrium are well documented, **but Texas Roofer is correct that no direct evidence exists demonstrating this prevents implantation in ovulatory pill **cycles. There is little information on the lining of the endometrium in ovulatory pill cycles. Here are some articles discussing the debate:

From what you wrote here, it wasn’t clear to me what your position was. I thought maybe you were claiming that since we have no direct evidence that we could assume OCP’s are not abortifacients. Now it is clear that this is not your position.

In my previous post I was just saying that if you are going to say there is no direct evidence, you must also say that there has never been a study designed to prove this.

One of your links did discuss the problem of obtaining direct evidence, so thanks for this.

After our discussion, and once I was clear what your position was, I don’t see it as a disagreement either.

 

[astegallrnc]

From what you wrote here, it wasn’t clear to me what your position was.

But my first statement is “the changes in the endometrium may prevent implantation”. Doesn’t that mean it is a potential aboritifacient? I believe I was upfront about my position. As I wrote in my reply to Deb, people misunderstand.

In my previous post I was just saying that if you are going to say there is no direct evidence, you must also say that there has never been a study designed to prove this

I disagree. The entire abortifacient point is based on the changes in the endometrium. It seems obvious this is indirect evidence. Perhaps I assume to much.

Back to the OP’s question, I found this under CATHOLIC TEACHING ABOUT MARRIAGE AND THE REGULATION OF BIRTHS:

At the Last Supper, Jesus promised repeatedly that the Holy Spirit would lead His Church into the fullness of the truth (Jn, chapters 14-17). When a teaching has been taught with such unanimity and constancy throughout the centuries, those who believe in Christ have every reason to believe that such a teaching is from the Spirit and therefore true. Some theologians believe that this constancy of teaching fulfills all the requirements set forth by Vatican II for an infallible teaching by the universal ordinary teaching of the Church’s magisterium.

 

[mark_a]

I’m not even Catholic, but after reading Pope Paul VI’s Humanae
Vitae, and listening to Dr. Janet Smith’s views and resulting stats of artificial birth control (see here: catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html ), my wife and I were both convinced that ABC was not only unhealthy physically and relationally, it was morally wrong. I let my friend who is also a Protestant (who had previously had a vasectomy) listen to it and he wished he had heard this before. Because it’s inconvenient and because they haven’t investigated this through to its end.

I am impressed with the CC’s view on contraception and it’s a major reason why I’m considering converting. In an age when virtually all denominations are succumbing to society’s pressures, the CC has remained steadfast.

Pope Paul VI heard from the Holy Spirit on this issue and although it fell like a bomb on the Church, he faced the onslaught of criticism.

Pope John Paul II expanded on Humanae Vitae with his Theology of the Body, and again, it explained how confused our society is about our sexuality. He reiterated Jesus’ words to the Pharisees, “In the beginning, it was not so” and he went on to thoroughly explain why the church stands where it does.

The Catholic Church will not change its views on contraception. If it was considered wrong in the past, what could possibly make it right today? God’s principles do not change, but unfortunately, when we stray from Him, ours do.

I very much enjoyed your post.

Why do Protestant churches remain silent on this issue?

I have asked this more than once. I’ve even started a thread or two.

Most Protestants will not touch this issue with a ten foot pole.

I hope you are not offended by this, but you are more Catholic than most Catholics.

 

[Janet_S]

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?

I found this post from Fr Vincent Serpa:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1053138&postcount=2

This is “De fide” which means that we are obliged as Catholic to believe it: “The primary object of Infallibility is the formally revealed truths of Christian Doctrine concerning faith and morals.” ( Can be found in Denzinger, #1839) “The secondary object of the Infallibility is truths of the Christian teaching on faith and morals, which are not formally revealed, but which are closely connected with the teaching of Revelation.” Both of these quotes can be found on pages 298 and 299 in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott.

Our Lord taught infallibly regarding morals. Why should He preserve the Church from error in matters of dogma and not morals? Nowhere in Scripture do we find our Lord allowing His followers to counter His moral teachings because their consciences told them otherwise. They were to conform themselves, consciences and all, to His teaching—if they we to be His followers.

In giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter (Mt. 16:19), Jesus is giving him the power to bind and loose. Upon Peter, the rock He built His Church (Mt 16:18). In Luke 10:16 He says to His apostles, “He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me and he who rejects me rejects him who sen me.” If we reject the teachings of the Church, we are rejecting Him. We had better Inform our consciences of the Church’s authority and then CONform them to it’s teachings.

The Church is not about to change it’s teaching on contraception either. I would encourage you to get the book, “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West which explains the Church’s teaching in a very positive and logical manner. You may order it through shopcatholic.com or by phone: 888 291 8000.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

 

[astegallrnc]

I would encourage you to get the book, “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West which explains the Church’s teaching in a very positive and logical manner. You may order it through shopcatholic.com or by phone: 888 291 8000.

I second Christopher West. I encourage you to attend one of his seminars if you have the chance. His DVDs are good too. He is a gifted speaker!

 

[BigE]

History is the standard for infallibility if the Magisterium has always taught something!

Just to be clear on the role of “history” in Church teaching, in Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1998, he states that doctrine taught by the Magisterium of the Church that is “non-defining”, meaning not taught ex-cathedra, such doctrine “…is taught *infallibly *by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter.”
So all teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible, whether ex-cathedra or not.

Article 25 of Lumen Gentium is also frequently cited as a source for the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church.

Then why have the process of Ex Cathedra?

 

[BigE]

There are a LOT of defined infallible teachings that have never been the subject of an ex cathedra pronoucement. In fact, extremely few ex cathedra statements have EVER been made at all.

The idea held is some quarters that they can disobey until and unless the pope proclaims it that particular way is nothing more than self-deception.

One can’t just willy nilly decide to “disobey”.

The churches teachings must be fully understood. They must be read, examined, and reflected upon.

We must also always start with the presumption that the church is right.

But after this exhaustive process - dissent is possible.

But it should never be an easy thing, and should never be taken lightly.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

One can’t just willy nilly decide to “disobey”.

The churches teachings must be fully understood. They must be read, examined, and reflected upon.

We must also always start with the presumption that the church is right.

But after this exhaustive process - dissent is possible.

But it should never be an easy thing, and should never be taken lightly.

Dissent is possible, even without this process. We see it everyday.

The real question is: When does dissent become reasonable?

That’s a tough one. For any dissent to be reasonable, we have to assume that we know better than hundreds, perhaps thousands, of well intentioned, well instructed, and well reasoned individuals who have had the last 2000 years to determine what is true, and who have had special blessings from the Holy Spirit that we do not have. Christ said that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. If we reject the Church’s teaching, I don’t see how we cannot also reject the Holy Spirit, which is saying that we reject God. If we believe that the Church is wrong and we are right, I don’t know how we can truly have faith in God, faith that God would fulfill the promises of Christ with regards to the Church’s responsibility and ability to guide us.

Dissent will always be possible. However, is it reasonable?

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[cialovesyou]

The answer is no. Humanae Vitae contains no infallible statements.

Infallibility is a complex topic, and without writing an essay here, I cant explain to you effectively why it isnt.

If you doubt me, either write to your bishop for clarification, or do the short cut and ring a Catholic University and get a theological opinion.

 

[fix]

The answer is no. Humanae Vitae contains no infallible statements.

Infallibility is a complex topic, and without writing an essay here, I cant explain to you effectively why it isnt.

If you doubt me, either write to your bishop for clarification, or do the short cut and ring a Catholic University and get a theological opinion.

Check with the real authority the CCC. Contraception is intrinsically evil.

 

[jmcrae]

The answer is no. Humanae Vitae contains no infallible statements.

Neither is the teaching that Jesus is God, by that definition.

“Not infallible” does not mean “it’s okay to disagree.”

 

[jmcrae]

The answer is no. Humanae Vitae contains no infallible statements.

Neither is the teaching that Jesus is God, by that definition.

“Not infallible” does not mean “it’s okay to disagree.”

 

[cialovesyou]

Neither is the teaching that Jesus is God, by that definition.

“Not infallible” does not mean “it’s okay to disagree.”

Actually, Jesus’ divinity is an infallible teaching.
But Humanae Vitae is not.
I wasnt asked how enthusiastic I was about it, I was asked a statement of fact. The answer is no, it is not infallible.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, Jesus’ divinity is an infallible teaching.

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.

 

[BobP123]

Is it infallible, good question.

Examine point 37 of Progressio Populorum by Paul VI.

1. There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate.

There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.

Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God’s law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him. (39)

Now how do you reply?

 

[jmcrae]

Is it infallible, good question.

Examine point 37 of Progressio Populorum by Paul VI.

Now how do you reply?

That artificial birth control is still not the proper means of family size regulation. The above is not an endorsement of artificial birth control.

(The opposite of artificial birth control is not to go out of control - rather, it is to use our sexuality as God designed it, and to use self-control. )

 

[otjm]

Actually, Jesus’ divinity is an infallible teaching.
But Humanae Vitae is not.
I wasnt asked how enthusiastic I was about it, I was asked a statement of fact. The answer is no, it is not infallible.

I am not sure what you are using as a source fro the issue of infallibility.

There are three sources of infallibility; one is an ex cathedra statement by the Pope. Though there was a tremendous amount of speculation that John Paul 2’s statement on women and ordination was such, the Vatican itself has said it was not; that leaves two times in the history of the Church that there have been such statements - the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

The second source of an infallible statement would be a statement of the bishops in union with the Pope; that is, in Council statements. These should suffice as to statements as to Jesus’ divinity.

The third source is the continual Magisterial teaching of the Church; that was the source of John Paul 2’s statement “confirming the brethren”, re: women’s ordination.

As far as I can determine, the consistent teaching for 2000 years of the Church is that birth control is morally wrong. That would qualifiy it for the third form of infallible statements of the Church.

There are a number of theologians who would challenge that; they are ususally the same set that insist, not always publicly, that the teaching on birth control can and will change. The only problem they have is that though they may be theologians, they are not teaching in unity with the Magisterium if they are contradicting it; and particularly if they are trying to say that the Church has not taught this consistently.

There are also theologians, often in the same group but not always, who continue to question the issue of women’s ordination. They may continue to question it; but to anyone who is truly studying the Church over the centuries in terms of doctrinal and moral developement, they will appear for what they are; individuals who want to remake the Church in their own image. Kind of brings a realist back to the old saying of wish in one hand and p**p in the other and see which one fills up first.

Some people simply are not able to accept that the Church in 2000 years under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has collected more wisdom than these individuals have in the 30 or 50 or 65 years or so that they have been around.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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?

Yes, it is an infallible teaching, a constant teaching of the moral magisterium.

 

[cialovesyou]

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