Teaching infallible?

[Texas_Roofer]

As far as I know, I don’t disagree with Janet S. on anything substantial. I am willing to have her correct me, if I ever do.

When I say that some things may be trivial for some couples, what I mean is that it isn’t really possible to set objective criteria, since every couple is different.

It remains, however, that childbearing should only be avoided for very serious reasons - no one should avoid child-bearing for trivial reasons, even if, in someone else’s case, that reason would constitute something very serious.

That was really convoluted …

Thank you but that is not my understanding of the original intent, and thus the issue. I have often heard (from the Priest) “So you lost your job, you’ll have another job soon…” My understanding and I am not alone was the standard was closer to - The couple is losing [through health, sanity, etc,] the ability to care for future children and thus could avoid future “gifts”. Not that life is easier on the couple if they avoid pregnancy. I thought this was explained in the Papal letter cited in the last post?

 

[Janet_S]

Sorry I do not have much time currently however for the first request here is something to display the issue, note a word count at the end of the website.

Vatican site
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
serious =5 grave = 4

New Advent
newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm
serious =7 grave = 6

EWTN
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM
serious = 7 grave = 5

Papalencyclicals Online
papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm
serious =7 grave = 5
Simply why do they not match? Though that is not the real issue. The real issue is why did/do so many cathollics believe from their teaching “grave” ( as in extremely serious) is the standard? I never heard serious until a few years ago. I have seen a few authors clearly address serious should have always been the correct word, however that makes no sense if the words actually was always serious? So they to seem to think “grave” was the word.

Additionally, here something from part 2
Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life)
Item #: 1004020
Author: Pope Paul VI
Price: $2.95
A revised and improved translation of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae.
catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=432
or www.getfed.com

Revised and improved from what?

If the reasons for avoiding pregnancy are clear to you would you please state the reasons for me?-thx

I still can’t respond to your original post because I don’t know what point you are trying to make. When you referred to “reasons,” I thought you were talking about NFP, but then you said you weren’t.

You need to be more specific. What doesn’t match? What part of the documents that you cited are you referring to?

As far as ABC goes, there is no list of “reasons” that a Catholic may use ABC to avoid pregnancy because ABC is never justified. Do you know of any encyclicals or papal documents that teach that ABC is not intrinsically evil? Also, does the Catechism teach anywhere that ABC is morally acceptable?

Sorry, but there is overwhelming evidence that the Church consistently teaches that ABC is intrinsically evil. This will never change. Neither you nor anyone else on this thread has provided any evidence that the Church has ever wavered on this teaching in her 2000-year history.

And, if you’re trying to say the words “grave” and “serious” have a significantly different meaning, you’re wrong–they’re synonymous. Look in a dictionary or thesaurus.

As far as revised and improved translation of HV, I believe the Popes write encyclicals in Latin. You can reference the original Latin version of HV if you are cynical about the revised translation.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

"other:

If you can’t see it, you can’t see it. It’s crystal clear to me, though.

Maybe it would be simpler if you listed the “reasons” an official list would be nice?

So who decides and how, which conditions qualify for you?
And who decides and how, which conditions qualify for me?
Please just list the Church’s teaching alone -thanks
other:

… You need to be more specific. …What doesn’t match? What part of the documents that you cited are you referring to?

… but there is overwhelming evidence that the Church consistently teaches that ABC is intrinsically evil…

How about listing the Church’s official definition of “ABC” or artificial birth control?
How about listing the Church’s official definition of “nfp”?
other:

Sorry, but there is overwhelming evidence that the Church consistently teaches that ABC is intrinsically evil. This will never change. Neither you nor anyone else on this thread has provided any evidence that the Church has ever wavered on this teaching in her 2000-year history.

Btw #36 Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.( Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition)

 

[Janet_S]

So who decides and how, which conditions qualify for you?
And who decides and how, which conditions qualify for me?
Please just list the Church’s teaching alone -thanks

 

[Janet_S]

to Texas Roofer:
I accept the fact that you are baffled/unsure about the Church’s “authentic” teaching regarding contraception and natural family planning. I can’t say I understand it, but I accept it.

Please accept the fact that I and many other Catholics accept and understand that the Church teaches artificial contraception is intrinsically evil and contributes to the culture of death.

I realize you won’t agree that this is what the Church teaches, but it is clear to me she does.

We’ve already gone over why we believe what we believe, so it’s pointless to go over it again.

 

[Janet_S]

To Texas Roofer:

Maybe you are so concerned with the Church’s “no” (to contraception) that you fail to see the the bigger “yes” that the Church teaches about the dignity of the human person, the importance of marriage and family, and the meaning of love and the gift of self.

An example of what I mean by the bigger “yes” can be found in John Paul II’s letter Centesimus annus:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

1. The first and fundamental structure for “human ecology” is the family, in which man receives his first formative ideas about truth and goodness, and learns what it means to love and to be loved, and thus what it actually means to be a person. Here we mean the family founded on marriage, in which the mutual gift of self by husband and wife creates an environment in which children can be born and develop their potentialities, become aware of their dignity and prepare to face their unique and individual destiny. But it often happens that people are discouraged from creating the proper conditions for human reproduction and are led to consider themselves and their lives as a series of sensations to be experienced rather than as a work to be accomplished. The result is a lack of freedom, which causes a person to reject a commitment to enter into a stable relationship with another person and to bring children into the world, or which leads people to consider children as one of the many “things” which an individual can have or not have, according to taste, and which compete with other possibilities.

It is necessary to go back to seeing the family as the sanctuary of life. The family is indeed sacred: it is the place in which life — the gift of God — can be properly welcomed and protected against the many attacks to which it is exposed, and can develop in accordance with what constitutes authentic human growth. In the face of the so-called culture of death, the family is the heart of the culture of life.

Human ingenuity seems to be directed more towards limiting, suppressing or destroying the sources of life — including recourse to abortion, which unfortunately is so widespread in the world — than towards defending and opening up the possibilities of life. The Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis denounced systematic anti-childbearing campaigns which, on the basis of a distorted view of the demographic problem and in a climate of “absolute lack of respect for the freedom of choice of the parties involved”, often subject them “to intolerable pressures … in order to force them to submit to this new form of oppression”.78 These policies are extending their field of action by the use of new techniques, to the point of poisoning the lives of millions of defenceless human beings, as if in a form of “chemical warfare”.

These criticisms are directed not so much against an economic system as against an ethical and cultural system. The economy in fact is only one aspect and one dimension of the whole of human activity. If economic life is absolutized, if the production and consumption of goods become the centre of social life and society’s only value, not subject to any other value, the reason is to be found not so much in the economic system itself as in the fact that the entire socio-cultural system, by ignoring the ethical and religious dimension, has been weakened, and ends by limiting itself to the production of goods and services alone.79

All of this can be summed up by repeating once more that economic freedom is only one element of human freedom. When it becomes autonomous, when man is seen more as a producer or consumer of goods than as a subject who produces and consumes in order to live, then economic freedom loses its necessary relationship to the human person and ends up by alienating and oppressing him.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I notice the catechisms you post do not include the method names. It seems these post fail to answer the question. Second I am sure you have heard repeatedly that the second post appears to ban “every action” which the rational mind would conclude temperature taking, and mucus testing would then be banned. I know they are not banned because of the “interpretation”, similarly future interpretations could be equally surprising.

I notice you side stepped the issue of Catholic Bishops compounding sexual assaults by condoning an “ intrinsically evil action” afterwards?

I am not so quick to say the authentic church teachings are so tough. Rather I would say the interpretations of those teaching have not been written in stone. I do not know if you read the earlier post regarding a comparison to usury, however that is a rather interesting comparison. Similarly the Galileo trial further displays the action of men in the name of the church creating what certainly appeared to be “binds”.

I think an underlying issue here is the change in status of woman. The teaching of the church seems to have an underlying demand men, particularly when head of household, treat women who lack independent social status with due respect. However, today men simply do not have that position any longer. Additionally I believe the church has failed to shake off the Puritan affect. I personally do not believe the current Protestant views of marriages with limited child creation are results from hard hearts or stiff necks. I personally see no rational logic to prevent the validly married couple with children from actions designed to benefit and provide in reasonable standards of living for their families. In the current situation the church appears to be actively ignoring the societal changes and thus placing an undue hardship upon the very married couple who procreate the future of the church.

 

[Janet_S]

I think an underlying issue here is the change in status of woman. . . . Additionally I believe the church has failed to shake off the Puritan affect. . In the current situation the church appears to be actively ignoring the societal changes and thus placing an undue hardship upon the very married couple who procreate the future of the church.

So the Church is not aware of what’s going on in the world? The Church is naive about the roles of women and men in modern society?

Did you ever consider that maybe the Church (with her 2000 year history and divine guidance of the Holy Spirit) understands the world better than modern-day sociologists and women’s studies professors do?

As far as the Church being Puritanical, this is hardly the case. If the Church’s high regard for sex as “the marriage act” looks Puritanical next to the the modern world’s view of sex as “sport” or “entertainment,” so be it. It’s the modern world’s view of sex that is distorted.

The desire for people to contracept is nothing new, a point JMcrae made early in this thread. And the constant teaching of the Church has been against contracepting. Yet now many people consider our society is “enlightened” to the point it no longer needs to pay attention to this conventional wisdom.

Are we an “enlightened” society or just a society repeating old mistakes? GK Chesterton’s article “Why I Am A Catholic” puts these issues into perspective:

chesterton.org/gkc/theologian/whycatholic.htm

–The Catholic Church is in fact the enemy of many influential fashions; most of which still claim to be new, though many of them are beginning to be a little stale. . . The Church does often set herself against the fashion of this world that passes away; and she has experience enough to know how very rapidly it does pass away. . …Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes. The Catholic Church has for one of her chief duties that of preventing people from making those old mistakes; from making them over and over again forever, as people always do if they are left to themselves.

–Thus, when the world went Puritan in the seventeenth century, the Church was charged with pushing charity to the point of sophistry, with making everything easy with the laxity of the confessional. Now that the world is not going Puritan but Pagan, it is the Church that is everywhere protesting against a Pagan laxity in dress or manners. It is doing what the Puritans wanted done when it is really wanted. In all probability, all that is best in Protestantism will only survive in Catholicism; and in that sense all Catholics will still be Puritans when all Puritans are Pagans.

–Every moment increases for us the moral necessity for such an immortal mind. We must have something that will hold the four corners of the world still, while we make our social experiments or build our Utopias. . . .There is no end to the dissolution of ideas, the destruction of all tests of truth, that has become possible since men abandoned the attempt to keep a central and civilized Truth, to contain all truths and trace out and refute all errors. Since then, each group has taken one truth at a time and spent the time in turning it into a falsehood. We have had nothing but movements; or in other words, monomanias. But the Church is not a movement but a meeting-place; the trysting-place of all the truths in the world.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

In 966 the Pontiff allowed women married without consent (arranged marriages) annulments. What did Chesterton say about these women before 966?

*The most important one," answered Jesus, “is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”-*Mark 12

*You shall have no other gods before me.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments. *

*"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

"You shall not murder.

"You shall not commit adultery.

"You shall not steal.

"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”* –Exodus 20

I do not see the temporal punishment, suffering as good, or joy being the work of the devil? Our Deacon tells us he is instructed to avoid speaking of the fires of hell, excommunication, and the general Catholic guilt. Is Chesterton a fan of those subjects?

 

[Greg27]

In my understanding, the Church declared both in terms of its magesterium that its contraceptive teaching is infallible and universal, in the sense that it requires assent on the part of the faithful in terms of faith and will.

 

[Janet_S]

In 966 the Pontiff allowed women married without consent (arranged marriages) annulments. What did Chesterton say about these women before 966?

*The most important one," answered Jesus, “is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”-*Mark 12

*You shall have no other gods before me.

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments. *

*"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

"You shall not murder.

"You shall not commit adultery.

"You shall not steal.

"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”* –Exodus 20

I do not see the temporal punishment, suffering as good, or joy being the work of the devil? Our Deacon tells us he is instructed to avoid speaking of the fires of hell, excommunication, and the general Catholic guilt. Is Chesterton a fan of those subjects?

What did Chesterton say about women with arranged marriages getting annulments? I’m not sure. He did say this, though, that he wanted a Church that would move the world, not one that is moved by the world.

What point are you trying to make with the rest of the post?

It sounds like you have a problem with Church authority in general which is beyond the scope of this thread. Maybe you should start a new thread.

 

[DJim]

Hi, “TexasRoofer”–you wrote:

Second I am sure you have heard repeatedly that the second post appears to ban “every action” which the rational mind would conclude temperature taking, and mucus testing would then be banned. I know they are not banned because of the “interpretation”, similarly future interpretations could be equally surprising.*

It would seem to me that you are mixing apples and oranges here–the Church’s position is really rather simple and has been for 2000 years:

1. Frustrating God’s procreative role in marital relations is always wrong.
2. Married couples are permitted to choose when to have marital relations, and when not to.
3. If serious reasons exist for a married couple to avoid conceiving a child, the couple may choose to have relations solely within infertile times.

Nothing to “interpret” here–just straightforward, common-sense morality illuminated by faith.

****I am not so quick to say the authentic church teachings are so tough. Rather I would say the interpretations of those teaching have not been written in stone. I do not know if you read the earlier post regarding a comparison to usury, however that is a rather interesting comparison. ****

I find the usury comparison fairly tired and worn out–John Noonan couldn’t make it stick in 1965, and no one has improved on his treatment of it since then. Which is to say that Church teaching on usury is by no means analogous to Church teaching on contraception.

**** Similarly the Galileo trial further displays the action of men in the name of the church creating what certainly appeared to be “binds”. ******

The Galileo case did not explicitly involve the universal teaching of the Magisterium in the realm of faith and morals. It, too, lacks any meaningful point of reference to Church teaching on contraception.

**** I personally see no rational logic to prevent the validly married couple with children from actions designed to benefit and provide in reasonable standards of living for their families.*****

Really? Then how do you feel about robbery, embezzlement, extortion, or blackmail, or organized crime, perpetrated by a married couple with children, but “designed to benefit and provide…reasonable standards of living for their families”???

**** In the current situation the church appears to be actively ignoring the societal changes and thus placing an undue hardship upon the very married couple who procreate the future of the church.****

Undue hardship? That is backwards–it is societal change that is causing undue hardship. The Church is remaining true to the principles established by its Founder. The longer society actively ignores the Church, the harder life will become.

It’s actually rather easy having a large family–I have yet to encounter a child in a large family who honestly believe it would be better for their family to have another car, more money, etc., in exchange for one of their younger siblings.

Which is why it makes me wonder why adults are willing to think seriously along those lines…

DJim

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Sincerely, Marilyn & Mark

Those wishing to justify selfish behavior will always be able to rationalize it for themselves. Even bulimics have their justifications. Bulimia is to eating what artificial birth control is to sexual intercourse. At the most fundamental, both are attempts to separate the pleasure of participating in a physical act from the natural purposes of that act.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[Janet_S]

I realize many Catholics have difficulty with the Church’s teaching about contraception. At one time I disagreed with the Church too. But I must admit I disagreed because I never understood the reasons behind the Church’s teaching. The reasons for this teaching are strong and are best understood in the context of God’s beautiful plan for us regarding marriage, family, and the dignity of the human person.

The appeal from dissenting Catholics seems to be this one: the Church will change her teaching some day; therefore it’s okay for Catholics to follow their “consciences” and do what they think is right. This kind of thinking, makes no sense to me. Doesn’t our faith grow when we try to understand and accept those Church teachings most difficult for us? Can we presume the Church will change all her teachings to accommodate the current culture?

Dissenters, help me understand. How can you set you own “consciences” as a Magisterial equivalent to that of the Church? Keep in mind what Vatican II confirmed:

In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself. (Vatican II Dignitatis Humanae, n. 14)

Here is an article about “Forming a Catholic Conscience” by Thomas G Morrow. I recommend everyone read this article which deals with the issues of Church infallibility and conscience. An excerpt and footnotes from his article get back to the OP of this thread:
catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/april96/page30.html

There are several moral teachings which are drawn from Sacred Scripture and which, as “revealed truths” confirmed by subsequent authentic Church teachings, are infallible teachings of the ordinary magisterium: the immorality of adultery, fornication, and homosexual activity.
Although the question of contraception is a bit more complex, it has been proposed by some theologians that this also falls into the category of an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. Not surprisingly, some other theologians have disagreed.29 I am inclined to agree with the former. However, even if it were not infallibly taught, the teaching nonetheless calls for a “loyal submission of the will and intellect.”

1. Ford, John C., and Grisez, Germain, “Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium,” Theological Studies, vol. 39, no. 2, June 1978, pp. 258-312. This was reprinted in Grisez, Ford, Boyle, Finnis and May, The Teaching of Humanae Vitae: A Defense (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988). This was summarized in Shaw, Russell, “Contraception, Infallibility and the Ordinary Magisterium,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review, July 1978, pp. 9-19. Also see Lio, Ermenegildo, Humanae Vitae e Infallibilitá: Il Concilio, Paolo VI e Giovanni Paolo II (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1986).A detailed accounting of the theological dialogue about the question of infallibility is found in Smith, Janet E., Humanae Vitae, a Generation Later (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1991), pp. 155-160 and in footnotes 33-49, pp. 393-395.