Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[Abu]

kalbertone #240 “Catholic”???]
Paul II,cardinal ratzinger can talk till there blue in the face by using words like “definitive”. This tactic doesn^t wash because all the criteria is not met.That^s why JPII can^t declare ex cathedra.He uses sneaky language to squash what most catholics reject.

This poster’s use of the deception “Catholic” is inexcusable. Such denigration of Bl John Paul II as a “sneak”, and Pope Benedict XVI, has no place in this DB and shows the disturbed mind of the poster.

Humanae Vitae doesn’t have any ex cathedra statements

The fact that Humanae Vitae is an ex cathedra declaration does not change the fact that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Pope actualises infallibility also:

Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius:
“8. Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium.
vaxxine.com/pjm/vaticanI.htm

The Infallibility of the doctrine against contraception
The fact of its infallibility was taught by Pius XI in Casti Connubii, when he affirms that “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time”, which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).

the Council teaches “this Gospel that we proclaim has a sacred reverance for the dignity of conscience & its FREEDOM OF CHOICE”, “IN LOYALTY TO CONSCIENCE christians unite…”

The dissenter naturally omits Vatican II, Gaudiem et Spes #16:
“Hence the more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by the objective standards of moral conduct. Yet it often happens that conscience goes astray through ignorance which it is unable to avoid, without thereby losing his dignity. This cannot be said of the man who takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded by the habit of committing sin.”

Further: “In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by Her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, ‘in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth’ (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.” (Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae, 14).

Conscience is not a god unto itself!

Misrepresenting Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, has no place here, either:
51. “Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)”
Note:
14. Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930)

 

[fix]

Bishops must be allowed to speak freely,but are often coerced or silenced.That^s because since Vatican 1 the church has become a autocracy.Vatican II tried to restore the balance with collegiality but JPII & Benedict have refused & turned there back on it.They have also rejected (name removed by moderator)ut from the local church for priests to be bishops & imposed there own like minded people.That^s why there were protests from Vienna,Switzerland,Cologne throughout the 80-s as JPII abused his authority & put his own men in place as other Bishops retired or died.This is a recent practice where the pope alone nominates a Bishop & came early in the 20th century.As far as the other stuff goes there has never been a unanimous statement that this is to be held definitively.Councils barely mention it.However Councils do mantion Usury—Condemned in scripture ps 15:5 Neh 5:10 EX 18:13 18:17 as well as in Councils Arles,Nicae,Carthage,Lateran,2nd Lyon,Vienn in 1311-----but today the Vatican bank charges usury.In late 1800s the holy office issued a statement that those who chage usury at moderate interest are not to be disturbed.As millions of catholics got involved in charging usury due to changed economics & historical factors.The church had to change. The Sense Of The Faithful. Once again Contraception in a limited way if necessary to space births fine.People are living linger,its a industrial & not agriculture age,modern life is more complex

All nonsense. Not worth a reply.

 

[kalbertone]

============An infallible statement by the definition of Vatican 1 must be couched in those terms, the pope must invoke etc etc. The two infallible statements on dogma so far were both preceded by consultation with the world’s bishops and the FAITHFUL, the justfication for that is provided by Blessed J H Newman, with the Latin texts. No moral definition has been formally defined but the Bible’s moral teaching on killing and stealing were, and the old ban on usury which at first banned interest was modified to allow intrerest when money and investing changed, but USURY is still banned in civil and Church morality- excessive as in “loan shark” rates. Irreformable is not akin to infallible, I am convinced that a ban on barrier and chemical conception holds, except for very very few exceptional situations. One was listed in this topic earlier. Lots of ignorance about conscience and such was exposed by clergy and bishops since Humanae Vitae. The proof that he was correct is well documented by today’s rampant divorce, fornication,- gteen pregnancy, adultery and broken marriages abortions as ways of not adding to family size, and of course divorces. Marriage requires work and sacrifice and mutual concern. That is eliminated by use of un-natural contraception, the natural kind demands sacrifice and discipline and mutual reverence. . .

 

[kalbertone]

Your blaming all society^s ills on contraception ? Its funny because at the Council OfAix La Chapelle the council openly admitted abortions & infanticide took place in convents & monasteries by uncelibate clerics.Problems in society have always existed & so has contraception.There was no ex cathedra statement period. There is no evidence from the ordinary magisterium holding that contraception is to be upheld as banned for all time.Vatican 1 was a incomplete council so its teachings have to be understood in the context of Vatican II.At Vatican II the ordinary magisterium it says must agree on a point to be held definitively for all time-----if found in divine revellation.This would automatically dismiis contraception because its nowhere to be found in revellation. Again the Church(the people) don^t find it sinful to use for good reason or just cause to space births.Human Sexuality unlike animals in the forest involves marriage,sacramental love,pair bonding,mutual aid.Its much more than procreation.Most of the time when a male seed is deposited in the vagina,conception DOESN^t take place.Its there for more than just procreation

 

[Cristiano]

Your blaming all society^s ills on contraception ? Its funny because at the Council OfAix La Chapelle the council openly admitted abortions & infanticide took place in convents & monasteries by uncelibate clerics…

Can you please provide reference to which council?

 

[ahs]

Its funny because at the Council OfAix La Chapelle the council openly admitted abortions & infanticide took place in convents & monasteries by uncelibate clerics…

Reference please, along with an explanation of how this would then justify such acts.

Problems in society have always existed & so has contraception.There was no ex cathedra statement period. There is no evidence from the ordinary magisterium holding that contraception is to be upheld as banned for all time.Vatican 1 was a incomplete council so its teachings have to be understood in the context of Vatican II.At Vatican II the ordinary magisterium it says must agree on a point to be held definitively for all time-----if found in divine revellation.This would automatically dismiis contraception because its nowhere to be found in revellation.

Actually, this is incorrect. First, contraception is addressed in Scripture explicity (for example, Gen 38:9-10, Rom 1:25-27, etc…) and implicitly. So, it’s condemned by God. Then there is the fact that the Catechism deals specifically with this topic and condemns contraception. The subjects within the Catechism are part of the Deposit of Faith to which all Catholics are bound to obey. The Catechism has the same binding Authority as the Code of Canon Law. Then you start looking at Apostolic Letters, Encyclicals, etc…

Again the Church(the people) don^t find it sinful to use for good reason or just cause to space births.Human Sexuality unlike animals in the forest involves marriage,sacramental love,pair bonding,mutual aid.Its much more than procreation.Most of the time when a male seed is deposited in the vagina,conception DOESN^t take place.Its there for more than just procreation

You are correct that the marital act is not soley for procreation. Neither that, nor the opinions of the people in the Church, justifies contraception for any reason. The only way a couple can avoid conception withoug offending God is by abstaining from sex.

There is a good book that talks about this topic in depth that you might really enjoy. *Sex Au Naturel *by Patrick Coffin.

 

[searching04]

Of course, with intention and full knowledge, contraception is “grave sin”. The only way to follow Christ is to listen to and know what His Church teaches – not concocted “core” teaching.

So get to know the reality of faith:
The three levels of teaching are:
**1) Dogma – infallible **(Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
**2) Doctrine – infallible *(Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on Ad Tuendam Fidem by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
[ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM]](http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM])
“Feeling” never helps reason nor faith or morals.

Unless and until you take the trouble to really think with the Church through study and reason you will continue to languish in confusion, as will all those others who blame the Church and indulge their own prejudices.

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, 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. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

INTENT
Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on June-16-2006:
“First of fall, it should be pointed out that the prevention of conception is NOT the primary purpose of natural family planning. The primary purpose of NFP is to enable husband and wife to cooperate with God as co-creators as knowingly and as willingly as possible. In so doing, husband and wife deepen their marital bond and their exclusively marital spirituality.
“Secondly, NFP is morally legitimate as a means of prevention of conception for serious reasons and contraception is not because NFP respects and does not violate the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act in God’s created design. Contraception violates that link. Taking insulin and high blood pressure medicine has as its aim assisting God’s created design in the human body. Contraception has no such aim. It aims at violating that design.”
tinyurl.com/cgr8x5c

LaSainte hits it on the head, as usual.

All of this works and makes sense if one can follow, understand, believe, etc, etc the whole bit on unitive, procreative, design, primary purpose, etc, etc. Dogma, doctrine, doctrine again. I’ve read the CCC and CW and HV posts and I’m not confused in the least. I just don’t agree and as someone said, I don’t find a totally compelling argument.

I’m languishing, but it isn’t in confusion…

 

[Bookcat]

Q Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

I would not use the “most” that gets thrown around…

But those who do—

They need to read the words of Pope Benedict XVI (good for all of us to read):

"In the second verse we are given the answer: “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…” (12: 2). The two decisive words of this verse are “transformed” and “renewal”. We must become new people, transformed into a new mode of existence. The world is always in search of novelty because, rightly, it is always dissatisfied with concrete reality. Paul tells us: the world cannot be renewed without new people. Only if there are new people will there also be a new world, a renewed and better world. In the beginning is the renewal of the human being. This subsequently applies to every individual. Only if we ourselves become new does the world become new. This also means that it is not enough to adapt to the current situation. The Apostle exhorts us to non-conformism. In our Letter he says: we should not submit to the logic of our time. We shall return to this point, reflecting on the second text on which I wish to meditate with you this evening. The Apostle’s “no” is clear and also convincing for anyone who observes the “logic” of our world. But to become new how can this be done? Are we really capable of it? With his words on becoming new, Paul alludes to his own conversion: to his encounter with the Risen Christ, an encounter of which, in the Second Letter to the Corinthians he says: “if anyone is in Christ, he is in a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come” (5: 17). This encounter with Christ was so overwhelming for him that he said of it: “I… died…” (Gal 2: 19; cf. Rm 6). He became new, another, because he no longer lived for himself and by virtue of himself, but for Christ and in him. In the course of the years, however, he also saw that this process of renewal and transformation continues throughout life. We become new if we let ourselves be grasped and shaped by the new Man, Jesus Christ. He is the new Man par excellence. In him the new human existence became reality and we can truly become new if we deliver ourselves into his hands and let ourselves be moulded by him.

Paul makes this process of “recasting” even clearer by saying that we become new if we transform our way of thinking. What has been introduced here with “way of thinking” is the Greek term “nous”. It is a complex word. It may be translated as “spirit”, “sentiments”, “reason”, and precisely, also by “way of thinking”. Thus our reason must become new. This surprises us. We might have expected instead that this would have concerned some attitude: what we should change in our behaviour. But no: renewal must go to the very core. Our way of looking at the world, of understanding reality all our thought must change from its foundations. The reasoning of the former person, the common way of thinking is usually directed to possession, well-being, influence, success, fame and so forth. Yet in this way its scope is too limited. Thus, in the final analysis, one’s “self” remains the centre of the world. We must learn to think more profoundly. St Paul tells us what this means in the second part of the sentence: it is necessary to learn to understand God’s will, so that it may shape our own will. This is in order that we ourselves may desire what God desires, because we recognize that what God wants is the beautiful and the good. It is therefore a question of a turning point in our fundamental spiritual orientation. God must enter into the horizon of our thought: what he wants and the way in which he conceived of the world and of me. We must learn to share in the thinking and the will of Jesus Christ. It is then that we will be new people in whom a new world emerges."

–Pope Benedict XVI (continued in next)

 

[Bookcat]

“Paul illustrates the same idea of a necessary renewal of our way of being human in two passages of his Letter to the Ephesians; let us therefore reflect on them briefly. In the Letter’s fourth chapter, the Apostle tells us that with Christ we must attain adulthood, a mature faith. We can no longer be “children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…” (4: 14). Paul wants Christians to have a “responsible” and “adult faith”. The words “adult faith” in recent decades have formed a widespread slogan. It is often meant in the sense of the attitude of those who no longer listen to the Church and her Pastors but autonomously choose what they want to believe and not to believe hence a do-it-yourself faith. And it is presented as a “courageous” form of self-expression against the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, however, no courage is needed for this because one may always be certain of public applause. Rather, courage is needed to adhere to the Church’s faith, even if this contradicts the “logic” of the contemporary world. This is the non-conformism of faith which Paul calls an “adult faith”. It is the faith that he desires. On the other hand, he describes chasing the winds and trends of the time as infantile. Thus, being committed to the inviolability of human life from its first instant, thereby radically opposing the principle of violence also precisely in the defence of the most defenceless human creatures is part of an adult faith. It is part of an adult faith to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for the whole of life as the Creator’s ordering, newly re-established by Christ. Adult faith does not let itself be carried about here and there by any trend. It opposes the winds of fashion. It knows that these winds are not the breath of the Holy Spirit; it knows that the Spirit of God is expressed and manifested in communion with Jesus Christ. However, here too Paul does not stop at saying “no”, but rather leads us to the great “yes”. He describes the mature, truly adult faith positively with the words: “speaking the truth in love” (cf. Eph 4: 15). The new way of thinking, given to us by faith, is first and foremost a turning towards the truth. The power of evil is falsehood. The power of faith, the power of God, is the truth. The truth about the world and about ourselves becomes visible when we look to God. And God makes himself visible to us in the Face of Jesus Christ. In looking at Christ, we recognize something else: truth and love are inseparable. In God both are inseparably one; it is precisely this that is the essence of God. For Christians, therefore, truth and love go together. Love is the test of truth. We should always measure ourselves anew against this criterion, so that truth may become love and love may make us truthful.”

–Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html

 

[Chrono13]

The befuddled Catholic besmircher tries to pit a theologian (Lambruschini) who favoured the liberalization of the infallible doctrine against contraception in Casti Connubii, against an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, which 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; because footnote 14 refers to *Casti Connubii *and further teaching by Pius XI and Paul VI]. So the bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council, approved by the Pope, give this teaching.

Now Lambruschini turns out to be a dissenter.

Tell you what… I’m actually sad you wrote that. It shows how far certain things in Church went. A man who announced Humanae Vitae to the world is “liberal against infallible doctrine”? A man who goes against Vatican II?

Strange point.

Further the theologian is pitted against Pius XI in Casti Connubii, which affirms that “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time” which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).

The problem is that Our Lady’s Assumption’s dogma was taken in it’s original form. Contraception ban introduced by Casti Connubii differed from the previous teaching on historical and theological ground. The original idea that sex is only for procreation was ignored- or better said, bypassed- since it was too controversal. It still stands as a topic mainstream Catholics don’t want to discuss.

We have already seen the teaching of Church Fathers on NFP. This alone disturbs the argumentation of “doctrine handed down from beginning” or “universality of time”.

Over Msgr Lambruschini’s error, “Fr. Lio replies that there was considerable dismay behind the scenes about Msgr. Lambruschini’s remarks, which were purely his own personal initiative, with no official backing whatever. (He had in fact been one of the theologians favouring a relaxation of the traditional doctrine prior to the Encyclical’s publication.) ambruschini was in effect corrected, though not in such a way as to be humiliated publicly.

This argument can not be accepted. Rumors and whispering are not ways of dealing with faithful. A clarification of monsignor’s concrete saying would not humiliate him, nor put in jeopardy his position as doctor of moral theology. This was not done.

Also, many traditionalists do not accept teachings of mentioned encyclical as “traditional” since it allowed NFP. Maybe this path was chosen by Lambruschini as well.

**Fr. Lio points out how, in the report of Lambruschini’s press conference given in the official Vatican newspaper, *L’Osservatore Romano ***(daily Italian edition, 29/30 July 1968, p. 4), his statements to the journalists about the “non-infallibile” nature of *Humanae Vitae *are conspicuous by their absence.

Absence of something in article does not suggest conspicuous issues, just as mentioning of something does not prove it is right. Other editions of L’Osservatore Romano published Lambruschini’s statements, destroying any doubt in that.

Fr. Lio seems to be out of arguments, and is trying to bulid them on trivial points.

He is reported there as saying that the Encyclical reconfirms … the immutable and perennial nature of the doctrine regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception.

”
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html

We are more then ready to discuss this.

 

[Chrono13]

Bishops must be allowed to speak freely,but are often coerced or silenced.That^s because since Vatican 1 the church has become a autocracy.Vatican II tried to restore the balance with collegiality but JPII & Benedict have refused & turned there back on it.They have also rejected (name removed by moderator)ut from the local church for priests to be bishops & imposed there own like minded people.That^s why there were protests from Vienna,Switzerland,Cologne throughout the 80-s as JPII abused his authority & put his own men in place as other Bishops retired or died.This is a recent practice where the pope alone nominates a Bishop & came early in the 20th century.As far as the other stuff goes there has never been a unanimous statement that this is to be held definitively.Councils barely mention it.However Councils do mantion Usury—Condemned in scripture ps 15:5 Neh 5:10 EX 18:13 18:17 as well as in Councils Arles,Nicae,Carthage,Lateran,2nd Lyon,Vienn in 1311-----but today the Vatican bank charges usury.In late 1800s the holy office issued a statement that those who chage usury at moderate interest are not to be disturbed.As millions of catholics got involved in charging usury due to changed economics & historical factors.The church had to change. The Sense Of The Faithful. Once again Contraception in a limited way if necessary to space births fine.People are living linger,its a industrial & not agriculture age,modern life is more complex

There are truths in these words, but we should show more respect to each other, and to Popes. If we are to love our enemies, how much more are we to love our leaders?

It is true that bishops have lost their own freedom to a certain extent. The idea of Magisterium is collective mind of faithful. Mostly-their leaders. However, since every bishop must agree with Pope on every field… well, Magisterium becomes more like a prolonged hand of papal authority. If bishop disagrees, he is a heretic, and is not part of the Magisterium. At one point, a simple layman has to ask what precisely is Magisterium’s role apart from papal role.

Same thing is with natural law. Many people have argued their disagreement regarding terms of “natural” and “artificial” in contraception discussion. The reality is, in current state, something is “natural” if Pope proclaims it so. Again, papal authority is the real point of the argument, not nature itself.

And that is somewhat frustrating, since this authority is rarely practiced in full capacity. And that, in turn, leads to geocentrism. For 200 years.

 

[Abu]

Genuine enquirers and real Catholics requiring useful reasons and apologetic information can easily access the relevant facts and wise discussion for helping others at:
Living Tradition: Organ Of The Roman Theological Forum
rtforum.org/lt/index.html

Particularly helpful on the understanding and preservation of marriage are:

Humanae Vitae And Infallibility
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html#II

The Ex Cathedra Status of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

On Human Sexuality: A Response of the Holy See to Parents
rtforum.org/lt/lt62.html

The Sin of Onan Revisited
rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

Is Natural Family Planning a ‘Heresy’?
rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html

Part II: The Primary End of Marriage in Catholic Theology
rtforum.org/lt/lt144.html

 

[kalbertone]

Can you please provide reference to which council?

The Council of Aix la Cahapelle in the 9nth century

 

[kalbertone]

There are truths in these words, but we should show more respect to each other, and to Popes. If we are to love our enemies, how much more are we to love our leaders?

It is true that bishops have lost their own freedom to a certain extent. The idea of Magisterium is collective mind of faithful. Mostly-their leaders. However, since every bishop must agree with Pope on every field… well, Magisterium becomes more like a prolonged hand of papal authority. If bishop disagrees, he is a heretic, and is not part of the Magisterium. At one point, a simple layman has to ask what precisely is Magisterium’s role apart from papal role.

Same thing is with natural law. Many people have argued their disagreement regarding terms of “natural” and “artificial” in contraception discussion. The reality is, in current state, something is “natural” if Pope proclaims it so. Again, papal authority is the real point of the argument, not nature itself.

And that is somewhat frustrating, since this authority is rarely practiced in full capacity. And that, in turn, leads to geocentrism. For 200 years.

 

[kalbertone]

Having understood the criteria for infallibility above, this mesmerization with the attitude of degrading that fact, and the vital importance of the morality of the marital act, indicates the influence of dissenting theologians who were a dime a dozen after Vatican II and Humanae Vitae, even though Casti Connubii of Pius XI, 1930, was the watershed after the Anglican capitulation to relativism over contraception, which broke the Protestant consensus of agreement with Catholicism from Luther.

The added infidelity was the foolish statement from the U.S. Bishops in 1968, which purported to establish “norms of licit dissent” – an oxymoron – and against Vatican II as well, which taught that even for non-infallible doctrine in Lumen Gentium, 25, “This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra”…when doctrine is proposed or formulated.

We have seen that the CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires that even the category 3 truths, which are non-definitive (non-infallible) require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25), not an assent of faith.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

 

[kalbertone]

"The loyal submission of will & mind " given to a pope on non definitive teachings at Vatican II is based on the words “religious Obsequiem” which also translates to Religious Respect. The ultra conservatives interpret it in the former. A correct interpretation of the Vatican II statement is “religious respect”. Why ? well let^s see-----Popes condemned for heresies in times past,condemnation of democravy,freedom of press,catholics reading the bible & my favourite i believe it was pope gregory the 17 who condemned the railroad in the papal states as satanic & a work of the devil…Priceless. You respect the teaching but in the end your loyalty comes down to conscience(Vatican II).A teaching has to be reviewed before its absorbed(Canonical doctrine of Reception/sense of the faithful)

 

[Chrono13]

Genuine enquirers and real Catholics requiring useful reasons and apologetic information can easily access the relevant facts and wise discussion for helping others at:
Living Tradition: Organ Of The Roman Theological Forum
rtforum.org/lt/index.html

Particularly helpful on the understanding and preservation of marriage are:

Humanae Vitae And Infallibility
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html#II

The Ex Cathedra Status of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

On Human Sexuality: A Response of the Holy See to Parents
rtforum.org/lt/lt62.html

The Sin of Onan Revisited
rtforum.org/lt/lt103.htmll

Is Natural Family Planning a ‘Heresy’?
rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html

Part II: The Primary End of Marriage in Catholic Theology
rtforum.org/lt/lt144.html

Repeating the sources you used in the discussion so far won’t help you, I’m afraid. Most of these things were countered.

For example, Harrison’s article “The Sin of Onan Revisited”. The author writes:* "In answering these questions one must take cognizance of the following significant fact: the penalty subsequently laid down in the law of Moses for a simple refusal to comply with the levirate marriage precept was only a relatively mild public humiliation in the form of a brief ceremony of indignation. The childless widow, in the presence of the town elders, was authorized to remove her uncooperative brother-in-law’s sandal and spit in his face for his refusal to marry her. He was then supposed to receive an uncomplimentary nick-name - "the Unshod."10 But since he nonetheless became sole owner of his deceased brother’s house and goods,11 it is evident that his offence was scarcely considered a serious or criminal one - much less one deserving of death. *

This argument loses much of it’s credibility once we know the woman had duty to report her husband’s misdeed to elders. Tamar (Onan’s wife) did not do so, and was never punished for this.

In other words, both natural and mosaic law required her to report Onan’s acts of contraception to elders. This was not done, and it opens many questions in what text calls “traditional” interpretation. I put quotemarks because traditionalists, including Jewish conservatives, can use this passage against practice of NFP as well. After all, NFP and NBR have effect with destruction of semen in mind.

Text “Is Natural Family Planning a Heresy?” is also problematic. The author suggests that Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae are just repeating the teaching of 19th Century Holy See, and thus there are no contradictions. It utterly bypasses the real point critics deploy, that 19th Century teaching is at odds with Early Church Fathers, and that encyclicals are doing the same. From what it seems, clergy believed (incorrectly) that female fertility circle was unknown prior to modern times. This is why they call “NFP” “recent medical study”. It was not recent, it is at least 2000 years old and using it to control fertility was tagged as contraception.

There is more to write about this, but I don’t have time at the moment.

 

[Abu]

The facts from *Humanae Vitae *10: “From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)”

Note 10 above refers us to Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) #50-51. And what do we find?
“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. 14”
And to what does note 14 refer? To Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1930, which teaches infallibly (#56) that “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.”

Where besmirchers, dissenters, sneerers and jeerers fail is in lacking simple fidelity to the Magisterium rather than the fantasy of a “parallel magisterium” of theologians, and their own concoctions. Of course any comments that disagree with the Magisterial teaching have no value against the infallibility of the Popes teaching faith and morals.

The dissenters set themselves against Christ:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

The Father did send the Holy Spirit at the first Pentecost – acknowledging the infallibility conveyed from the Son.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

I could be a smart a** and say the pope does not refer to daughters of the Church, only sons and so they can practice ABC. But I shall not, except to show an old male-dominated bias, only men count In his talks BXV1 refers to fratelli and sorelli.
. I can however say definitively that the birth prevention methods that are condemned are not infallibly stated as such, they are presumed to be constant teaching, and I absolutely agree with them, and have written on here to justify one very narrowly defined case where exceptional circumstances held. infallible documents and pronouncements require the Vat 1 formula and other criteria. A papal encyclical as such in itseff is not infalllible. I have read all of them and found nothing in any of them that I disagreed with. There are distinctions. Making snide remarks about those who dissent on the very delicate matter of genitality and sexuality does nothing to enhance dialogue and mutual charity. That virtue is the only one we carry to heaven with us and we practice it or ignore it here below.

 

[fix]

I could be a smart a** and say the pope does not refer to daughters of the Church, only sons and so they can practice ABC. But I shall not, except to show an old male-dominated bias, only men count In his talks BXV1 refers to fratelli and sorelli.
. I can however say definitively that the birth prevention methods that are condemned are not infallibly stated as such, they are presumed to be constant teaching, and I absolutely agree with them, and have written on here to justify one very narrowly defined case where exceptional circumstances held. infallible documents and pronouncements require the Vat 1 formula and other criteria. A papal encyclical as such in itseff is not infalllible. I have read all of them and found nothing in any of them that I disagreed with. There are distinctions. Making snide remarks about those who dissent on the very delicate matter of genitality and sexuality does nothing to enhance dialogue and mutual charity. That virtue is the only one we carry to heaven with us and we practice it or ignore it here below.

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 ), 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. , n. 25, 2), they enjoy the same infallibility as the Pope’s Magisterium or that of a Council.

… the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of and (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter)…

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith