Is the ban on contraception infallible?

[jswranch]

Resolved: The Catholic Church has banned contraception infallibly.

I say no. The language requirement necessary for infalliblity simply has not been used under PVI, JPII, or BXVI.

[quote]Let us set up some parameters for this discussion:
1. I am not discussing whether practicing contraception is a grave matter, immoral, sinful etc. It is. Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.

2. Contraception is a moral issue that [u]can be[/u] defined infallibly by the Magisterium. The Magisterium has done so in the past other items of morality. The question is [u]if[/u] contraception ban has been declared immoral infallibly by the magisterium.

3. Please do not discuss whether the contraception ban should be infallibly defined.

4. Even if is not infallible, all are still bound to follow it.[/quote]


Before commenting, please be familiar with a few items.
1. [url="http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/05/noninfallible_t.html"]Binding, non-infallible teachings exist.[/url] Lumen Gentium is very clear on this.

2. [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM"]Levels of truth exist in Church teachings other than Dogma/de fide.[/url] One of these levels is [url="http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=774157&postcount=65"]"SENTENTIA COMMUNIA" which is a Theological Opinion. However, use of the term 'opinion' does not indicate a 'guess.' A Theological Opinion is non-infallible but is above dissent and may be expected to remain unchangeable.[/url]

[url="http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html"]In support of the resolution, here is a lengthy article by someone better educated than me.[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1025316' date='Jul 16 2006, 03:22 AM']
Resolved: The Catholic Church has banned contraception infallibly.

I say no. The language requirement necessary for infalliblity simply has not been used under PVI, JPII, or BXVI.
[/quote]
There is more than one way in which a doctrine can be considered definitive and infallible. The so-called language requirement (which isn't absolute) only pertains to Ex Cathedra statements and such.

I hope you saw my posts in that other thread.

[quote name='jswranch' post='1025316' date='Jul 16 2006, 03:22 AM']
Before commenting, please be familiar with a few items.
1. [url="http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/05/noninfallible_t.html"]Binding, non-infallible teachings exist.[/url] Lumen Gentium is very clear on this.
[/quote]
This article or whatever pretty much agrees with my take on Humanae Vitae. Here is a snippet:
[quote]However, lemme answer what I think you're asking: John Paul II's statement in Ordinatio sacerdotalis that it has already been definitively settled that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood is not itself an infallible statement. That means that he could be wrong about it since he didn't say it under the protection of inallibility. I don't think that he was wrong. I think he was right and that it has been definitively (and thus infallibly) settled by the ordinary Magisterium, but the pope's mention of this fact without engaging his infallibility--by definition--does not a mount to an infallible exercise of his Magisterium.[/quote]


[quote name='jswranch' post='1025316' date='Jul 16 2006, 03:22 AM']2. [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM"]Levels of truth exist in Church teachings other than Dogma/de fide.[/url]
[/quote]
As I said in the PM, Fr. Trugillio (sp?) is in error IMHO.

[quote name='jswranch' post='1025316' date='Jul 16 2006, 03:22 AM']2. One of these levels is [url="http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=774157&postcount=65"]"SENTENTIA COMMUNIA" which is a Theological Opinion. However, use of the term 'opinion' does not indicate a 'guess.' A Theological Opinion is non-infallible but is above dissent and may be expected to remain unchangeable.[/url]
[/quote]
This post or whatever it is spells out exactly what I've been saying:
[quote]Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.[/quote]

But more importantly:
[quote][b]A point of doctrine ceases to be an object of free judgment when the Teaching Authority of the Church takes an attitude which is clearly in favour of one opinion.[/b] Pope Pius XII explains in the Encyclical "Humani generis" (1950): "[i]When the Popes in their Acts intentionally pronounce a judgment on a long disputed point then it is clear to all that this, according to the intention and will of these Popes, can no longer be open to the free discussion of theologians[/i]" [/quote]
I've seen orthodox, pre-1960's theology handbooks which categorize the proscription of contraception as [i]sententia communis[/i], but in light of Humanae Vitae and beyond it must be understood as a definitive teaching of the ordinary magisterium and while not proclaimed dogmatically (via the language stuff you allude to and all that) it can still be described as "infallible".

[quote name='jswranch' post='1025316' date='Jul 16 2006, 03:22 AM']
[url="http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html"]In support of the resolution, here is a lengthy article by someone better educated than me.[/url]
[/quote]
Can't comment on this cuz I haven't read it yet. Wait, actually I can. The whole premise appears to be that Humanae Vitae does not constitute a formal "Ex Cathedra" dogmatic decree. Well, I've never said that it did. I just hold, like orthodox Catholic theology teaches, that there are infallible teachings (definitive doctrines and such) that are not dogma in the strictest sense of the word. If the proscription against contraception is not a definitive teaching of the ordinary magisterium than I don't know what is. I guess we can call anything that hasn't been defined 'Ex Cathedra' [i]sententia communis[/i], which yes, does imply more than mere frivolous opinion, but is still not exactly a level of authority for doctrine but more a gauge of certainty for theological opinion.

[Laudate_Dominum]

My take on [i]sententia communis[/i]:

Why do I understand sententia communis as free opinion?

1. Old theology books often equate sententia communis with neo-thomism. For example I've read things which discuss the ways in which Duns Scotus departs from the "sententia communis", and what they really mean is Thomism. Scotists are considered orthodox despite this departure from this supposed sententia communis. Plus the sententia communis changes with time. Limbo was perhaps a part of the sententia communis not that long ago, now it is mostly ripped on. One may respond by asserting that there is a loose sense of the term and a technical sense; and while to some extent this is true, overall the informal sense is the foundation of all senses and is heavily implied in the techical sense. The meaning that is conveyed is that we aren't talking about authoritative doctrine.
1.A. The obvious sense of the terms implies simply a commonly held opinion and is not the type of terminology that would make sense in the context of formal doctrine.

2. The grades of certainty above sententia communis are sufficient to define the bounds of orthodoxy. Basically suggesting that sententia communis defines a level of authority for doctrine is just superfluous.

3. Connected with #2 is the fact that the grades of theological certainty above sententia communis (which actually do pertain to doctrine in at least a remotely authoritative sense) don't really leave any room to establish a basis of authority for lesser levels. For something to constitute sententia communis rather than one of the higher levels it must not a) be authoritatively defined; b) be necessarily true due to proximity with defined doctrine; c) be a clear logical inference based on the faith. In other words the only thing left after you look at the higher levels is speculation and opinion.
3.A. Similarly, if you consider sententia communis binding doctrine you will have an unfilled gap between it and the next lowest level which is "probable opinions". One is forced to ask the question, "what about opinions that aren't just to some degree probable but are what most people accept?"

4. If one were to actually put together a list of sententia communis propositions (which I've done in part), it is clear that to suggest that these opinions are on the level of doctrine is just intuitively a bit silly. Often times two contrary views have a strong presence in tradition and both views are tolerated, yet if both are to be considered doctrine in some binding sense then catholic doctrine is officially contradictory and on some level a cafeteria line. This happens a lot especially when one considers the sententia communis of the roman church with the sententia communis of the eastern churches, or the sententia communis throughout church history.
It is silly to suggest that sententia communis represents anything more than theological opinions which have a good foundation in tradition when one actually realizes how speculative said opinions typically are.

5. Reference materials always define this category in terms of opinion. Examples: "a belief that is not defined and is not directly implied by the Faith"; "teachings or formulations that belong to the area of free opinion, but which tend to be the common consensus among faithful theologians"; "Belonging to mere opinion, yet generally accepted"; "belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally".

I will qualify this by saying that it is often opinion deserving of reverence and not mere frivolous opinion. It could potentially be scandalous and even sinful to absolutely deny teachings in this category, although since it is yet opinion, doubting it is fine and you aren't going to be excommunicated for rejecting sententia communis opinions. In any case, to say that the teaching on contraception falls into this category is false IMHO.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Regarding Humanae Vitae:

[quote]The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an "ex cathedra" pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.17 The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church. (CDF Commentary on the Professio Fidei)[/quote]
Humanae Vitae was an act of the universal magisterium which confirmed and reiterated the Church's infallible interpretation of the natural law. That's my view in a nutshell.
To quote the Vatican: "In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church."
Thus I would say that Humanae Vitae as a document is not infallible (although per lumen gentium we would still owe it religious assent), but the teaching regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception is infallible.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Ok, I gave that long article a whirl and I was surprised to discover that his conclusion is essentially the intrinsic infallibility of Humanae Vitae. I was expecting it to be a negative article.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1025323' date='Jul 16 2006, 05:09 AM']
Ok, I gave that long article a whirl and I was surprised to discover that his conclusion is essentially the intrinsic infallibility of Humanae Vitae. I was expecting it to be a negative article.
[/quote]
Hence, I described it as "In support of the resolution."

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1025331' date='Jul 16 2006, 06:08 AM']
Hence, I described it as "In support of the resolution."
[/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1025316' date='Jul 16 2006, 05:22 AM']Resolved: The Catholic Church has banned contraception infallibly.

I say no. The language requirement necessary for infalliblity simply has not been used under PVI, JPII, or BXVI.
[/quote]
There's a difference between saying a DOCTRINE is infallible, and a DOCUMENT is infallible.

"Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", for example, is not infallible IN ITSELF, but the Church's doctrine against female ordination IS an infallible doctrine.

The same is true of contraception and the Church's other moral teachings. For the most part, they haven't been set forth in a particular document that evoked the Church's infallibility for that particular document. Rather, they are infallible because the Church has repeatedly and firmly repeated its teaching for 2,000 years through her ordinary Magisterium.

For a better explanation, see Joseph Ratzinger's commentary on the Professio Fidei: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM"]LINK[/url]

[quote]It could seem that there is only a logical element in the doctrine on euthanasia, since Scripture does not seem to be aware of the concept. In this case, however, the interrelationship between the orders of faith and reason becomes apparent: Scripture, in fact, clearly excludes every form of the kind of self-determination of human existence that is presupposed in the theory and practice of euthanasia.

Other examples of moral doctrines which are taught as definitive by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church are: the teaching on the illicitness of prostitution and of fornication.[/quote]

Edited July 16, 2006 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

Actually, this is very simply resolved.

Humanae Vitae worked in the same way as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to declare infallibly the stance of the Ordinary Universal Episcopal Magisterium on contraception following the plan set forth by Lumen Gentium 25.

In English, it's infallible because the Bishops have always taught such and the case was closed by the Holy Father.

[Aloysius]

exactly what I said.. except I didn't use the word "Episcopal" cause it sounds protestant lol

[qfnol31]

:

The Episcopate was ours first, we need to claim that title back!

:

[Laudate_Dominum]

glad to see you fellas are on my side

[Ziggamafu]

What about the case of Pope Honorius? Maybe I butchered the spelling on his name...anyway, wasn't that a so-called "close call" as far as infallability is concerned? Just curious if there is a double standard, here.

[jswranch]

A few items of note:

1. My priest was fairly insistent that the contraception ban is not infallible. Can you give me/link me to a single statement that debates his belief?

2. With all your statements on sententia communis and other levels of truth, where does the ban and ban reversal of usury fall into this topic?

3. What is the difference between de fide, dogma, and ex cathedra?

[qfnol31]

First off, have you read Lumen Gentium 25?

I'll find it tomorrow if you haven't.