Magisterium, Iraqi War, And Birth Control

[PhatPhred]

the 3rd one means that it has always been the position of the Church as a whole.  that makes it infallible.

As I already stated in my post of Jan 10 2004, 02:17 AM, there is an additional requirement that needs to be met. The precise list of requirements is given in the Vatican II document that I quoted from.

[PhatPhred]

Convincing or otherwise.  In the absence of infallible teaching that specifically details a clear answer, I think it would be best to err on the side of mercy and self sacrifice.

I agree, but more importantly, so does the Pope. (Okay, much more importantly.)

[jasJis]

I agree with everything you wrote except this statement. It is okay to ignore the Church if in fact the Church is wrong. For example, those people in the middle ages who refused to participate in the Crusades because their conscience told them it was wrong committed no sin, even though they were defying the Church.

Phred,

Think completely. How does one know when the Church is wrong? You would have to know and consider everything the Church knows and considers. We rarely know that much.

We should never ignore the Church, but disagreeing is possible. We can disagree with the Church but we must also understand our knowledge is incomplete and we may be wrong. Again, we must err on the side of charity and self sacrifice. We may disagree within our own personal understanding of our situation, but we should not teach others the Church is wrong without also considering that we may be teaching others to ignore God's lighthouse while they're navigating thier personal boats.

[Aloysius]

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.

i believe that the Ordinary Magisterium through the centuries has taught that the fact that contraception is wrong is a position to be definitively held.

[PhatPhred]

the Church hadnt used her teaching authority (magisterium) which is always infallible to declare that one must participate in the crusades.

The magisterium isn't always infallible. But it doesn't need to be.

Maybe it would be good to step back for a bit and take a look at the big picture. Up until recently in the Church's history, most of her teaching (i.e., magisterium) was binding, but not infallible, and this worked out well. For example, you may come across older Catholics who believe that there have only been two infallible teachings of the Church (FYI, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary). However, in the middle of the twentieth century, dissent rose to such a level that some people were saying that Catholics were not bound by any Church teaching unless it was infallible. In response, some conservative elements in the Church countered this dissent, not by correctly pointing out that Catholics are bound to a high degree of religious submission even to non-infallible teaching, but by incorrectly claiming that most of the Church's teaching was really infallible. As I mentioned earlier, EWTN is a significant perpetrator of this "creeping infallibility" syndrome, which is why you shouldn't trust everything that you read on their website.

Back in the time of the Crusades, the idea of Papal infallibility hadn't even been declared yet. So unless you think that Catholics of that time were allowed to completely disregard anything and everything the Pope said, your claim is obviously incorrect.

[PhatPhred]

No it is not , it is the opinion of ONE bishop.

Just as Humanae Vitae is the opinion of ONE pope. The word "opinion" means, "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter or particular matters." Calling something an opinion doesn't make it any less a part of the magisterium.

One Bishop is not the Magisterium.

This is what canon law says in canon number 753:

Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

[PhatPhred]

THat is not why Hans Kung was removed from from teaching.

No, but that was how theologians faithful to the Church refuted Küng's arguments.

[PhatPhred]

We should never ignore the Church, but disagreeing is possible.  We can disagree with the Church but we must also understand our knowledge is incomplete and we may be wrong.  Again, we must err on the side of charity and self sacrifice.  We may disagree within our own personal understanding of our situation, but we should not teach others the Church is wrong without also considering that we may be teaching others to ignore God's lighthouse while they're navigating thier personal boats.

This is a very imporant point that you've expressed extremely well. I agree completely.

Phred,

Think completely.  How does one know when the Church is wrong?  You would have to know and consider everything the Church knows and considers.  We rarely know that much.

I'm a little confused as to why you are addressing this remark to me. Every single one of my posts has been devoted to completely defending the Church's teachings as expressed by the living magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communtion with him.

[PhatPhred]

i believe that the Ordinary Magisterium through the centuries has taught that the fact that contraception is wrong is a position to be definitively held.

How do you reconcile this belief with the facts that I brought up earlier? To wit:

• The position of Pope Paul VI's advisory committee for Humanae Vitae that the earlier teaching of the Church should be updated to allow non-abortive artificial birth control as long as the overall marriage was open to life;
  
• In fact, the expectation of bishops and theologians world-wide that Humanae Vitae would incorporate this updated teaching;
  
• The lack of acceptance of Hans Küng's arguments in favor of infallibility of the absolute prohibition of artificial birth control; and
  
• The modification of the teaching of Humanae Vitae by the South African Catholic Bishops' Conference (which has now been in force for several years without any rejection by the Vatican).
  

[cmotherofpirl]

The magisterium isn't always infallible. But it doesn't need to be.

Maybe it would be good to step back for a bit and take a look at the big picture. Up until recently in the Church's history, most of her teaching (i.e., magisterium) was binding, but not infallible, and this worked out well. For example, you may come across older Catholics who believe that there have only been two infallible teachings of the Church (FYI, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary). However, in the middle of the twentieth century, dissent rose to such a level that some people were saying that Catholics were not bound by any Church teaching unless it was infallible. In response, some conservative elements in the Church countered this dissent, not by correctly pointing out that Catholics are bound to a high degree of religious submission even to non-infallible teaching, but by incorrectly claiming that most of the Church's teaching was really infallible. As I mentioned earlier, EWTN is a significant perpetrator of this "creeping infallibility" syndrome, which is why you shouldn't trust everything that you read on their website.

Back in the time of the Crusades, the idea of Papal infallibility hadn't even been declared yet. So unless you think that Catholics of that time were allowed to completely disregard anything and everything the Pope said, your claim is obviously incorrect.

Oh I should ignor all the stuff on EWTN taught by priests, bishops and archbishops in favor of your opinion?

And you have been a Catholic how long?

Please show specific examples of EWTN stating something was infallible where it really isn't, or it claimed something was a church teaching that was binding, but really wasn't.

[BLAZEr]

You are incorrect in your thought that the teachings explained in Humanae Vitae are not infallible. They are a part of the ordinary magisterium, and pronounced as such carry such weight. You would do well to read Fr. Brian Harrison's explanation of the theology of the Charism of Infallability

http://www.catholic-pages.com/morality/hvinfallible.asp

I will include a short quote here:

The 1983 "Code of Canon Law" (c. 749: 3) states that "No doctrine is to be understood as infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such ("nisi id manifeste constiterit")." And the way to establish this clearly is not to depend on criteria as uncertain or transient as the private or unofficial opinions of Popes (much less of Vatican press spokesmen), nor on the latest head-count of theologians--especially at this time of almost unprecedented confusion, decadence and dissent in the world of Catholic theology. The correct way, I trust, is that followed in this paper: to go back to the most primary, official and authoritative sources in order to gain the most exact possible understanding of the 1870 dogma of papal infallibility; and then to methodically apply the resulting criteria to the document under consideration--in this case "Humanae Vitae"--in order to show how it clearly meets the required conditions for an "ex cathedra" pronouncement. This we shall now proceed to do.

The dogmatic definition specifies four elements which constitute an "ex cathedra" definition:

1. The Pope must speak as "the pastor and teacher of all Christians" ("cum omnium Christianorum pastoris et doctoris munere fungens"). As Bishop Gasser explained, this means "not . .. when he decrees something as a private teacher, nor only as the bishop and ordinary of a particular province."[62] Nobody can possibly doubt that this condition is fulfilled in the case of "Humanae Vitae." A papal encyclical, by its very nature, is a document in which the Pope speaks in this universal capacity. In this case, Paul VI goes even further and addresses the non- Catholic world--perhaps because the doctrine he is teaching is in this case a matter of natural law, accessible and objectively binding on all human beings as such. The encyclical is explicitly addressed: "To the venerable Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops and other local ordinaries in peace and communion with the Apostolic See, to priests, the faithful and to all men of good will."[63] The definition adds after "fungens" the words "prosuprema sua Apostolica auctoritate"--"by virtue of his' supreme Apostolic authority." Some commentators make this a separate or independent condition, but Bishop Gasser did not mention it as such. In fact, it is only by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority that the Pope "can" speak "as the pastor and teacher of all Christians," so there could be no question of his ever speaking in that capacity "without making use of," or depending on, his supreme apostolic authority. In any case, this aspect of an "ex cathedra" decision is also spelled out in "Humanae Vitae." In article 6 the Pope declares that the decision he is about to announce is being promulgated "by virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ" ("vi mandati Nobis a Christo commissi").[64] He has just asserted in article 4, in regard to that "mandate," "Jesus Christ, when communicating to Peter and to the Apostles His divine authority and sending them to teach all nations His commandments, constituted them as guardians and authentic interpreters of all the moral law." This, he says, "is indisputable, as our predecessors have many times declared." It is thus evident that in this document the Pope is speaking precisely as the Successor of Peter the Apostle, by divine mandate and authority as the Church's supreme teacher on earth. He thereby indisputably fulfils the first condition for an "ex cathedra" statement.

2. The next element specified in the dogmatic definition of 1870 is that regarding the subject-matter of an "ex cathedra" definition: it must be "doctrinam de fide vel moribus"--doctrine of faith or morals. We have already shown in sections II and III of our study that this condition is fulfilled in the case of "Humanae Vitae."

3. The dogma of 1870 then adds that in an "ex cathedra" pronouncement, this doctrine must be proposed as "ab universa Ecclesia tenendam," literally, "requiring to be held by the universal Church." This obligation of all Catholics to accept the doctrinal decisions is repeatedly expressed in the encyclical. In the definition itself, the three practices proscribed (direct abortion, direct sterilization, and contraception) are all declared to be "absolutely excluded as licit means for regulating birth" ("omnino respuendam... ut legitimum modum numeri liberorum temperandi").[65]

The word "omnino" means "absolutely," "entirely," "wholly," "utterly," as any Latin dictionary will show. And "respuere" means "reject," "refuse," "disapprove," "not accept." The Pope thereby unambiguously proclaims that there is an absolute, unqualified obligation on all married couples to abstain from such practices, which of course means requiring them to hold ("tenere") at the intellectual level that they are under that obligation. Since decisions of the will must first be understood and assented to in the intellect, every command to do or not to do something carries with it necessarily a command to "assent mentally" to the obligation of doing or not doing it. Since the Encyclical is addressed to the universal Church, this obligation of mental assent extends to all Catholics, not only to the married couples most directly affected. This is evident, because doctrine--as distinct from discipline--is by its nature the same for everyone in the Church. Not all doctrines have the same binding force, of course, but "to the extent that" a given doctrine binds any Catholic, it binds all Catholics.

In this case, there is still more to be said. The final article of the central doctrinal section (art. 18) affirms, with respect to the laws just proclaimed, "Of such laws the Church was not the author, nor consequently can she be their arbiter," even though, as the Pope says, "It can be foreseen that this teaching will perhaps not be easily received by all." He thereby makes it clear that this is "divine" law, which by its very nature must be accepted with full interior assent by the whole Church, even though he foresees that not everyone will easily give that assent. Again, at the beginning of Section III (mainly pastoral directives), which concludes the encyclical, the Pontiff refers back to his doctrinal declaration in these words: "having recalled men to the observance and respect of the divine law regarding matrimony,..."[66] ("homines, antea ad Dei legem de coniugio servandam colendamque incitatos..."). Again in article 20 he asserts, "The teaching of the Church on the regulation of birth, which promulgates the divine law, ("quae legem divinam ipsam promulgat"), will easily appear to many to be difficult or even impossible of actuation."[67] He then, of course, goes on to insist that it is "not" impossible, and that couples who fall into sin should "not be discouraged," but rather, "have recourse with humble perseverance to the mercy of God, which is poured forth in the sacrament of Penance."[68] This again expresses without ambiguity the obligation on the whole Church to accept the teaching. Finally, this obligation is asserted again in article 28, where the Pope tells priests: "Be the first to give an example of the sincere internal and external obedience which must be accorded to the Church's Magisterium" ("vos primi... exemplum sinceri obsequii edite, quod interius exteriusque ecclesiastico Magisterio tribuendum est").[69]

That obedience, he continues, "obliges... because of the light of the Holy Spirit, which is given in a particular way to the pastors of the Church in order that they may illustrate the truth."[70] In other words, the Pope repeatedly asserts that the teaching he has reaffirmed in this encyclical is "divine" law, which by its very nature is binding on "the universal Church" (and, in this case, on all men and women, since it concerns the natural law). Priests, of course, should be the first to give the example to the laity in manifesting that "internal" assent which is required of all.

From all this it is evident and undeniable that Paul VI proposes his doctrine as "requiring to be held by the universal Church," thereby fulfilling the third requirement laid down by Vatican I for an "ex cathedra" definition. Naturally, he does not assert that the teaching be held "de fide," since he is not defining it as a point of revealed truth. As we have shown in section II, "ex cathedra" definitions are envisaged by Vatican I as including doctrines which are to be held with theological certainty, and this is a case in point.

4. The final condition for an "ex cathedra" pronouncement is that the Roman Pontiff "define" ("definit" in Latin) the doctrine he is proposing for acceptance by the whole Church. Probably in view of the uncertainty manifested by some Vatican I Fathers about this word--an uncertainty which Bishop Gasser had to clear up by carefully explaining that it was not as restrictive as they thought it might be--Vatican II replaces this single word by three words which are evidently held to express the same meaning, but more clearly: "definitivo actu proclamat"--"proclaims by a definitive act."[71]

As we saw, Gasser explained that what this means is that the teaching be pronounced "directly and conclusively."[72] The key notion here is that of "finality"--of "terminating" whatever doubt or controversy there may be about the doctrine in question. As Gasser made clear, there does not have to be a significant controversy in order for an "ex cathedra" decision to be made. But it goes without saying that when there is a serious controversy that threatens the unity of the Church in truth, then an "ex cathedra" decision is certainly appropriate, in which case there is a "forensic" or "juridical" quality to the Pope's decision. He is acting not only as supreme teacher but as supreme "judge," settling a controversy which needs definitive, final, resolution. The Latin word "definire" has its root in "finis," meaning end, termination, conclusion, limit. Of course, the Pope, not being omnipotent, does not have it within his power to end a doctrinal controversy "de facto," since each member of the faithful always retains his or her free will and can continue rejecting and disputing even solemnly defined doctrines. This, of course, has happened throughout history, giving rise to various schisms, and it has notoriously happened in the case of "Humanae Vitae." But what does indeed lie within the Pope's power is to settle the doctrinal controversy "de jure," by making clear the "duty" of every Catholic to accept the Pope's decision as final, binding, and certainly true. "Roma locuta est, causa finita est. "

Now, the fact that Pope Paul in "Humanae Vitae" meant to end the controversy over birth control (in the sense just explained) is evident both from the text of the document itself and from the historical circumstances in which it was prepared and issued. As is well-known by all those who have followed recent Church history, the 1968 encyclical came at a time of deep and widespread discontent, anguish, dissension and uncertainty over the question of birth control within the Catholic fold itself. That is precisely the kind of situation where an "ex cathedra" decision- -a final, doubt-dispelling, certain resolution of a very specific doctrinal question--is an urgent pastoral necessity, in order to restore peace to millions of troubled Catholic consciences. The question had been formally reserved for the "judgment" of the Supreme Pontiff during the recent Ecumenical Council, which stated that, after the papal commission had completed its study of this and related problems, the Supreme Pontiff would be able to "pass judgment" ("iudicium ferat").[73] Now in that kind of situation, the "judgment" which is awaited from the supreme ecclesial tribunal on earth--not the "Roman Rota" nor the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" but the Successor of Peter in person, from whose judgment no appeal is possible--is by its very nature a "definitive" judgment: the last word; the end of the argument

[cmotherofpirl]

Blaze I love your idea of a SHORT quote! ::

[PhatPhred]

It was a bit of a read, but I finally finished it. Fr. Harrison got the "No doctrine is to be understood as infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such" correct, but then goes downhill from there. That bit of canon law is very important; it pretty much means that unless nearly everyone is in agreement about some teaching being infallible, then it probably isn't infallible.

The first thing to notice is that Fr. Harrison and Fr. Hardon (from Aloysius' EWTN web reference) aren't even in agreement on why Humanae Vitae is infallible. Fr. Harrison is arguing papal "ex cathedra" infallibility, while Fr. Hardon is arguing ordinary and universal magisterium. I would think that the first step in "clearly establishing" the infallibility of a teaching would be to get on the same page as regards the mode of infallibility.

Perhaps a comparison with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter on the impossibility of ordaining women as priests) would help. First of all, the language of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, as regards the finality of the teaching, is much stronger than that of Humanae Vitae. So strong, in fact, that some of the bishops asked the Vatican whether the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis apostolic letter was an exercise of papal infallibility. Cardinal Ratzinger replied that it was in fact infallible, but because of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

This episode suggests two conclusions. First, that it is not realistic to hold Humanae Vitae as an exercise of papal infallibility given that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is not. Second, in the case of a papal teaching being infallible due to the ordinary and universal magisterium, the Vatican curia is not shy about proclaiming that fact. Thus, if and when you can show me a statement from the magisterium that Humanae Vitae is infallible, then I will accept its infallibility. Until then, I will follow canon law and treat it as a non-infallible teaching of Pope Paul VI.

[Circle_Master]

you're a machine phatphred. i think i know who i will message if i have some questions on Catholic Church specifics.

[hyperdulia again]

what is the Catholic Church?

[Circle_Master]

what is the Catholic Church?

we've already had this discussion. you know what the Catholic Church is - no further comments necessary.

[hyperdulia again]

I have not the foggiest notion what the Catholic Church is; is it in communion with Peter's Successor?