Teaching infallible?

[BigE]

He made a mistake. It has been the constant teaching of the church since the beginning that contraception is wrong. That makes it infallible. Sorry you received wrong information. Priests are human and can make mistakes or lack knowledge.

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Sorry…but that’s just not true. If it’s infallible, it is definately with a “little” i.

Contrary to popular belief, not all the church’s teachings are created equal.

There are ;

1. Divinely revealed truths which require a full response of faith (Trinity, Incarnation, Real Presence etc) - opposite response is heresy.

1. Definative Non-revealed truths which require firm assent of the teaching (Sacraments-7, Human Dignity & rights, condemnation of discrimination etc) - opposite response is error.
2. Authoritative teachings which require religious submission (definition of marriage, ecumenism, etc) - opposite response is dissent.
3. Disciplinary rules - requires obedience (fasting, celibacy of clergy etc) - opposite response is disobedience

Where contraception falls on this spectrum is debatable. I, and many, feel it falls under #3 in Authoritative teaching. Many conserative Catholics believe it belongs it category #2 (the little “i”). I don’t think I’ve seen anyone try to claim it belongs in category #1 (the big “I”).

The Popes declaring something does not make it infallible. I think there were a number of early Papal writings on the evil of usury (interest on loans). That has obviously changed.

 

[Holly3278]

In my opinion, the teaching on birth control and contraception infallible. This is partly because it has been taught since the beginning.

 

[fix]

Sorry…but that’s just not true. If it’s infallible, it is definately with a “little” i.

Contrary to popular belief, not all the church’s teachings are created equal.

There are ;

1. Divinely revealed truths which require a full response of faith (Trinity, Incarnation, Real Presence etc) - opposite response is heresy.

1. Definative Non-revealed truths which require firm assent of the teaching (Sacraments-7, Human Dignity & rights, condemnation of discrimination etc) - opposite response is error.
2. Authoritative teachings which require religious submission (definition of marriage, ecumenism, etc) - opposite response is dissent.
3. Disciplinary rules - requires obedience (fasting, celibacy of clergy etc) - opposite response is disobedience

Where contraception falls on this spectrum is debatable. I, and many, feel it falls under #3 in Authoritative teaching. Many conserative Catholics believe it belongs it category #2 (the little “i”). I don’t think I’ve seen anyone try to claim it belongs in category #1 (the big “I”).

The Popes declaring something does not make it infallible. I think there were a number of early Papal writings on the evil of usury (interest on loans). That has obviously changed.

Paul VI said this:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Is it not true the church has always taught contraception is intrinsically evil? The language in HV is very clear and very definite.

As for usury that teaching is the same. The meaning of money has changed.

 

[jmcrae]

As for usury that teaching is the same. The meaning of money has changed.

I was just about to say exactly the same thing.

 

[Mark_Marilyn]

Paul VI said this:

Is it not true the church has always taught contraception is intrinsically evil? The language in HV is very clear and very definite.

We have some very sad news for you: Paul VI has been criticized as not only “unwordly” (or “not very realistic”) but also “open[ing] the breach within the post-conciliar church.”
A more complete quote:
From Prairie Messenger, Essays in Theology, Rev. Richard P. McBrien, June 14, '06:

“Rev. Andrew Greeley, a distinguished author and sociologist, has frequently pointed out that it was not the V II Council but Pope Paul VI’s 1968 birth control encyclical, Humanae Vitae, that opened the breach within the post-conciliar church. If the pope had sided with the 2-1 majority of his Birth Control Commission and modified the official teaching on contraception, the post-Vatican II history of the church might look entirely different. History teaches us that…persons in power also shape events.
“Catholics of the far Right, and bishops who share and enforce their ecclesiology, insist that obedience is one of Catholicism’s primary virtues and that the teaching of the hierarchy, and especially the pope’s, is the only sure guide to saving truth.”

And what about the two archbishops who recommended a more open, tolerant “modification,” or update? Are they in sin or unlucky now? Did lightning strike them? No. The hardliners refused to even listen.
Our honest impression is that the controversy is a **human level **quarrel. St. Paul criticized the use of “senseless arguments” which “sound wise” but are “only human teachings.” (Colossians 2:8)
Another quote: Originally Posted by Reformed Catholic:

I posted a link to a website with “dissident” Catholics arguing against the teaching on birth control. …
Some of the arguments made go back to the natural philosophers, who allegedly observed animal sexuality, noticed that animals did it for procreation, and concluded that humans engaged in deviant behavior when they did it for non-procreative reasons.

Around the time of important men such as Augustine, Gnosticism was somewhat powerful. Augustine himself was a member of a Gnostic sect for many years, and they viewed sex as evil.

Augustine also had a lot of lustful experiences and for him this was his greatest sin. Augustine influenced the Church considerably.

Further in the past, it was believed that the sperm provided all the material to form a new human being, as if the baby already existed in the father (whether in microscopic or ethereal form). Aquinas believed this myth, and it’s not hard to infer that, from this type of teaching, doing anything that throws sperm away is sinful.

Until Vatican II, the unitive components of sex and marriage were not given their due, and Vatican II happened only very recently!

Personally I believe the Church is operating under these flawed and outdated understandings of science, especially with respect to its prohibitions of the spilling of sperm, and outdated understandings of the role of unity/love/emotion/pleasure in the conjugal act.

The birth control “commission” recommended that the teaching on contraception be changed; most Catholics and virtually all non-Catholics reject the teaching of the Church on this matter.

Something is up.

 –ReformedCatholic

Such is ‘…. the real reason why the Roman Church tells you that contraception is “evil.”…’ Sincerely, Marilyn & Mark

 

[PapaSquash]

I suggest you read Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West.

Don’t let the first Chapter stop you.

 

[BigE]

Paul VI said thisAs for usury that teaching is the same. The meaning of money has changed.

How has the meaning of money changed?

 

[fix]

Please this this on usury.

 

[MilesXpisti]

We have some very sad news for you: Paul VI has been criticized as not only “unwordly” (or “not very realistic”) but also “open[ing] the breach within the post-conciliar church.”
A more complete quote:
From Prairie Messenger, Essays in Theology, Rev. Richard P. McBrien, June 14, '06: And what about the two archbishops who recommended a more open, tolerant “modification,” or update? Are they in sin or unlucky now? Did lightning strike them? No. The hardliners refused to even listen.
Our honest impression is that the controversy is a **human level **quarrel. St. Paul criticized the use of “senseless arguments” which “sound wise” but are “only human teachings.” (Colossians 2:8)
Another quote: Originally Posted by Reformed Catholic: –ReformedCatholic

Such is ‘…. the real reason why the Roman Church tells you that contraception is “evil.”…’ Sincerely, Marilyn & Mark

What logic makes people think that if they produce enough quotes by heterodox theologians, especially McBrien who is a notoriously liberal writer and theologian from that pit called Notre Dame’s Department of Pseudo-theology, that those of us who love the Church and accept Her teachings with joy and obedience will suddenly realize that we and our Mother have been wrong all along?

Holy Mother Church is not a democracy, it is not run by consensus and as much as it may frustrate you, you do not have a say in the formulation of doctrine. Either you are a Catholic and accept the authority of the Pope as the pastor of the Universal Church to define matters of faith and morals (or in the case of HV to emphasize perennial doctrine of the ordinary Magisterium), or you do not and you are a Catholic in name only. I don’t know how many ways it can be said. Rome has spoken; the cause is ended.

 

[BillP]

Please this this on usury.

See! One day the Church will decide that **the meaning **of articfical birth control pills has changed.

 

[Janet_S]

See! One day the Church will decide that **the meaning **of articfical birth control pills has changed.

When that day comes, we’ll have something to talk about. Right now, we have nothing to talk about except the 2000-year-old Church teaching that ABC is intrinsically evil.

 

[Mark_Marilyn]

When that day comes, we’ll have something to talk about. Right now, we have nothing to talk about except the 2000-year-old Church teaching that ABC is intrinsically evil.

Thank you for putting it briefly… · Let me see if we understand the logic of your argument correctly. You do accept the logic of Aristotle and George Boole, don’t you? If the sole purpose of human sexuality is procreation (Is it not?), and the use of abc (the Pill and some other methods) turns women into mere “sex toys,” as one member felt, and “separates purpose from pleasure” as another claims, then what about post-menopause sex? For example, what about married couples over 45? Or older couples, for that matter? Or applied NFP and sex at a time when the chance of fertility and procreation is quite remote?
Best, Marilyn

As to MilesXpisti’s response, are any of you implying that the word of the pope trumps even the fundamental logical principles? In other words, he His Holiness the unlimited authority to get up one morning and pronounce:
“Argumentum ad Vericundiam -is valid!”
and “Modus Ponens -is invalid!” … and it will be so?
Marilyn

 

[aaronjmagnan]

**Mark and Marilyn (feel free to contact with PM):
**

—I don’t think the concern is that sex is only for procreation. But sex cannot be taken out of the context of sexuality if the couple is fertile.

The Church does not teach that people who are infertile either because of age or other reasons cannot have sex. I suggest you read your catechism and other Church documents. Or read “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West.

—Below a quote from someone else talks about outdated ideas on unity/love/emotion/pleasure in the conjugal act…

Nothing is outdated that has not outworn is value. All of those, (“unity/love/emotion/pleasure”) are more universal concepts than temporal.

—It is not outdated to like having sex (pleasure).

—It is not outdated to experience and emotional connection during sex; nor is the idea outdated that there is an automatic connection during sex…many turn off this natural response to sex by hard work and practice, but it does not negate the emotional bond initially created in sex.

—It is not outdated to perceive that unity and love should be the the reason for having sex; nor that part of that unity and love are created from the possibility of creating life…e.g. procreation.

Neither the Church nor Christ have taught otherwise.

It is not about spilling sperm.

It is about not valuing money or “wordly stability” or travel plans or the pleasures of youth over that of the value intrinsic in creating a family.

God bless,
Aaron

 

[MilesXpisti]

Thank you for putting it briefly… · Let me see if we understand the logic of your argument correctly. You do accept the logic of Aristotle and George Boole, don’t you? If the sole purpose of human sexuality is procreation (Is it not?), and the use of abc (the Pill and some other methods) turns women into mere “sex toys,” as one member felt, and “separates purpose from pleasure” as another claims, then what about post-menopause sex? For example, what about married couples over 45? Or older couples, for that matter? Or applied NFP and sex at a time when the chance of fertility and procreation is quite remote?
Best, Marilyn

As to MilesXpisti’s response, are any of you implying that the word of the pope trumps even the fundamental logical principles? In other words, he His Holiness the unlimited authority to get up one morning and pronounce:
“Argumentum ad Vericundiam -is valid!”
and “Modus Ponens -is invalid!” … and it will be so?
Marilyn

I think logic departed your argument long ago. You seem to be confusing logic with mixing your desires into it in the hopes of molding it how you would have it, not how the Magisterium of the Church, which Christ created for the purpose of teaching the faithful, has declared it to be. The authority of the Magisterium is not invested in the lay faithful, or of the sum of the teaching of priests or even bishops. In the case of ordinary Magisterium, it comprises those things which have always been held, without deviation and for all time, by the Holy Father and those bishops teaching in unity with him. Further, this authority is tied inexorably to the office of the Supreme Pontiff, who alone enjoys an exclusive charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. But this charism is as much positive as it is negative; he may declare things to be divinely revealed, but he is also prevented from declaring anything that is contrary to divine revelation by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This is the problem with those individuals that cry for freedom of conscience to do as they will and not as they enjoined to do. Logic without the appreciation of divine revelation is nothing more than mystical, sensuous exploration of the material world. It must be complemented by objective moral truth. If no authority can be had by the Holy Father to discern the complementartity between the world and the law of God, then neither can it be had by those beneath him and the hope of any understanding of truth is destroyed forever.

 

[LittleDeb]

You do accept the logic of Aristotle and George Boole, don’t you? If the sole purpose of human sexuality is procreation (Is it not?), and the use of abc (the Pill and some other methods) turns women into mere “sex toys,” as one member felt, and “separates purpose from pleasure” as another claims, then what about post-menopause sex? For example, what about married couples over 45? Or older couples, for that matter? Or applied NFP and sex at a time when the chance of fertility and procreation is quite remote?
Best, Marilyn

Hi Marilyn,
Could you please show me the word “sole” before the word ‘purpose’ in the documents you are referencing. Primary purpose is much more often the term I have seen, or just plain ‘purpose.’ Just because secondary or peripheral purposes are not spelled out each time, it doesn’t mean they are not there. Unity has always been presumed through the history of Humankind. There is not necessarily a need to reiterate it from a physical perspective. When the Church emphasizes unity She does so to show the importance of spiritual union. “Two become one” in the marital act. Two stay one with procreation and unity.

If you hold that Catholic teaching is that you must only have sex when you* can reproduce*, then you are confusing Catholic teachings with Gnostic and Puritan heresies.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think both sides are off the thread at this point which to me further deepens my position that one day Rome will issue a clearer understanding of the teaching. An issue probably much easier in 50 years when the issue may well be moot.

 

[aaronjmagnan]

Hey Texas: Rome’s teaching is pretty clear in the Catechism.

Check this out (bold mine):

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast,*** “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil***

God bless,
Aaron Magnan

 

[JimG]

Wow, I just finished reading through this whole thread. Interesting reading, although it does seem to be a lot of discussion for a teaching of the Catholic Church that will never change, no matter how you wish to characterize it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hey Texas: Rome’s teaching is pretty clear in the Catechism.

Check this out (bold mine):

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast,*** “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil***

God bless,
Aaron Magnan

Exactly

The actions of testing the body in efforts to plan intercourse in periods which procreation is rendered impossible is licit and thus can not be intrinsically evil. Similarly this action designed specifically to avoid pregnancy is not defined as contraception, yet contraception is the actions used to avoid pregnancy! Fun hey

 

[aaronjmagnan]

Well, not exactly, Texas. The NFP method or as you call it “the actions of testing the body in efforts to plan intercourse in periods” does not render procreation impossible.

This method has sex during infertile periods and does not during fertile periods. Thus sex is understood as inseparable from the act of procreation.

And there are cases…many cases of people who follow this method and still get pregnant.

Contraception would be any barrier or chemical that either kills or doesn’t allow sperm from coming into contact with the egg, or any chemical that kills the egg or regulates its receptivity, thus rendering pregnancy impossible.

See, this has to do with the Catholic view of responsibly planning a marriage; which doesn’t just mean planning how many kids you want.

It means understanding the moral, emotional, societal, and physical implications of sexuality and family.

What do you see wrong with this (I ask this for inquiry not accusation)?

God bless,
Aaron Magnan