Why is Humanae Vitae not infallible?

[Memaw]

To be infallible by Ordinary Universal magisterial, there would have to be a decree by the collegial body or the Pope showing that there is universal teaching on this matter and that they intend it to be binding forever. The individual decrees by the Popes are binding, but they don’t say if they are binding through religious submission, or through infallibility. Since Canon Law says decrees are only taken as infallible when clearly such, the teachings of HV therefore don’t appear to be infallible. God bless

Pray to the Holy Spirit and then read Post # 8 VERY carefully, God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

“6. However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church. Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions.”

I’m not seeing that here. All he says is that this has been the teaching and he now intends to teach it again. John Paul II said “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” The canon law defines infallible doctrines as definitively held. So whether JPII was confirming a unanimous decision by the hierarchy as a whole (Ratzinger’s opinion) or teaching on his own, from the terminology of his pontificate we know that this was infallible. Paul VI doesn’t make clear that he was making a judgment that was irrevocable. Again, he can settle an issue and keep it off the table for discussion and yet not teach infallibly. That’s how I see this. Not that another Pope shouldn’t teach this infallibly

Who’s right, the commission or the POPE. I stay with the POPE. God Bless, Memaw

 

[thinkandmull]

The requirement is “a definitive act” by the Supreme Pontiff to demonstrate infallibility on faith or morals. Can. 749 §1.].
See *Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità *(Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1986) by Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M.
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
A category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. Ad Tuendam Fidem better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility including the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

Humanae Vitae #6:
“Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions.”

H.V. #14:
Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. 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.
[My emphases].

Thus, the clarity has been shown and it is the confused who would question the Church and the integrity of the faith and scholarship of Dr David Gregson, Fr Brian Harrison, and Fr Lio.

Those writers are just private writers. A Pope can settle an issue without infallibility. That’s what religious submission is. As you say, Paul VI only said he’d “intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions”. Then he made his judgment, but he did not use Vatican II’s language on infallibility. He did not say he “proclaims by a definitive act”. He could have, but didn’t. So the evidence is lacking on to whether this was settling the issue for our time (religious submission) or with the charism of infallibility

 

[neophyte]

As you say, Paul VI only said he’d “intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions”.

But he didn’t only say that. He specifically and clearly said that he intended to rectify the problem that the judgement of the commission was not definitive. Logically, the only way to rectify the problem of non-definitiveness is to make a definitive judgement.

AThen he made his judgment, but he did not use Vatican II’s language on infallibility. He did not say he “proclaims by a definitive act”. He could have, but didn’t. So the evidence is lacking on to whether this was settling the issue for our time (religious submission) or with the charism of infallibility

This assumes a requirement that there is a specific language that must be used. Is there any evidence that such a requirement exists?

 

[thinkandmull]

Ad Tuendam Fidem has nothing to do with clarifying how a certain decision on a theological question in the realm of religious submission differs in expression from this example of Paul VI. If Paul VI truly wanted to bind the Church by religious submission alone on this question, how would he language have been any different from how it is now?

 

[Abu]

Abu Post #20
Thus, the clarity has been shown and it is the confused who would question the Church and the integrity of the faith and scholarship of Dr David Gregson, Fr Brian Harrison, and Fr Lio.

Thinkandmull #23
Those writers are just private writers.

The poster, unable to refute the reality, fails to acknowledge the worth and fidelity of such stalwarts of the faith by his label of “private writer”. Those so misled fail to recognise the value of faith and reason – but St John Paul II specifically recognised the immense contribution of Fr Lio by specifically rewarding his immense scholarship specifically in Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità as Fr Harrison records:
“….in a very uncommon gesture of warm personal commendation given to an individual theologian for a particular work, the Holy Father John Paul II had a message drafted in fine calligraphy and sent to Fr. Lio with his own handwritten signature. Fr. Lio kindly gave me a photocopy of this document, which reads (in translation from the Italian original):

“To the Rev. Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M., with deep thanks for the presentation of your volume Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità, and with warm appreciation for the sentiments of sincere adherence to the Magisterium of the Church which have always guided your activity of research and teaching: I impart to you from my heart a special Apostolic Blessing, a pledge of continuing heavenly assistance towards a fervent perseverance in the love of Truth and the service of souls.
From the Vatican, 31 July 1986.
(Signed) John Paul PP. II.

“Those words from the Successor of Peter should certainly give a much firmer impetus to study Fr. Lio’s book than anything which might be said by this reviewer.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html

 

[neophyte]

The poster, unable to refute the reality, fails to acknowledge the worth and fidelity of such stalwarts of the faith by his label of “private writer”.

I appreciate your contributions thus far, but the game of dueling experts has a limited usefulness. Perhaps we can move on? I’ve asked specific questions about the actual text of the document, and I’d like them to not be overlooked.

 

[thinkandmull]

I appreciate your contributions thus far, but the game of dueling experts has a limited usefulness. Perhaps we can move on? I’ve asked specific questions about the actual text of the document, and I’d like them to not be overlooked.

I agree that private opinions don’t change the Canon Law that says something is only infallible when it is clearly not an exercise of fallible binding authority in settling a question.

What was the particular question you had about the text??

 

[neophyte]

What was the particular question you had about the text??

See post #24.

 

[thinkandmull]

A decision can be definite in the sense that it must be accepted, but that doesn’t make it infallible. To be infallible the decision must be distinct from a fallible binding decision. The use of the word “definite” by Canon Law and Vatican II would show this, as the word “define” did in the past. Paul VI did not use that language, although John Paul II did on female priests

 

[Abu]

neophyte #1
It looks obvious to me that this satisfies all of the elements given in Lumen Gentium for an exercise of papal infallibility. So why is it not considered to be one?

Those placing themselves above the Magisterium make their own mirages. Who claims that it is not “infallible”?

Is it because the teaching was already infallible under the Ordinary Universal magisterium?
If it is already infallible through the Ordinary Magisterium, there would be no reason to do other than to refer to that unless the infallibility was extraordinary.
If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be true that if the teaching wasn’t already infallible, HV would have made it so because all of the elements are present?

Thanks for any insight you can give.

The extraordinary Magisterium was in fact exercised as Dr David M. Gregson explains.

In Casti Connubii, Pius XI, declared “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].

Pius XI in Casti Connubii, refers to the “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).

Furthermore, it is infallible because of the “universality of the present” — because 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]. So the bishops of the Church in Ecumenical Council, approved by the Pope, give this teaching.

In fact, *Casti Connubii *of Pope Pius IX, 1930, infallibly condemned contraception (#56) “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.”

Pope St John Paul II also firmly stated that the ban on contraception “cannot be questioned by the Catholic theologian,” much to the consternation of Father Charles Curran and his dissenting brethren.[14]
[14] “Pope Warns Theologians not to Question Ban on Contraception.” The Wanderer, November 24, 1988, Page 1.

How could St John Paul II laud Fr Lio’s Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità as he did, if he disagreed with his main conclusion that Humanae Vitae contains an ex cathedra definition?

 

[thinkandmull]

A Pope can forbid dissent from a teaching that is fallible. Vatican II said that those teachings must be followed, but did not add an infallible statement to it. Pius XII did not say that a consistent teaching automatically was infallible. Agreement by the hierarchy on a definite teaching must be expressed by the Pope or all of them in a document so that we know there is unanimous agreement by them that this should be a definite teaching. Finally, the following language “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" would be consistent with a fallible declaration intended to bind the Church to religious assent. Therefore contraception is not clearly an infallible doctrine

 

[neophyte]

A decision can be definite in the sense that it must be accepted, but that doesn’t make it infallible. To be infallible the decision must be distinct from a fallible binding decision. The use of the word “definite” by Canon Law and Vatican II would show this, as the word “define” did in the past. Paul VI did not use that language, although John Paul II did on female priests

That’s it? All you have is bare assertion? Paul IV said he intended to corrct the fact that the judgement of the commission wasn’t definitive, and you quibble that he didn’t use the word “definite”. rolleyes Please, you needn’t reply further, you’ve destroyed your credibility.

 

[neophyte]

The extraordinary Magisterium was in fact exercised…

Please, Abu, stop hijacking the thread. I’m trying to understand the reasoning of those who hold the opposite opinion.

 

[thinkandmull]

That’s it? All you have is bare assertion? Paul IV said he intended to corrct the fact that the judgement of the commission wasn’t definitive, and you quibble that he didn’t use the word “definite”. rolleyes Please, you needn’t reply further, you’ve destroyed your credibility.

Correct the commission with fallible or infallible authority?

 

[Abu]

Thinkandmull #32
contraception is not clearly an infallible doctrine

1. Another revered Catholic theologian has explained the Church’s condemnation of contraception as infallible.
   **CONTRACEPTION: FATAL TO THE FAITH by Fr. John Hardon **
   ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CONFATAL.TXT
   'In His final commission to the Apostles, Jesus told them to teach
   all nations, “to observe all that I have commanded you.”

“This deserves to be emphasized. Why? Because there are nominally
Catholic writers who are claiming that the Church’s gift of infallibility
extends only to her teaching of the faith. It does not, so the claim goes,
include grave moral obligations like the prohibition of adultery, sodomy
or contraception. That is not true.”

2) From Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
'There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience.” ’
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

**3) Pontifical Council for the Family: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception” **
“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.35”
[35] Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, Feb. 12, 1997, no. 4, at www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCFVADE.HTM.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6719

**4) Thursday, April 2, 2009
Is the Catholic Church’s Teaching on Contraception Infallible? **
"Even though the Church has professed this teaching for ages, and over the past 80 years has clarified and solidified this teaching we still have dissenters in the Catholic Church who claim that this teaching is not infallible. Finally in Feb of 1997 the Vatican grew tired of dissenters railing against constant, absolute, immutable truth and released a document to address dissenters in the Church who sought to destroy the image of God in marriage. For this reason the Vademecum for Confessors was penned by the Pontifical Council for the Family. The document opens with the defense of the family and marriage. "
catholicchampion.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/is-catholic-churchs-teaching-on.html

Thus there is no real question as to the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception.
As iconoclast William James stated: “Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

 

[Memaw]

1. Another revered Catholic theologian has explained the Church’s condemnation of contraception as infallible.
   **CONTRACEPTION: FATAL TO THE FAITH by Fr. John Hardon **
   ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CONFATAL.TXT
   'In His final commission to the Apostles, Jesus told them to teach
   all nations, “to observe all that I have commanded you.”

“This deserves to be emphasized. Why? Because there are nominally
Catholic writers who are claiming that the Church’s gift of infallibility
extends only to her teaching of the faith. It does not, so the claim goes,
include grave moral obligations like the prohibition of adultery, sodomy
or contraception. That is not true.”

2) From Catholic Answers:
catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
'There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience.” ’
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

**3) Pontifical Council for the Family: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception” **
“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.35”
[35] Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, Feb. 12, 1997, no. 4, at www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCFVADE.HTM.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6719

**4) Thursday, April 2, 2009
Is the Catholic Church’s Teaching on Contraception Infallible? **
"Even though the Church has professed this teaching for ages, and over the past 80 years has clarified and solidified this teaching we still have dissenters in the Catholic Church who claim that this teaching is not infallible. Finally in Feb of 1997 the Vatican grew tired of dissenters railing against constant, absolute, immutable truth and released a document to address dissenters in the Church who sought to destroy the image of God in marriage. For this reason the Vademecum for Confessors was penned by the Pontifical Council for the Family. The document opens with the defense of the family and marriage. "
catholicchampion.blogspot.com.au/2009/04/is-catholic-churchs-teaching-on.html

Thus there is no real question as to the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception.
As iconoclast William James stated: “Many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

AMEN and God Bless, Memaw

 

[Abu]

The reason for, and significance of, Humanae Vitae needs to be better understood.

Vatican II’s Gaudiem et Spes, 51, specifically rules out any possibility of changing the infallible doctrine against contraception in Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI, 1930, by the footnote 14 reference to the crucial passage, and this on the personal intervention of the Pope himself.

The enormous significance of this is that there would be no contradiction of Pius XI’s definition against unnatural methods of regulating births as intrinsically evil.

Thus the only question which Pope Paul VI gave to be considered as legitimately debatable by the Theological Commission which he set up was the effect and use of the new chemical in the “Pill”, with no possibility of any change against Casti Connubii. His *Humanae Vitae *then clearly reflected this grave error by the majority in the Theological Commission.

The reason for the Commission was only to examine the effects of the “Pill”.

“It is often said that Paul VI was himself in doubt about the doctrinal point at issue for some time and took a long while to make up his mind. However, Fr. Lio told the present writer that the Pope assured him personally, at around the time Humanae Vitae was issued, that he had never at any stage been in doubt about the intrinsic evil of contraception. The long time lapse was due only to the need to ponder carefully the precise manner in which this truth - which had already been authoritatively settled by Pius XI in* Casti Connubii* (1930) - could best be reaffirmed.

“In support of this private information given by Paul VI to Fr. Lio is the documented fact of his personal intervention at the conclusion of Vatican II, when Gaudium et Spes was in the process of being finalized. There was division and uncertainty amongst the Council Fathers, with the result that the drafting Commission wanted to leave the question open in this new magisterial statement. However, as Fr. Lio’s book documents, Paul VI responded to a request from Cardinal Ottaviani and Fr. Lio himself by intervening personally, against the previous wish of the majority of those drafting the document, to insist on the inclusion of a reference to the crucial passage of *Casti Connubii *in footnote 14 to Gaudium et Spes: 51. This is highly significant, because it shows that the Pope was insisting (and made the Council insist) that whatever future statements he might make about contraception, everyone could know in advance that there would be no going back on Pius XI’s firm decision against unnatural methods of birth control as intrinsically evil. So much for Paul VI’s ‘indecision.’ ”
Fr Brian Harrison, O.S., *Humanae Vitae And Infallibity *at:
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html

 

[Memaw]

The reason for, and significance of, Humanae Vitae needs to be better understood.

Vatican II’s Gaudiem et Spes, 51, specifically rules out any possibility of changing the infallible doctrine against contraception in Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI, 1930, by the footnote 14 reference to the crucial passage, and this on the personal intervention of the Pope himself.

The enormous significance of this is that there would be no contradiction of Pius XI’s definition against unnatural methods of regulating births as intrinsically evil.

Thus the only question which Pope Paul VI gave to be considered as legitimately debatable by the Theological Commission which he set up was the effect and use of the new chemical in the “Pill”, with no possibility of any change against Casti Connubii. His *Humanae Vitae *then clearly reflected this grave error by the majority in the Theological Commission.

The reason for the Commission was only to examine the effects of the “Pill”.

“It is often said that Paul VI was himself in doubt about the doctrinal point at issue for some time and took a long while to make up his mind. However, Fr. Lio told the present writer that the Pope assured him personally, at around the time Humanae Vitae was issued, that he had never at any stage been in doubt about the intrinsic evil of contraception. The long time lapse was due only to the need to ponder carefully the precise manner in which this truth - which had already been authoritatively settled by Pius XI in* Casti Connubii* (1930) - could best be reaffirmed.

“In support of this private information given by Paul VI to Fr. Lio is the documented fact of his personal intervention at the conclusion of Vatican II, when Gaudium et Spes was in the process of being finalized. There was division and uncertainty amongst the Council Fathers, with the result that the drafting Commission wanted to leave the question open in this new magisterial statement. However, as Fr. Lio’s book documents, Paul VI responded to a request from Cardinal Ottaviani and Fr. Lio himself by intervening personally, against the previous wish of the majority of those drafting the document, to insist on the inclusion of a reference to the crucial passage of *Casti Connubii *in footnote 14 to Gaudium et Spes: 51. This is highly significant, because it shows that the Pope was insisting (and made the Council insist) that whatever future statements he might make about contraception, everyone could know in advance that there would be no going back on Pius XI’s firm decision against unnatural methods of birth control as intrinsically evil. So much for Paul VI’s ‘indecision.’ ”
Fr Brian Harrison, O.S., *Humanae Vitae And Infallibity *at:
rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html

A not-Catholic Dr. told me many years ago, even before the Pope’s Humanae Vitae, that he was afraid of the “pill” because they had no idea what the long range effects might be. He said, anytime you cans swallow a pill that will change the whole reproductive system of a woman, who knows what will happen. Seems he was right!! God does know best even if we don’t!!! When Humanae Vitae first came out my pastor gave me a copy of it and told me to take it home and study it and then we would talk. I did and never did I ever swallow one single birth control pill. It is a beautiful Encyclical. God Bless, Memaw