Why are condoms wrong?

[choose_to_love]

Good day truthl

I don’t think you are using ‘procreative significance’ in the same way Paul VI was in the referenced paragraph of HV. One cannot minimize the procreative significance by an action if one is using the term in the way the Pope was.

Point two: The couple takes no action to deliberately render the act sterile. If a woman was in a coma but otherwise her reproductive organs were operating normally, she would pass from fertility to infertility and back with every cycle - - is she deliberately frustrating her fertility?

For the NFP couple, every act of intercourse is objectively ordered to procreation because it is unaltered, regardless of the subjective fertility of the couple at the time intercourse takes place. If there is a reason to postpone pregnancy, they do not perform the act that can lead to pregnancy when pregnancy is the likely result. When they do engage in the act, it is unaltered.

tl: won’t elevate Church to Jesus: what about he who hears you, hears Me?

 

[davidv]

Hi choose,

If you read my post #264 you will see the term “procreative significance” is not mine but Pope Paul VI’s in HV 12.

Your point in the last paragraph:

“One cannot on the one hand take a deliberate action by which one frustrates one’s or one’s partner’s fertility and at the same time say they are maintaining the procreative character of the act.”

This is exactly what one does under NFP to avoid pregnancy; the “deliberate action” being the avoidance of sex during the fertile period which really frustrates one’s or one’s partner’s fertility.

Not having sex is “inaction”, not action. Please do not conflate the terms. Periodic continence is not the same as a chemical or barrier that interferes with the natural order of ones fertility.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Mt 11:30). This is what Jesus taught, not what He taught through the church. I have never and never will rubbish the Magisterium of my church, but I will not elevate it to the same level as Jesus. I would request, however, that you allow me to voice mine [opinion], without insults. The Commission advocated limited contraception.

When you reject the doctrine of His Church, you reject Jesus. It is not your Church it is His to which you claim to belong while playing at magisterium. You are attacking Jesus by:

1. Rejecting His authority indisputably conferred on His Magisterium whose authority you continue to ignore although that truth has been offered to you ad infinitum.
2. Trying to separate Jesus form His Church. You only know what Jesus taught because His Church has given His teaching to the world in Her Sacred Scriptures and only She can interpret them in truth, as well as through Tradition and the Magisterium. How can you even claim to be a Catholic (and a lover of truth) with such obfuscation and bluster that She is wrong on contraception!
3. Trying to dictate to Christ’s Church and justify your dissent. Neither you nor any Commission can dictate to Christ’s Church. Why do they wish for tolerance of evil? We have Fr Thomas Dubay, S.M., who affirms that “the New Testament is remarkably intolerant of people entertaining private views regarding doctrine and morality contrary to the teaching of the ekklesia’s leaders.” (Authenticity, Ignatius 1997, p 189).

The problem of dissent became so acute that in 1990 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a special instruction dealing with the issue. The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian rejects the view that “the documents of the Magisterium reflect nothing more than a debatable theology” and criticizes the “ ‘parallel Magisterium’ of theologians” that purports to operate in opposition to and in competition with the Magisterium of the pastors of the Church.
The document concludes: “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent. In fact this freedom does not indicate at all freedom with regard to the truth but signifies the free self-determination of the person in conformity with his moral obligation to accept the truth. The act of faith is a voluntary act because man, saved by Christ the Redeemer and called by him to be an adopted son, cannot adhere to God unless, drawn by the Father” (Jn 6:44), he offer God the rational homage of his faith (no. 36). Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Assent and Dissent, OSV. CD].

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

“It is clear that the crisis in the Church today is not pitting one argument against another. The crisis consists in a conflict of authorities. And that crisis has become progressively more complicated. Catholics who took the word of the theologians that they could practice contraception, later had to take their word that they could defy the Magisterium and remain loyal Catholics. Soon they were at ease with their malformed consciences.” *What Went Wrong With Vatican II?, *Ralph McInerny, Sophia Press 1998, p 155].

It is time to face reality.

 

[Truthlover]

Abu,

Even I have trouble understanding what I wrote when you jumble up my quotes.

The Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes, states that:

“let it be recognized that all the faithful, whether clerics or laity, possess a lawful freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought and of expressing their mind with humility and fortitude in those matters on which they enjoy competence.” (No 62)

This was agreed in Ecumenical Council with over 2500 bishops, including the Pope, thus I will continue to adhere to this teaching.

In his Letter to the International Congress on the Theology of Vatican II, Sept 21, 1966, Pope Paul VI quoted the passage above from G & S and went on to say:

“It is precisely this lawful freedom which is the foundation of theological progress.”

Part of an Address by Bishop Kevin Dowling CSsR tells us that:

Fr Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope, when he was a peritus, or expert, at Vatican II: “Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.”

The full Address can be found at: thetablet.co.uk/article/14990

All of the above: Council, Popes, bishops and peritus are against the “totalitarianism” which, Abu, you appear to support. However, in the Spirit of Vatican II I will continue to support your right to state and defend your theological point of view.

 

[Truthlover]

choose and davidv,

When a married couple decide to make love there is nothing which interferes with the “natural order of ones fertility” as much or as effectively as abstinence in order not to procreate.

 

[bingbang]

To answer the original question, condoms are wrong because the church says so. Also they promote acts that the church is against, such as pre marital sex. Anyway, if the church had decided that condoms were OK I am sure that all of the people on this board would be arguing why it is moral to use condoms.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

The sexual act is the mutual giving of self in collaboration with Gods will to create life. Giving being the act of love. While a couple may choose to use NFP it is not intended to be used as birth control, and each couple that practices it usually determines at each act if they choose to be open to life or not.

As Lucy discusses it is very hard at times because she and her husband have a heightened sense of attraction during her fertile periods. This becomes a discussion each time they choose not to have sex. At each event they are sacrificing to each other a pleasurable act, and laying this sacrifice on Christs alter. This is NOT selfish.

To have sex at this time using contraception would be to seek the pleasure with the intention of avoiding the consequences. This would be an inherently selfish act, one done for self. Someday, and at some future point in time, they may very well decide to risk the consequences and have sex during the fertile period and if Lucy was to become pregnant some consequences might ensue, that is the nature of the act, which in itself is good, but could cause harm.

If she was to become pregnant she would be then sacrificing herself for her husband and possibly for a child. If she was to keep the child and during the pregnancy have an early delivery and herself die, I think most people would think of her keeping the child and giving the child a chance at life. They would call her charitable, not selfish. Those women that carry a child, when risk is present more then normal are usually called hero’s.

I would have concerns as a husband if my wife was warned not to have children and I would not want to put my wife in that position and I would freely sacrifice and fore go sex in order to try and not put her in that position. The fact that I would be willing to abstain is a selfless act in and of itself. Then again I could tell my wife “what the heck lets use a condom”. My intention would then be self pleasure and yet the consequences for the act are the same as if we had sex during the fertile period, but both her and my intentions would be selfish if we had been using a condom.

To me “God is Love” pretty much sums up contraception. It is contra-life. It is a NO to God’s plan, but a yes to the pleasure.

I personally agree with the Church, although for much of my life I did not. I would have to say after reading Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubii, Donum Vitae, and Gaudum et Spes that my understanding and acceptance of the teaching grew. Once I had read what Martin Luther thought of contraception I was convinced that Pope Paul had it right in Humanae Vitea.

Besides these encyclicals you might also find these sites useful:

catholicinsight.com/online/church/humanae/article_857.shtml
goodmorals.org/smith6.htm
envoymagazine.com/familyplanning.htm (discusses Lucy’s situation)

I can no longer say to each his own as the truth is simply the truth. I will pray that you come to understand why, although for some it is very hard to accept.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
from Fr.Stephen F. Torraco all I can say is that anyone who believes “the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning” cannot be considered rational when one is talking about NAC [condomistic intercourse]

How fatuous, and narrow, against the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC). You are so mired in your condom mania that you reject the obvious – that deliberately separating the procreative end of sexuality by condoms or other means from the unitive end does result in all sorts of aberrations. The contrast of your assumptions against reality is seen from the deranged conclusions that actually result as seen below, that wallow consistently in the idea of “pleasure”, regardless.

**See Live Australian Debate on Consensual Animal Sex at **blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Professor Peter Singer: “It is a fact that there is sexual contact between some humans and animals. I was raising the question why we have such a taboo on this. Sometimes it involves cruelty and the infliction of power and dominance on an animal, and clearly I oppose that. There can be occasions, I don’t know how much vivid description you want.
Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there’s no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.”
[Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective].

In invoking Thomas Aquinas on conscience, Newman observed that “since conscience is not a judgment upon any speculative truth, any abstract doctrine…it cannot come into direct collision with the Church’s or the pope’s infallibility, which is engaged only on general propositions or the condemnation of propositions simply particular.”

It’s time to face reality and give up the cafeteria mentality.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
Gaudium et Spes, states that: “let it be recognized that all the faithful, whether clerics or laity, possess a lawful freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought and of expressing their mind with humility and fortitude in those matters on which they enjoy competence.” (No 62) n his Letter to the International Congress on the Theology of Vatican II, Sept 21, 1966, Pope Paul VI quoted the passage above from G & S and went on to say: “It is precisely this lawful freedom which is the foundation of theological progress.”

Typical of the dissenter, and no lover of truth, to maul Vatican II, and Pope Paul VI, by twisting a false meaning out of truth to try to justify dissent and sin, infallibly defined as “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, Pius XI, 1930).

And what are the limits of even the clerical theologian, much less the laity with regard to doctrine, versus opinions and prejudices on doctrine and conscience which he equates with “freedom of thought”, and is pedalling contrary to the “lawful freedom of inquiry”?

Face Reality
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html
*Donum Veritatis *(On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian), C.D.F. 1990:
“23. When the Magisterium proposes ‘in a definitive way’ truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)
“36. The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent. In fact this freedom does not indicate at all freedom with regard to the truth but signifies the free self-determination of the person in conformity with his moral obligation to accept the truth.
“38. Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.

“The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme Magisterium of conscience in opposition to the Magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised(38).”

Notes
(22) The text of the new *Profession of Faith *(cf. n. 15 ) makes explicit the kind of assent called for by these teachings in these terms: “Firmiter etiam amplector et retineo. …”. (15) Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, n. 25; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decl. Mysterium Ecclesiae, nn. 3-5: AAS 65 ( 1973) 400-404; Professio fidei et Iusiurandum fidelitatis AAS 81 (1989) 104 f.]
(38) Cf. Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Paterna cum benevolentia, n. 4: AAS 67 (1975)15.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
Fr Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope, when he was a peritus, or expert, at Vatican II: “Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.”

A peritus at Vatican II has no status against the doctrine of Vatican II, all faithful Catholics should know that, but you already know (post #229) that Cardinal Ratzinger affirms that:
“It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at – in fact one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place by having stifled the protest of the anamnesis of being.” [meaning: the original memory of the good]. “The guilt lies much deeper – not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience, but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal prompting of Truth.”
“For Newman…the centrality of ….conscience is linked to the prior centrality of truth and can only be understood from this vantage point. I would say that a man of conscience is one who never acquires tolerance, well-being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion at the expense of truth.” (The Priest, Autumn, 1993).

Your prejudice has no credibility, yet you war against Christ and His Church to support a grave sin.

1. Even non-definitive (non-infallible) doctrine requires the “loyal submission of will and intellect…in a special way…” (Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, 25.
2. Pope John Paul II warned in *Veritatis Splendor *(The Splendour Of Truth, 1993)
   #62. Certainly, in order to have a “good conscience” (1 Tim 1:5), man must seek the truth and must make judgments in accordance with that same truth. As the Apostle Paul says, the conscience must be “confirmed by the Holy Spirit” (cf. Rom 9:1); it must be “clear” (2 Tim 1:3); it must not “practise cunning and tamper with God’s word”, but “openly state the truth” (cf. 2 Cor 4:2). On the other hand, the Apostle also warns Christians: “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2).

#63. It is never acceptable to confuse a “subjective” error about moral good with the “objective” truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment of an erroneous conscience.108 Thus, before feeling easily justified in the name of our conscience, we should reflect on the words of the Psalm: “Who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults” (Ps 19:12). There are faults which we fail to see but which nevertheless remain faults, because we have refused to walk towards the light (cf. Jn 9:39-41).

#64. … ‘freedom of conscience’ is never freedom ‘from’ the truth but always and only freedom ‘in’ the truth because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the primordial act of faith…helping (conscience), especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

1. “The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because She obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception.” (Pope John Paul II, *Evangelium Vitae *#13, 1995).

Note
108. Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, q. 17, a. 4,

 

[Truthlover]

Abu,

Fr Ratzinger was a peritus at Vatican II and what a wonderful statement he made:

“Over the Pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.”

References can be found at: thetablet.co.uk/article/14990

I am glad to see that you agree with the above as you quote Cardinal Ratzinger as affirming:

“It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at – in fact one must do so.”

It is good to see that Fr/Cardinal Ratzinger is consistent on this point and I trust he remains so as Pope considering that this is one of the great moral traditions of the church:

“In the final analysis, conscience is inviolable and no man is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience, as the moral tradition of the Church attests.”

See post #243 for a reference for this quote and the Church’s teaching on formation of conscience.

This is also completely in keeping with the beautiful truth taught in the Second Vatican Council Document Gaudium et Spes No.16:

“In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.”

The Holy Spirit can be clearly heard in this magnificent statement.

Your highlighting of Veritatis Splendor #64 is particularly useful as this section of the encyclical emphasises how the Magisterium helps in the formation of conscience:

“Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium.”

“It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians.”

“The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

Readers will note how John Paul II insists that the Church “helps” in forming conscience and is “at the service of conscience”. This is completely in keeping with Gaudium et Spes.

 

[Truthlover]

And what are the limits of even the clerical theologian, much less the laity with regard to doctrine

Abu, are you saying here that clerical theologians are “better” than lay theologians? I am not saying you are, it is just not very clear and I am seeking clarification.

 

[Truthlover]

Abu,

Regarding theologians I think it is important here to listen to Cardinal Suenens in his 1968 book Coresponsibility in the Church. Note that it was written just after the experience of Vatican II.

Commenting on the original curia documents being thrown out by the Council he writes:

“The shift from a theology which could be summarily called “of the Roman school” to a theology “of a universal council” was, to an appreciable degree, the work of theological experts who labored on the conciliar commissions, or on their fringe. Their collaboration contributed the wealth of a thought which was large, nuanced and open to the modern view of problems. The whole movement of renewal on the fields of biblical, patristic, dogmatic, moral and liturgical studies thus entered fully into this healthy and varied brewing of ideas. But the contribution was not made without pain. Up to the moment of the council, certain theologians of international reputation were considered suspect. They had accepted this suffering nobly for the sake of the church, preparing by their labor and their pain for the hour when the deepest and fullest truth would be recognised.” Page 141

The Cardinal goes on to say:

“The seriousness of such divisions is appreciated when we recall that every governing body is dominated by the vision which animates those who direct it: the Roman curia is no exception to this law.” Pgs 141-142

This shows that the Roman curia does not always speak for the Magisterium, being the bishops and/or the Pope. It also demonstrates that to be a “suspect” theologian can be a badge of honour. This is one reason why Fr Ratzinger stated that “conscience…… establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism.”

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
Your continued fatuous rejection of the infallible teaching of Christ through His Church shows your open dissent: “Our mouth proclaims anew: 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.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 1930).

You quote Veritatis Splendor #64, but are blind to the section which exposes your “human deceit”:
“The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

You conveniently omit your major problem of confusion, and substitute “feeling” for reason and faith:
“#63. **It is never acceptable to confuse a “subjective” error about moral good with the “objective” truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment of an erroneous conscience.108 Thus, before feeling easily justified in the name of our conscience, we should reflect on the words of the Psalm: “Who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults” (Ps 19:12). There are faults which we fail to see but which nevertheless remain faults, because we have refused to walk towards the light **(cf. Jn 9:39-41).

to be a “suspect” theologian can be a badge of honour.

Not when the theologian is a dissenter as identified by the C.D.F.
Donum Veritatis (On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian), C.D.F. 1990:
“36. The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent. In fact this freedom does not indicate at all freedom with regard to the truth but signifies the free self-determination of the person in conformity with his moral obligation to accept the truth."
“38. Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good."

You substitute, ad nauseam, feelings, likes, preferences and wishful thinking – blinded by human deceit – to try to subvert the clear infallible Magisterial doctrine against contraception.

 

[casey_zia]

Regarding theologians I think it is important here to listen to Cardinal Suenens in his 1968 book Coresponsibility in the Church. Note that it was written just after the experience of Vatican II.

Why should we listen to Cardinal Suenens? He did not hold what the Church teaches about married life, and opposed Humanae Vitae. His dissent, no matter how well-written, remains dissent. There are many priests, bishops, cardinals, theologians who also wrote after the “experience of Vatican II” and did not sway from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Truthlover]

Abu and casey zia,

In the book Open to God, Open to the World, Cardinal Franz Konig stated:

“Humanae Vitae plunged the Church into a credibility crisis and the developments in the Church’s teaching on sexual morality since have been tragic. Guidelines are certainly necessary, but the significance of the personal conscience must not be overlooked. Two months after Humanae Vitae was published, in October 1968, the Austrian bishops’ conference, like several other bishops’ conferences at the time, published a declaration, the so-called “Maria Trost Declaration”, emphasizing the significance of the sincerely informed conscience in the matter of birth control. I firmly reject recent accusations from certain ultra-conservative churchmen who say that the Austrian bishops’ declaration threw people into confusion. As president of the Austrian bishops’ conference at the time, I naturally discussed the text of the declaration with Pope Paul VI, and later also with Pope John Paul II. Neither raised any objections concerning the text, ahich they would have been obliged to do if it had contained any serious errors.” Open to God, Open to the World, Cardinal Franz Konig, ed Christa Pongratz-Lippitt, Burns and Oates, London, 2005, Pg 28

It is clear neither Pope Paul VI or John Paul II saw HV as infallible. On the same page the Cardinal writes:

“In their declaration, the Austrian bishops’ particularly emphasized the positive role model of marriage and responsible parenthood that Paul VI had underlined in his encyclical, but pointed out that the Pope had not spoken infallibly.”

On page 29 the Cardinal writes, referring to Pope Paul VI:

“He himself emphasized that exclusion of the contraceptive pill was not a dogma and that the encyclical was not infallible. He cut out passages that referred to mortal sin and in no way suggested that absolution must always be refused.”

I am sure that Abu will consider the Cardinal as just another dissenter as were the “Austrian bishops’ conference, like several other bishops’ conferences at the time”. However, some might consider that all the bishops, including Cardinal Suenens, have a say in the Magisterium.

 

[Abu]

Truthlover
I am sure that Abu will consider the Cardinal as just another dissenter as were the “Austrian bishops’ conference, like several other bishops’ conferences at the time”. However, some might consider that all the bishops, including Cardinal Suenens, have a say in the Magisterium.

As you should know bishops’ conferences are not part of the Magisterium, which reality is the individual bishop teaching what the Magisterium teaches – each bishop in his own Church teaches the same faith (and maintains the same fundamental discipline as the other bishops do in theirs), and through the Popes and the Ecumenical Councils approved by the Popes. What “some might consider” as “a say in the Magisterium” is pure waffle.

**Australian Bishops in 1976 taught faithfully: **
“The Episcopal Conference informs the Directors of Catholic Family Planning Centres and Priests connected with this work, that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church contained in Humanae Vitae that ‘every action…to render procreation impossible’ is ‘intrinsically evil’….binds the conscience of all without ambiguity and excludes the possibility of a probable opinion opposed to this teaching.”

In describing the lonely and valiant fight of St. Athanasius against the Arians, Newman pointed out that it was the laity, not the hierarchy, who did more to protect the Deposit of the Faith when the whole world woke up to find itself Arian.

Saints Augustine and Escriva have much to say about lax bishops!

the Cardinal writes, referring to Pope Paul VI: “He himself emphasized that exclusion of the contraceptive pill was not a dogma

Of course the doctrine against contraception (including the “Pill”) is not a dogma – because it is a defined doctrine – infallible because it is an infallible exercise of the ordinary Magisterium as declared by the 1870 dogma in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I. The infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium has been reiterated by Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, 25. Thus the definitive declarations against contraception in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930) and *Humanae Vitae *(Paul VI, 1968) are infallible.

Infallible because of the universality of time – the Church has always taught the immorality of contraception.

Infallible because of the universality of the present – because an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, declared unequivocally that “In questions of birth regulation, the sons of the Church, faithful to these principles, are forbidden to use methods disapproved of by the teaching authority of the Church in its interpretation of the divine law.” Gaudium et Spes, 51; footnote 14 refers to *Casti Connubii *and further teaching by Pius XI and Paul VI].

The argument from the universality of time, for instance, was used by Pius XII in the proclaiming the Dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption – it had been taught through many centuries – which proclaimed its infallibility:
“…from the universal agreement of the Church’s ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven…is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church.”

It is clear neither Pope Paul VI or John Paul II saw HV as infallible.

Clear as mud. How deceived can you get?
“Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.” (Humanae Vitae, 14).

“The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because She obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception.” (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae #13).

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

 

[choose_to_love]

Not sure if Abu already posted this link re Card. Ratzinger and conscience:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth—at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence. For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject’s own truth, which would be reduced to the subject’s sincerity. No door or window would lead from the subject into the broader world of being and human solidarity. Whoever thinks this through will come to the realization that no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances. This should necessarily lead to the conclusion that placing freedom in opposition to authority overlooks something. There must be something deeper, if freedom and, therefore, human existence are to have meaning. emphasis added

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Not sure if Abu already posted this link re Card. Ratzinger and conscience:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth—at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence. For judgments of conscience can contradict each other. Thus there could be at best the subject’s own truth, which would be reduced to the subject’s sincerity. No door or window would lead from the subject into the broader world of being and human solidarity. Whoever thinks this through will come to the realization that no real freedom exists then and that the supposed pronouncements of conscience are but the reflection of social circumstances. This should necessarily lead to the conclusion that placing freedom in opposition to authority overlooks something. There must be something deeper, if freedom and, therefore, human existence are to have meaning. emphasis added

Trying to gage everything according to conscience alone just won’t work. We would all be under the yoke of relativism. I see this a lot these days… “Well I don’t see anything wrong with it”… from whose perspective. From a self centered one? From the loss of a soul, either through denial or outright death. Once we get into the relativistic tracks they are very hard to get out of.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Abu and casey zia,

In the book Open to God, Open to the World, Cardinal Franz Konig stated:

“Humanae Vitae plunged the Church into a credibility crisis and the developments in the Church’s teaching on sexual morality since have been tragic. Guidelines are certainly necessary, but the significance of the personal conscience must not be overlooked… .

Not in my opinion. I am sure that you can find consciences that are spotless for those that have committed the most severe crimes. Right and wrong truly is black and white, and consequences result from choosing the wrong one.

A man runs a red light because he is rushing to the hospital. His conscience is clear, but he T-bones a sedan and kills someone. And the person he was taking to the hospital dies. His conscience is still clear, but he is angry that the sedan got in his way. He does not care about the child he killed he cares about his wife, but feels no remorse just anger.

According to the everything is ok as long as your conscience is good with it. He is GOOD to GO. I don’t buy it…

HV was the straw that broke my protestant back… pretty prophetic. I believe that in the next decade we will be able to link contraception to our illegal Immigration problems as assuredly as cancer to smoking or drug prices to legality. Although I now firmly believe that HV is correct their was I time I did not. That being said Supply and demand is kind of like E=MC2… just one of those laws…Pay me now or pay me later… Actions of man, especially when selfish, have consequences…The older I get the more I am forced to acknowledge this…