What happens if the teaching on contraception changes?

[Catholic2003]

Scott Waddell:

Actually, isn’t it infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium? That is, constant Church teaching against it makes it infallible?

Some Catholics think that this is so. Other Catholics do not. Neither viewpoint is unfaithful to the magisterium, as the magisterium has not made a pronouncement on the infallibility of this teaching.

There is even a fringe opinion that Humanae Vitae is ex cathedra.

mlchance:

Wow. You say that like it’s true. Fortunately, the Church’s teaching on contraception is infallible. It is a doctrine, and, while it might develop, it won’t be reversed.

This teaching could very well be infallible. My only point is that its infallibility is still a legitimate matter for debate among faithful Catholics, as its infallibility has not been settled by the magisterium.

“This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, 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.” Familiaris Consortio (emphasis added)

“Dogma” is the word for infallible doctrine. I’ve never said that the teaching wasn’t authentic (non-infallible) doctrine.

Here is what it looks like when the magisterium confirms the infallibility of a teaching:

It must be stressed then that in the Encyclicals Veritatis splendor and Evangelium vitae and in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, the Roman Pontiff intended, though not in a solemn way, to confirm and reaffirm doctrines which belong to the ordinary, universal teaching of the Magisterium, and which therefore are to be held in a definitive and irrevocable way.

No such statement exists for Humanae Vitae.

mercygate:

This is one of those things that has been the constant teaching of the Church. Theologians can thrash away at it but they do not trump the Magisterium.

No one is talking about “trashing away” at the teaching of the Church. Perfectly faithful, completely devout Catholic theologians can believe that the Church’s teaching on contraception is authentic, binding, but non-infallible.

 

[mlchance]

Catholic2003:

This teaching could very well be infallible. My only point is that its infallibility is still a legitimate matter for debate among faithful Catholics, as its infallibility has not been settled by the magisterium.

Doctrine is not a legitimate matter for debate. Doctrine is infallible. Contrary to your assertion, a dogma is not the only arena in which the Church enjoys the virtues of infallibility. From the CCC (2051): “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.”

The Church’s doctrine against contraception is infallible.

For further reading on the permissibility of dissent from the Church’s teaching on contraception, please visit here.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Catholic2003]

mlchance:

Doctrine is not a legitimate matter for debate.

I’ve never claimed that the doctrine itself (that contraception is immoral) is a legitimate matter for debate. What is a legitimate matter for debate is whether that doctrine has been infallibly taught by the Church.

mlchance:

Doctrine is infallible.

Doctrine can be infallible, but not all doctrine is infallible. For example, canon 752 defines the obedience required for non-infallible doctrine:

Canon 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

Thus, the use of the term “doctrine” in Familiaris Consortio is not an indication of infallibility.

mlchance:

Contrary to your assertion, a dogma is not the only arena in which the Church enjoys the virtues of infallibility. From the CCC (2051): “The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.”

This particular passage from the CCC is discussing what are known as “the secondary objects of infallibility.” The clause “without which the saving truths of the faith …” is a pivotal point in the debate between theologians Fr. Francis Sullivan and Germain Grisez on the infallibility of Humanae Vitae.

mlchance:

The Church’s doctrine against contraception is infallible.

You are certainly free to believe this. However, if you mean to suggest that those who disagree with you on this matter are not faithful Catholics, then you are completely mistaken.

 

[sweetchuck]

Church teachings on contraception are not up for debate, and you may be scandalizing others into thinking that they are.

Perhaps the question Catholics should be asking, with regard to Church teachings on contraception, is not “where is the loophole around this teaching”, but “why”.

I personally believe that contraception is a graver offense than is masturbation, adultery, premarital sex or even the gravest sexual sin.

Here is the “why”. Those various sins are sins against the created. They are grave sins that wound the creator and created deeply.

Contraception is a direct assault on God the Creator. God has eternally willed us to exist, and has willed for share His glory with us. When a person PREVENTS God from creating, a person PREVENTS God’s eternal sharing of His divine glory with His creation. You not only PREVENT a child from being born, you PREVENT the will of God. Remember, in the creation of a body, there is the creation of a soul as well. Each person is intricately interwoven into God’s divine plan.

Contraception, I believe, is the ultimate assertion of human will over divine will, the ultimate pride, the ultimate lack of trust, though some people are ignorant of the gravity of what they are doing. This is why each sexual act must be open to creation (though not every sexual act must be for the sole purpose of creation). We are the executors of divine will. God works His Will on Earth through our lives. Contraception is a grave evil. Contraception seeks the void before creation. Contraception seeks nothingness, not the “very good” of Genesis 1:31.

To quote the pope from his inauguration homily…
“Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

Jer.1:5a “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.”

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Catholic2003:

Some Catholics think that this is so. Other Catholics do not. Neither viewpoint is unfaithful to the magisterium, as the magisterium has not made a pronouncement on the infallibility of this teaching.

Claims that no teaching of the Church is infallible unless and untill backed up with an ex-cathedra statment to that effect have long been dismissed as straw-grasping heresy by the habit of those claims to de facto deny the doctrine of the general infalliability of the bishops, which is the ultimate undoingo f your original claim. Like it or not, the authority of the ordinary magisterium has been estabilised as infalliable, and there is no special exception available for dissenting theologians wishing to deviate from the ordinary magisterium on the issues of contraception and abortion.

 

[1ke]

mlchance:

The sticking point with the “morning after pill” is that creates a chemically hostile environment in the womb. It doesn’t necessarily prevent contraception, but prevents implantation of an embryo in the wall of the uterus. As such, it has the potential to kill an unborn person. Even if this unborn person is the product of rape, he or she doesn’t deserve death.

The use of the “morning after pill” prior to conception is not problematic. After conception, it is not permissible. The problem comes with determining whether conception has already taken place.

– Mark L. Chance.

Yes, absolutely. I am not in any way arguing that point at all.

I am arguing that this teaching in no way contradicts that contraception is intrinsically evil and never allowed.

 

[mlchance]

Catholic2003:

I’ve never claimed that the doctrine itself (that contraception is immoral) is a legitimate matter for debate. What is a legitimate matter for debate is whether that doctrine has been infallibly taught by the Church.

The teaching against contraception is an infallible doctrine. All doctrines are infallible. Witness:

Catholic2003:

Doctrine can be infallible, but not all doctrine is infallible. For example, canon 752 defines the obedience required for non-infallible doctrine:

Canon 752:

While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

Interesting that the canon above doesn’t mention any such thing as a “non-infallible doctrine.” That would because non-infallible and doctrine are mutually exclusive terms.

And, notice what it does say: Even you don’t agree with or understand the Church’s teaching against contraception, you are still required to abide by it. Why? Because it is a doctrine, and doctrines are, by definition, infallible.

Catholic2003:

…the infallibility of Humanae Vitae.

Stop equivocating. No one has said Humanae Vitae is infallible. *Humanae *Vitae isn’t the object of the discussion. The Church’s stance against contraception is the object of discussion. The Church’s stance against contraception as being intrinsically disordered is infallible.

Catholic2003:

However, if you mean to suggest that those who disagree with you on this matter are not faithful Catholics, then you are completely mistaken.

I’ve suggested no such thing. But those who suggest that the Church’s teaching against contraception (as distinct from Humanae Vitae) isn’t infallible are in error.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[johnq]

HUMANAE VITAE

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI ON
THE REGULATION OF BIRTH

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

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)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Quote:
It must be stressed then that in the Encyclicals Veritatis splendor and Evangelium vitae and in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, the Roman Pontiff intended, though not in a solemn way, to** confirm and reaffirm doctrines which belong to the ordinary, universal teaching of the Magisterium, and which therefore are to be held in a definitive and irrevocable way.**

“No such statement exists for Humanae Vitae.” Catholic2003

Seems to me like the ordinary magisterium has declared and pronounced this matter as part the universal Church teachings.

 

[Ignatius]

David B:

What happens to the Church’s credibility if Pope Benedict XVI decides to reverse Humanae Vitae and allow some forms of artificial birth control?

Sorry Dave, this can’t happen.

 

[Ignatius]

Catholic2003:

Whether the Church’s teaching on contraception is infallible has not been addressed by the magisterium. . . . .

Only in your fantasy world.

 

[stbruno]

I go along with the majority of the voters who say, Truth is Truth is Truth is Truth…It doesn’t change and neither will the church’s teaching on contraception.

 

[Catholic2003]

Ignatius:

Only in your fantasy world.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Catholic2003]

mlchance:

Interesting that the canon above doesn’t mention any such thing as a “non-infallible doctrine.” That would because non-infallible and doctrine are mutually exclusive terms.

Here is what the CLSA New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law says about the kind of doctrine (Latin “doctrinae”) covered by canon 752 (emphasis added):

Nearly all of the teaching of the pope and the college of bishops is non-definitive. This includes papal encyclicals, letters, and constitutions, as well as the documents of ecumenical councils. This canon attempts to describe the response which the faithful ought to give to this solemn but non-infallible teaching. It clearly distinguishes this response from “the assent of faith,” which is due only to what is contained in divine revelation.

There is also the following canon:

Canon 749 §3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

 

[crusader4life]

I voted other because I’m more than confident that any teachings of Christ’s church will ever change!

The church’s teachings has been the same since the beginning…if there was anything wrong with it Christ Himself would have said so and done something about it. Remember, the pope doesn’t simply have that authority to simply change a teaching. It’s a long process…the teaching wouldn’t change, but it would be clarified for better understanding.

The only change the pope may have are the “small t” traditions (correct me if I’m wrong.) like reciting the mass in Latin. This teaching and practice is a “big t” Tradition that won’t change.

 

[sweetchuck]

crusader4life:

The only change the pope may have are the “small t” traditions (correct me if I’m wrong.) like reciting the mass in Latin. This teaching and practice is a “big t” Tradition that won’t change.

Right – traditions may change; Tradition may not. The Mass may undergo various changes throughout the course of time, but the “substance,” according to Pius XII in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, may not change.

 

[Catholic2003]

Just to be clear, whether a teaching is true and whether a teaching is infallible are two separate issues. To quote Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone (bold added):

Doctrinally, and in view of the description of the reactions and principal criticisms of these magisterial documents, special attention should be paid to several key aspects which in today’s theological and ecclesial climate are a source of confusion and ambiguity, and entail negative consequences for the teaching of theology and for the behavior of some ecclesiastical circles:

1. first, we must point out the tendency to measure everything on the basis of the distinction between the “infallible Magisterium” and the “fallible Magisterium”.

In this way infallibility becomes the criterion for all authority problems, to the point of actually replacing the concept of authority with that of infallibility. Furthermore, the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the depositum fide), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching. In the various critical stances towards the recent documents of the Magisterium it is often forgotten that the infallible character of a teaching and the definitive and irrevocable character of the assent owed it is not a prerogative belonging solely to what has been solemnly “defined” by the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council. Whenever the Bishops dispersed in their individual Dioceses in communion with the Successor of Peter teach a truth to be held in a definitive way (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 25, 2), they enjoy the same infallibility as the Pope’s ex cathedra Magisterium or that of a Council.

 

[Catholic2003]

crusader4life:

It’s a long process…the teaching wouldn’t change, but it would be clarified for better understanding.

It is true that the teaching is only clarified, not changed, but I don’t understand why you say it is a long process. All Pope John Paul II had to do was to promulgate Evangelium Vitae to develop the Church’s doctrine relating to the death penalty.

 

[cynic]

sweetchuck:

Church teachings on contraception are not up for debate, and you may be scandalizing others into thinking that they are.

Perhaps the question Catholics should be asking, with regard to Church teachings on contraception, is not “where is the loophole around this teaching”, but “why”.

I personally believe that contraception is a graver offense than is masturbation, adultery, premarital sex or even the gravest sexual sin.

Here is the “why”. Those various sins are sins against the created. They are grave sins that wound the creator and created deeply.

Contraception is a direct assault on God the Creator. God has eternally willed us to exist, and has willed for share His glory with us. When a person PREVENTS God from creating, a person PREVENTS God’s eternal sharing of His divine glory with His creation. You not only PREVENT a child from being born, you PREVENT the will of God. Remember, in the creation of a body, there is the creation of a soul as well. Each person is intricately interwoven into God’s divine plan.

Contraception, I believe, is the ultimate assertion of human will over divine will, the ultimate pride, the ultimate lack of trust, though some people are ignorant of the gravity of what they are doing. This is why each sexual act must be open to creation (though not every sexual act must be for the sole purpose of creation). We are the executors of divine will. God works His Will on Earth through our lives. Contraception is a grave evil. Contraception seeks the void before creation. Contraception seeks nothingness, not the “very good” of Genesis 1:31.

To quote the pope from his inauguration homily…
“Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

Jer.1:5a “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.”

Which then outlaws the use of NFP under any circumsatnces doesn’t it? If God has all these people lined up to enter the world and any attempt is made by a couple to limit the number of children they have, (even if there is no cash, even if the next child could pose a threat to the mothers health in childbirth) then they are committing a worse offence than rape, adultery, or fornication. That’s the problem when you deal in absolutes, you end up having it flung back in your own face, - the Catholic Church does say it is acceptable to limit family size under certain circumstances - but how can this be justified under the kind of theory given here? - how can you have both?, why use this argument if it in fact is ok to limit familiy size under the right circumstances. Is it just a selective application of morality, moral acrobatics used to justify apparently infallible doctrine…

 

[sweetchuck]

cynic:

Which then outlaws the use of NFP under any circumsatnces doesn’t it? If God has all these people lined up to enter the world and any attempt is made by a couple to limit the number of children they have, (even if there is no cash, even if the next child could pose a threat to the mothers health in childbirth) then they are committing a worse offence than rape, adultery, or fornication. That’s the problem when you deal in absolutes, you end up having it flung back in your own face, - the Catholic Church does say it is acceptable to limit family size under certain circumstances - but how can this be justified under the kind of theory given here? - how can you have both?, why use this argument if it in fact is ok to limit familiy size under the right circumstances. Is it just a selective application of morality, moral acrobatics used to justify apparently infallible doctrine…

No cynic, it doesn’t. NFP is open to creation. NFP is respecting the biology God has given women. Contraception is not open to creation and it abuses human biology. You don’t like NFP because you don’t understand it. Research it and understand its effectiveness and then make your arguments. Otherwise, you just sound silly. I really don’t think you understand your own dignity, that your origin is from God; He willed to share his eternal glory with you.

NFP couples don’t conceive when they don’t want to, though they are open to creation. I didn’t say “any attempt” now did I? When NFP couples have sex, they are open to creation. But again, not every sex act MUST be for the purpose of having children. If God had wanted it that way, people would always be fertile. Some species are. The fertility cycle is a gift from God, to be watched and used, though not abused, as contraception does.

When in doubt, look at etymology
Contraception
Etymology: contra- + conception
Individual creation begins with conception.
contra = against
conception = creation
You might as well call it contracreation - against creation. The word does not lie.

(this is why politicians and pundits more wisely choose their buzzwords these days, such as pro-choice, reproductive rights, progressives, etc.)

 

[cheddarsox]

NFP is great, We used it ourselves for several years. But I have to go with Cynic reguarding the morality of it. If God wants you to have kids, and you avoid having relations when it would be possible for you to have kids, it is the same as using a barrier contraceptive. I mean if God wanting or needing you to bring souls to earth is the argument for morality or immorality. Either way, you are just as certainly thwarting God’s wishes. If, as is claimed here, NFP is more effective than most contraceptives, then you are thwarting God’s wishes even more effectively!

It is not the worthiness of NFP that is being argued, it is the ideas being used to support it.

I understand the slippery slope arguments etc. I agree that NFP has much to merit it, and I think it is fine for the church to teach it. But the arguments for why it is OK, and other barrier methods are immoral don’t hold water.

If God wanted or needed our co operation to bring souls to the world, then any effort to thwart that would be equally immoral.
If God is capable of having us conceive even when using NFP correctly, then God is capable of having us conceive through a failure of barrier method as well.

I am not arguing NFP, I am arguing your argument.

cheddar