What happens if the teaching on contraception changes?

[John_Higgins]

john ennis:

Has the Church ever officially proclaimed something sinful, then changed it?

Sure it has. I’ve got a note on another board I’ll go find. If I can’t find it before my opportunity to edit expires, it concerns usury and another concerns living near Jews.

John

 

[Catholic2003]

John Higgins:

Sure it has. I’ve got a note on another board I’ll go find. If I can’t find it before my opportunity to edit expires, it concerns usury and another concerns living near Jews.

John

This thread might be a better place to post your examples.

 

[Ghosty]

Catholic2003: I don’t think your post regarding Ludwig Ott’s list proves your point at all. Nothing in there is saying that things below Sententia Certa aren’t infallible. What is being said is that anything AT or ABOVE that level is probably infallible. There is a huge difference there. Teachings below that level can certainly be infallible, they just aren’t theologically certain, meaning their infallibility can’t be inferred directly from other infallible theological principles.

The ban on artificial birth control is not something that is theologically certain in the sense that it can’t be directly inferred from another infallible teaching. It IS something that has been consistantly upheld by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which puts it into the category of infallibility right alongside a male-only priesthood. Male-only priesthood can not be theologically inferred, nor has it ever been declared by the Extraordinary Magisterium, but it is rightly viewed as an infallible doctrine because of its status as being continuously taught by the Ordinary Magisterium. Humanae Vitae, while not itself an infallible declaration, recognizes the eternal nature of this particular teaching.

 

[Catholic2003]

Ghosty:

Catholic2003: I don’t think your post regarding Ludwig Ott’s list proves your point at all. Nothing in there is saying that things below Sententia Certa aren’t infallible. What is being said is that anything AT or ABOVE that level is probably infallible. There is a huge difference there. Teachings below that level can certainly be infallible, they just aren’t theologically certain, meaning their infallibility can’t be inferred directly from other infallible theological principles.

This doesn’t make any sense. Infallible teachings must be theologically certain (or higher). How else could the Church condemn people for not believeing/holding them?

 

[Catholic2003]

Catholic2003:

This doesn’t make any sense. Infallible teachings must be theologically certain (or higher). How else could the Church condemn people for not believeing/holding them?

Here is a link to the introduction of Ott’s work; maybe this will help clarify things. An excerpt:

§ 7. Theological Opinions

Theological opinions are free views on aspects of doctrines concerning Faith and morals, which are neither clearly attested in Revelation nor decided by the Teaching Authority of the Church. Their value depends upon the reasons adduced in their favour (association with the doctrine of Revelation, the attitude of the Church, etc.).

A point of doctrine ceases to be an object of free judgment when the Teaching Authority of the Church takes an attitude which is clearly in favour of one opinion. Pope Pius XII explains in the Encyclical “Humani generis” (1950): “When the Popes in their Acts intentionally pronounce a judgment on a long disputed point then it is clear to all that this, according to the intention and will of these Popes, can no longer be open to the free discussion of theologians” (D 3013).

§ 8. The Theological Grades of Certainty

…

1. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

 

[sweetchuck]

Here is a link to the introduction of Ott’s work; maybe this will help clarify things. An excerpt:

Look, I think you’re doing everyone a great disservice by implying that the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception is not open to change. You’re not addressing the teaching at all, you’re just describing some sort of moral loophole through which believing Catholics may continue to live in sin and feel a-OK about it. Even though your parish priest or some rogue theologian may say the teaching is going to change, it is not. I encourage everyone to take a long, hard look at the unwavering devotion the Church has had to this teaching in the face of widespread and near-universal opposition from the modern world, and majority disagreement from within the royal priesthood itself. If it were going to be changed, it would have been changed. There was a reason that the Holy Spirit selected John Paul II - so that Catholics could better understand the reasoning behind this prohibition.

I think perhaps the reason that the Church has not come out with an explicit categorial rejection of all artificial birth control is paralleled by the teaching on the death penalty. It is wrong in almost all cases, but in some select few EXTREME cases the teaching would not apply. But a teaching does not need an ex cathedra proclamation to be declared infalliable. They are infalliable through the teaching of the Magisterium. Regardless, moral truths are by their nature infalliable anyway, before and after the Church proclaims them as such. The unwavering devotion of the Church of Rome to this particular teaching should inspire loyalty and obedience from the faithful, now and until the Church says otherwise.

But this thread has turned into an ongoing rationalization for sinful behavior - that behavior being the use of artificial contraception. And it’s nonsense arguments like these that are why the “80 percent” dissent on Church teaching on this topic.

Rather than discussing whether the cafeteria is open on this particular item, perhaps we should all yield to the natural order when we have sex with our spouses (i.e., not behaving like Onan did in Genesis), quit demanding that women abuse their bodies in the name of our sexual gratification with abortifacients and chemical agents that alter their hormones, and defer to the about 2000 years of wisdom of the Church on this topic.

 

[mumto5]

sweetchuck:

I think perhaps the reason that the Church has not come out with an explicit categorial rejection of all artificial birth control is paralleled by the teaching on the death penalty. It is wrong in almost all cases, but in some select few EXTREME cases the teaching would not apply.

I have to disagree. If you read EWTN at all it seems that there is never a case where it is justified - no ‘extreme cases’.

I don’t agree with that myself but that is the church teaching. I believe that if the church teaching changes the church will split with the majority going with the group that allows birth control and the smaller more conservative side sticking together. I wouldn’t know what to do as I can’t accept abortifacient birth control but barrier methods that aren’t abortifacient are less black and white to me.

 

[Catholic2003]

sweetchuck:

Look, I think you’re doing everyone a great disservice by implying that the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception is not open to change.

Well, that’s only fair. I think you are doing everyone a great disservice by confusing truth and infallibility to the point where you reject the authority of the Church’s non-infallible teachings (as you did in post #48). This is exactly what Archbishop Bertone warned against (as I quoted in post #36):

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 …

If you have to invent a Church teaching about the infallibility of the immorality of conception in order to be able to properly bash cafeteria Catholics, doesn’t that make you just as bad as they are?

 

[cynic]

sweetchuck:

You are right there. You see, cheddarsox, the end is the same - no children (with the exception of some birth-control pills which actually murder the child). But the means is different. The MEANS is what makes it evil. Natural Family Planning could be used for an evil end. If the couple uses it for their own selfishness, for their own material wealth or their careers, then it would turn into an evil means. That’s why the “openness” I talked about was so necessary.

Sex during the woman’s cycle in the time in which she is not fertile is in line with the natural order. God created the system that way. There’s nothing wrong with that. But NEVER having sex during fertility periods does not add members to the mystical body of Christ and is probably sinful. Christian married couples have a duty to have children to add to this mystical body, and I think our grandparents and greatgrandparents understood this much better than our generations do.

Way to go by not answering the point yet again. Cheddarsox put it so succinctly, yet you ignore it, probably because you don’t have an answer. If it’s wrong to ‘NEVER’ have children when using NFP, then how is it ok to a avoid any children entering the world? As the use of NFP does result in souls not being born, then how can any degree of this be acceptable? Are you suggesting that avoiding one more child, or spacing out the births so that the couple end up having one or two less children than they otherwise would have is ok, but avoiding having any children at all using NFP is sin? That implies degrees of morality, or a gray area, where exactly is the line?. Using your original argument, surely avoiding any life entering this world is wrong, if you choose to think this way.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

cynic:

Way to go by not answering the point yet again. Cheddarsox put it so succinctly, yet you ignore it, probably because you don’t have an answer. If it’s wrong to ‘NEVER’ have children when using NFP, then how is it ok to a avoid any children entering the world? As the use of NFP does result in souls not being born, then how can any degree of this be acceptable? Are you suggesting that avoiding one more child, or spacing out the births so that the couple end up having one or two less children than they otherwise would have is ok, but avoiding having any children at all using NFP is sin? That implies degrees of morality, or a gray area, where exactly is the line?. Using your original argument, surely avoiding any life entering this world is wrong, if you choose to think this way.

You are not using a man made chemical contraceptive.You ARE open to life with NFP.God decides whether of not you have a child,instead of a condom or a pill that is an abortifacient:nope: Yes you chart to try to space or whatever BUT you have still remained open to God and His will.

 

[cynic]

No, you have decided by deliberately resticting sex to a time when conception isn’t going to happen. Otherwise why use NFP at all?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Much to my dismay I am going to tell all Catholic members of this thread,that the thread starter has played all of us like a fiddle We took it hook line and sinker Look at his posts,he has come in here and caused a DOGFIGHT On what?Something that has not happened He has thrown us into cunfusion and bickering over a what if question

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

cynic:

No, you have decided by deliberately resticting sex to a time when conception isn’t going to happen. Otherwise why use NFP at all?

It is about effective as the pill,and since the sperm can survive for days you are indeed leaving God in charge.

 

[cynic]

Then why use it at all? If the intention was to avoid children, then that isn’t leaving God in charge, even if it’s as ineffective as you say.

 

[otm]

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…

You are confusing no act at all with contraception, which attempts to stop or frustrate the consequences of an act. NFP is not contraception as it does not frustrate the natural ends of an act. When they have intercourse, if the egg is available for fertilization, they will have a baby. Not having intercourse is not frustrating the natural end of an act, because there is not act.

 

[otm]

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

Carried to its logical conclusion, one would be in a starte of mortal sin if a person of the opposite sex proposed and you turned them down: you would be thwarting God’s plan to create more children!

Nice try, but moral theology has not held that one must have children if it is possible; the theology of the proper use of a couple’s fertility is a little more nuanced than that. Grnated that the Church says that one must have a serious reason for not having a child at a particular time, or not having any more children, the Church does not define the parameters as strictly as you would.

 

[cynic]

That’s a different argument than the one used above. You use the interference argument which is totally different.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who participated in this discussion.
This thread is now closed.