Is This True?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1797372' date='Mar 4 2009, 03:54 PM']Sorry maybe I should clarify my question. I have no doubt that the Church has always taught the illicitness of contraception.

My question is, is it an infallible teaching? (Scardella caught on to this)[/quote]
Most teachings that explicitly go back 2000 years to Apostolic Times come as close as you can get to infallible teaching even if they are not listed as so, thats why I listed their history. They are part of Tradition which the part of the Deposit of faith.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1797637' date='Mar 4 2009, 08:07 PM']Most teachings that explicitly go back 2000 years to Apostolic Times come as close as you can get to infallible teaching even if they are not listed as so, thats why I listed their history. They are part of Tradition which the part of the Deposit of faith.[/quote]

I think the reason some people have trouble with this is that most people don't realize that artificial birth control isn't just something that started with the pill in the 60's. Condoms made out of sheep's bladders go back centuries. Margaret Sanger got started with diaphragms. If some think that the church has just been teaching about it for a few decades, it is easier to disregard it with a clear conscience.

[Aloysius]

dairy, the point of the doctrine of infallibility is NOT to prove the Church, it's to give confidence to those within the Church that they can believe what the Church teaches and be in union with God by doing so.

so many apologists (myself in the past included) have sprung upon this as an argument for why you should definitely believe the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. there is something to be said for that, as in most things it's incontrovertable that we haven't changed the doctrine; but it shouldn't be the end-all-be-all of discussing infallibility. the Church never intended to evangelizing by proving infallibility in arguments by historical debates, the Church intended to guarantee to her followers that they could trust that the finger of God was in the doctrines taught to them. in summary, I think that the prism through which you look at the idea of infallibility is completely foreign to what it actually is.. not your fault, the people who invented that prism were Catholic apologists... but it does a little bit of a disservice to what infallibility is supposed to be.

the teaching on contraception is at least irreformable in terms of Catholic doctrine; the teachings on the sacrament of marriage are infallibly defined by the Council of Florence and it is necessarily an extension of that infallible teaching that contraception is immoral.

"A threefold good is attributed to matrimony. The first is the procreation and bringing up of children for the worship of God. The second is the mutual faithfulness of the spouses towards each other. The third is the indissolubility of marriage, since it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the church."

the first good being procreation and upbringing of marriage means that a contraceptive mentality in marriage is contrary to its nature as infallibly defined; and any artificial contraception is inherently contraceptive in mentality.

but that's just one way of showing that contraception is irreformable and infallble because it is necessitated by absolute doctrines; the other way is to simply say it is taught by the universal ordinary magisterium as part of the deposit of faith regarding morality; that it is taught against by the highest authority known to the Church: the sacred scriptures (in the story of Onan)... that it is taught against by necessity of the infallible doctrines on the sacrament of marriage found in the highest form of the Church's Magisterium, the Ecumenical Councils... and that it has been universally taught against since Apostolic times by everyone who is truly faithful to the Church means there's no question that it's infallible and irreformable.

[Chaya]

in that case, i must give up intimacy with my husband because he doesn't want anymore children, right? or wrong? or a new topic?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Chaya' post='1797990' date='Mar 5 2009, 09:04 AM']in that case, i must give up intimacy with my husband because he doesn't want anymore children, right? or wrong? or a new topic?[/quote]
How about you make it a new topic.
And I would say as long as [i]you[/i] are open to children you are fine.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1797889' date='Mar 5 2009, 01:45 AM']I think the reason some people have trouble with this is that most people don't realize that artificial birth control isn't just something that started with the pill in the 60's. Condoms made out of sheep's bladders go back centuries. Margaret Sanger got started with diaphragms. If some think that the church has just been teaching about it for a few decades, it is easier to disregard it with a clear conscience.[/quote]
Up until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of I think 1930, NO church permitted birth control. However, it was already widely practiced by that time.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1797943' date='Mar 5 2009, 02:52 AM']dairy, the point of the doctrine of infallibility is NOT to prove the Church, it's to give confidence to those within the Church that they can believe what the Church teaches and be in union with God by doing so.

so many apologists (myself in the past included) have sprung upon this as an argument for why you should definitely believe the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. there is something to be said for that, as in most things it's incontrovertable that we haven't changed the doctrine; but it shouldn't be the end-all-be-all of discussing infallibility. the Church never intended to evangelizing by proving infallibility in arguments by historical debates, the Church intended to guarantee to her followers that they could trust that the finger of God was in the doctrines taught to them. in summary, I think that the prism through which you look at the idea of infallibility is completely foreign to what it actually is.. not your fault, the people who invented that prism were Catholic apologists... but it does a little bit of a disservice to what infallibility is supposed to be.

the teaching on contraception is at least irreformable in terms of Catholic doctrine; the teachings on the sacrament of marriage are infallibly defined by the Council of Florence and it is necessarily an extension of that infallible teaching that contraception is immoral.

"A threefold good is attributed to matrimony. The first is the procreation and bringing up of children for the worship of God. The second is the mutual faithfulness of the spouses towards each other. The third is the indissolubility of marriage, since it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the church."

the first good being procreation and upbringing of marriage means that a contraceptive mentality in marriage is contrary to its nature as infallibly defined; and any artificial contraception is inherently contraceptive in mentality.

but that's just one way of showing that contraception is irreformable and infallble because it is necessitated by absolute doctrines; the other way is to simply say it is taught by the universal ordinary magisterium as part of the deposit of faith regarding morality; that it is taught against by the highest authority known to the Church: the sacred scriptures (in the story of Onan)... that it is taught against by necessity of the infallible doctrines on the sacrament of marriage found in the highest form of the Church's Magisterium, the Ecumenical Councils... and that it has been universally taught against since Apostolic times by everyone who is truly faithful to the Church means there's no question that it's infallible and irreformable.[/quote]


contraception i wouldn't have a problem saying it's infallible even though it's never been definitively taught explicitly as infallible. it has a pretty solid standing in hisotry, not disputed, consensus etc.

it's the things at the edges that bug me.

is the death penalty as okay to use to punish those who are murderers, okay, with no limitataions on its consevative usage? JPII would lead ya to think not okay, the past popes would lead ya to think yes. as a catholic in olden days, you'd be bound to think what the old pope said, even though a new one was gonna come along and say different. this compulsion, i don't see as totally bad, but it's pretty serious stuff it seems to me.
this is just an example.
i'm sure there's those who would debate seriously on one side or the other about this specific issue, but the analysis i used on it is applicable to the grayer issues generally regardless of this specific issue.
now, there's some catholcis who insist that there's no grayer issues. they're wrong, but they are an entertaining lot. there's no reason a good catholic couldn't say they're wrong, either, taht there's some issues on the fringe that catholics 'know' are infallible, but in fact it's not something that is but rather is something you should follow as binding but not necessarily infallible. as catherine said, it's something theologians and canon lawyers would fight about. they wouldn't be fighting if there wasn't an issue.
'authoritative doctrine' as catherine said, does not necessarily mean infallible. yet, many insist that it is. it's to be followed, but ti's not necessarily infallible. that's my simple point.
(when it's debatable whether it's authoriative doctrine or infallible, are the interesting, tough cases. cause with authoariative, ya can choose not to internally believe it, jsut give intellectual assent to it and abide by it, but with infallible it's the whole thing, adhereing your will mind etc. the individual must decide which it is per full unrelenting assent, though, on the tough issues. and, not being clear, gives people leeway to say 'X issue is croutons but i'll do it anyway' when it's really suppose to be treated infallibly. and it's sinful not to go full fledged on infallible issues, so the lack of clarity is like giving kids firecrackers- they might not be culpable per their intention to sin, but their lack of full submission of will etc is objectively sinful)

those canon lawyers and theologians (more like lay folks or couch seat theologians, cause no serious or credible theologian/lawyer would say tehre are not gray issues) who would say there's no gray issues, are merely creating a church unto themselves, "it's all clear. it's what God says. (read, what i say)"

Edited March 5, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah i'm not saying that contraceptive teachings are debatably 'authortative doctrines'. it's clearly infallible. (pretty much so, anyway) i mean, htere are some isses that are indeed clear, even to someone skeptical of the system.

it was reasonable for people to imply that i would think it's debtable, given that's what the topic of this thread is about. but, i was just referring to the system used to decide the matter, in my criticism.

Edited March 5, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Saint Therese]

Katie Couric is the devil.
Fyi.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1798462' date='Mar 5 2009, 07:03 PM']Katie Couric is the devil.
Fyi.[/quote]

Overfeeding your cat is just mean