When was the decision on ABC finalized?

[CrossofChrist]

My understanding is many theologians and people in the Church thought Pope Paul VI’s decision about about whether certain forms of artificial birth control counted as contraception was a non-infallible exercise of the Magisterium. Would this be a correct understanding of how to read Humanae Vitae in its historical context, or was it rather meant as definitive? I’m inclined to think the former since canon law 749.3 says “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” I could ask the same question about women priests.

Of course we all know Pope St. JPII cleared the issue(s) up definitively, so I don’t want this thread to get controversial or imply things contrary to the Church’s beliefs.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My understanding is many theologians and people in the Church thought Pope Paul VI’s decision about about whether certain forms of artificial birth control counted as contraception was a non-infallible exercise of the Magisterium. Would this be a correct understanding of how to read Humanae Vitae in its historical context, or was it rather meant as definitive? I’m inclined to think the former since canon law 749.3 says “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” I could ask the same question about women priests.

Of course we all know Pope St. JPII cleared the issue(s) up definitively, so I don’t want this thread to get controversial or imply things contrary to the Church’s beliefs.

With the Birth of the Church. I know that sounds like a flip answer, but it is actually the most accurate.

 

[Sunbreak]

The teaching against artificial contraceptives has always been part of Church teaching. There were some clerics and lay people who claimed that the teaching under Pope Paul VI was not declared “ex cathedra” and therefore is not infallible, but this is not true. If you want to read about this controversy, here is one source that describes it:
monkshobbit.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/infallibility-and-contraception-a-reply-to-fr-genilo-s-j-fr-tanseco-s-j-and-bishop-bacani-by-paul-gerard-horrigan-ph-d/
The other thing is that Pope Paul VI’s decision is not the first time that contraception was declared wrong. When the use of condoms became popular in the secular world and the Anglicans in the Lambeth Conference decided to allow contraception in some situations, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical, Casti Connubii, in 1930 which in part affirmed the Church’s stance against contraception.

 

[dshix]

My understanding is many theologians and people in the Church thought Pope Paul VI’s decision about about whether certain forms of artificial birth control counted as contraception was a non-infallible exercise of the Magisterium. Would this be a correct understanding of how to read Humanae Vitae in its historical context, or was it rather meant as definitive? I’m inclined to think the former since canon law 749.3 says “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” I could ask the same question about women priests.

Of course we all know Pope St. JPII cleared the issue(s) up definitively, so I don’t want this thread to get controversial or imply things contrary to the Church’s beliefs.

Pope Paul VI’s words regarding contraception in Humanae Vitae were, indeed, infallible. It is pretty clear, in reading it, that he is calling upon his role as Supreme Pontiff to give “Our reply to these grave questions” (paragraph 6)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My understanding is many theologians and people in the Church thought Pope Paul VI’s decision about about whether certain forms of artificial birth control counted as contraception was a non-infallible exercise of the Magisterium. Would this be a correct understanding of how to read Humanae Vitae in its historical context, or was it rather meant as definitive? I’m inclined to think the former since canon law 749.3 says “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” I could ask the same question about women priests.

Of course we all know Pope St. JPII cleared the issue(s) up definitively, so I don’t want this thread to get controversial or imply things contrary to the Church’s beliefs.

Some teachings of the Church are considered infallible, not because the Church says so, but because Revelation teaches it or because they are contained, in a manifest way, in the natural law. Such would be the case in the examples you cite. And that this is the case has been made clear by the repeated teaching of the Popes.

The Church cannot change what Christ has laid down or what the natural law dictates.

Linus2nd

 

[Memaw]

The teaching against artificial contraceptives has always been part of Church teaching. There were some clerics and lay people who claimed that the teaching under Pope Paul VI was not declared “ex cathedra” and therefore is not infallible, but this is not true. If you want to read about this controversy, here is one source that describes it:
monkshobbit.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/infallibility-and-contraception-a-reply-to-fr-genilo-s-j-fr-tanseco-s-j-and-bishop-bacani-by-paul-gerard-horrigan-ph-d/
The other thing is that Pope Paul VI’s decision is not the first time that contraception was declared wrong. When the use of condoms became popular in the secular world and the Anglicans in the Lambeth Conference decided to allow contraception in some situations, Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical, Casti Connubii, in 1930 which in part affirmed the Church’s stance against contraception.

Some think that unless the Pope speaks “Ex-Cathedra” he isn’t speaking Infallible, but that is NOT true. They need to study up on what Infallible really means. When the Pope teaches the whole Church on Faith and Morals, that’s Infallible. Pope Paul the VI reemphasized the Churches teaching on ABC, with Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul did the same thing as for the male priesthood. We would all be much better off if we would follow the Church’s teaching on both as well as the indissolubility of Sacrament of Marriage. The Catholic Church has guided us safely through 2,000 years of all kinds of situations, surely we can trust Her to continue to do so till the “end of time”. Thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in His Catholic Church. Who are we to tell them we know better !!! Do we really want to fight God"??? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Like I said, they reemphasized The Church teaching on both. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Joe_5859]

My understanding is many theologians and people in the Church thought Pope Paul VI’s decision about about whether certain forms of artificial birth control counted as contraception was a non-infallible exercise of the Magisterium. Would this be a correct understanding of how to read Humanae Vitae in its historical context, or was it rather meant as definitive? I’m inclined to think the former since canon law 749.3 says “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” I could ask the same question about women priests.

Of course we all know Pope St. JPII cleared the issue(s) up definitively, so I don’t want this thread to get controversial or imply things contrary to the Church’s beliefs.

I think one has to be careful about how one interprets the “manifestly evident” clause. Some seem to think that the presence of any disagreement whatsoever by definition means that the truth of the teaching is not “manifestly evident”. That would be setting the bar too high, though. If that were our measuring stick, then we would have reason to doubt pretty much any Catholic teaching. There’s always someone somewhere who disagrees.

 

[Ignatius]

My understanding is many theologians and people in the Church thought Pope Paul VI’s decision about about whether certain forms of artificial birth control counted as contraception was a non-infallible exercise of the Magisterium. Would this be a correct understanding of how to read Humanae Vitae

No. The pope was confirming what has been taught Always and Everywhere by the Ordinary Magesterium. IOW, it was already Doctrine before Humanae Vitae.

 

[kozlosap]

This is a quite interesting subject. I was a teen when Pope Paul spoke out against ABC. I had read that the Papal Commission that the Holy Father had set up, had recommended that ABC be allowed and that the Pope made a decision that did not accept ABC. Fifty years later, the use of ABC is the one “sin” that unites a majority of Catholics according to every major news outlet and even Catholic media. Before this instance, was there ever a dogma that was, flat-out, rejected by lay Catholics to such an extent?

 

[JimG]

Pope Paul VI was indeed confirming the constant teaching of the Church over the course of 2,000 years on the wrongness of artificial contraception. In doing so he obviously had the protection of the Holy Spirit. Not only was this the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, it was the constant teaching of every Protestant church, from the original reformers on, for nearly 400 years, until the Lambeth Conference of 1930 broke with their own constant teaching.

The Lambeth Conference in accepting contraception, opened the floodgates to other Protestant churches acceptance of contraception.

That in turn enabled the sexual revolution and all the evils that have flowed from it, from adultery to fornication to abortion to divorce to same sex ‘marriage.’

 

[Bookcat]

ABC?

Christians have not been taught from the early days that the learning the alphabet in English is evil…

But rather *contraception. *

 

[Bookcat]

I had read that the Papal Commission that the Holy Father had set up, had recommended that ABC be allowed and that the Pope made a decision that did not accept ABC.

No.

It was more a question of if the Pill was contraception or not (it was new on the scene)

It is.

 

[Bookcat]

ABC?

Christians have not been taught from the early days that the learning the alphabet in English is evil…

But rather *contraception. *

 

[CrossofChrist]

Yes, I know contraception was always rejected by the Church. So I think I didn’t get my point across clearly enough.

It was more along the lines of what Bookcat addressed, that is, whether or not the pill (what I meant by artificial birth control) counted as contraception. Was that finalized by Pope Paul VI or JPII?

One reason I ask is because of a quote by Cardinal Amato (who I would prefer not to disagree with) with regard to the theologian Karl Rahner, which I have often cited on this website:

Notwithstanding some ambiguous formulae, Rahner was an orthodox Catholic theologian

AFAIK Rahner thought certain forms of contraception would have been acceptable. It seems to me this would’ve made him unorthodox unless the matter in question was settled after his death by JPII.

 

[Abu]

CrossofChrist #15
When was the decision on ABC finalized?

Contraception of any kind was infallibly declared immoral by Pope Pius XI: “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” Casti Connubii, 56, 1930].

whether or not the pill (what I meant by artificial birth control) counted as contraception. Was that finalized by Pope Paul VI or JPII?

Pope Paul VI set up a Commission re the Pill. Unfortunately the majority failed to heed the infallible definition against contraception in Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930, which was issued because of the Anglican capitulation to contraception in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference, and they recommended that contraception be accepted. The Holy Father is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error when as Supreme Pastor he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, and in Humanae Vitae the Pope reinforced the teaching against contraception.

One reason I ask is because of a quote by Cardinal Amato (who I would prefer not to disagree with) with regard to the theologian Karl Rahner, which I have often cited on this website:
Notwithstanding some ambiguous formulae, Rahner was an orthodox Catholic theologian

AFAIK Rahner thought certain forms of contraception would have been acceptable. It seems to me this would’ve made him unorthodox unless the matter in question was settled after his death by JPII

.One theologian we should be wary of is Karl Rahner. The fact of dissent proliferated following Vatican II and the influence of Karl Rahner with his “parallel magisterium” and opposition to the Magisterium, resulted in Rahner joining the disgraceful public dissent against Humanae Vitae. After *Humanae Vitae *Rahner himself explicitly supported dissent from Magisterial teaching on moral questions.” Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader, 1993, Ignatius; article: Conscience Formation and the Teaching of the Church, p 365-380; referencing Rahner’s dissent from HV found in: Theology and the Magisterium, *Theology Digest *29.3 (1981): p 261]

As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger in his Memoirs, Milestones, Ignatius 1998.
“Rahner and I lived on two different theological planets…his theology was totally conditioned by the tradition of Suarezian scholasticism and its new reception in the light of German idealism and of Heidegger…a speculative and philosophical theology in which Scripture and the Fathers in the end did not play an important role and in which the historical dimension was really of little significance.” (p128).

 

[Ignatius]

My understanding is many theologians and people in the Church thought Pope Paul VI’s decision about about whether certain forms of artificial birth control counted as contraception was a non-infallible exercise of the Magisterium. Would this be a correct understanding of how to read Humanae Vitae in its historical context, or was it rather meant as definitive? I’m inclined to think the former since canon law 749.3 says “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” I could ask the same question about women priests.

Of course we all know Pope St. JPII cleared the issue(s) up definitively, so I don’t want this thread to get controversial or imply things contrary to the Church’s beliefs.

The first Church statement that abortion is intrinsically evil and must not be done under any circumstances was in the Didache written about A.D. 50.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Pope Paul VI set up a Commission re the Pill. Unfortunately the majority failed to heed the infallible definition against contraception in Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930, which was issued because of the Anglican capitulation to contraception in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference, and they recommended that contraception be accepted. The Holy Father is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error when as Supreme Pastor he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, and in Humanae Vitae the Pope reinforced the teaching against contraception.

All of that is true. But was the conclusion that the pill itself counted as contraception definitively pronounced by Paul VI or JPII?

.One theologian we should be wary of is Karl Rahner.

Although he does have some insightful things to say. One thing by Rahner in particular that I enjoyed was his Encounters with Silence. But yes, some very astute observations about the faith made by Rahner I have also seen made by de Lubac and Ratzinger in some books I have read, and no doubt de Lubac and Ratzinger are easier to understand. In this regard I would echo Pope Francis with regard to Karl Rahner when, recommending books to help with homilies, he said, “Not Karl, but Hugo. One can read Hugo easily;* Karl is difficult to read*,” (italics mine).

As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger in his Memoirs, Milestones, Ignatius 1998.
“Rahner and I lived on two different theological planets…his theology was totally conditioned by the tradition of Suarezian scholasticism and its new reception in the light of German idealism and of Heidegger…a speculative and philosophical theology in which Scripture and the Fathers in the end did not play an important role and in which the historical dimension was really of little significance.” (p128).

Yes, this is true. Ratzinger also lived on different theological planets than Garrigou-Lagrange.

 

[edwest2]

This is a quite interesting subject. I was a teen when Pope Paul spoke out against ABC. I had read that the Papal Commission that the Holy Father had set up, had recommended that ABC be allowed and that the Pope made a decision that did not accept ABC. Fifty years later, the use of ABC is the one “sin” that unites a majority of Catholics according to every major news outlet and even Catholic media. Before this instance, was there ever a dogma that was, flat-out, rejected by lay Catholics to such an extent?

It was 1968. The Pill was approved by the FDA in 1960. And it was the midst of the start of the Sexual - without love - Revolution. “rejected by lay Catholics”? Here is what happened after Humanae Vitae was published:

"On July 29, 1968, a crescendo of suspense was broken and Pope Paul VI publicly issued his long-awaited encyclical Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth).

"In the encyclical, the Holy Father courageously reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that, in the words of the encyclical, “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of new life” (No. 11).

"It caused a firestorm.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

“… an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…”

Pope Paul VI was right and warned what would happen if his words were not heeded. Here we are.

Ed

 

[Memaw]

It was 1968. The Pill was approved by the FDA in 1960. And it was the midst of the start of the Sexual - without love - Revolution. “rejected by lay Catholics”? Here is what happened after Humanae Vitae was published:

"On July 29, 1968, a crescendo of suspense was broken and Pope Paul VI publicly issued his long-awaited encyclical Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth).

"In the encyclical, the Holy Father courageously reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that, in the words of the encyclical, “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of new life” (No. 11).

"It caused a firestorm.

"Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

“… an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…”

Pope Paul VI was right and warned what would happen if his words were not heeded. Here we are.

Ed

And the idea of “form your own conscience” thing has invaded Catholic thinking on all sorts of things. Our Conscience HAS to be rightly formed according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. We have NO right to make up our own conscience to suit our whims and whistles. God Bless, Memaw