Magisterium, Iraqi War, And Birth Control

[PhatPhred]

the teaching against birth control is an excersize of the ordinary magisterium.

This is correct. As such, it is not infallible, but until and unless it is modified by the magisterium, we are bound to reverently and sincerely adhere to it with a religious submission of mind and will, as described in Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

This holds true about the Pope's teachings on the Iraqi war as well.

---------------

you've made a good point, and i'm not gonna dispute it.  doesn't mean i completely agree with it yet, just means that i'm lettin someone smarter than me take a swing at it and if they can't, you may possibly win.

I guess there are some advantages to being 40-something and having taking courses in Catholic Tradition and Catholic Theology in college.

if you are a married person, then i believe this is very crucial for you to understand.

From a personal point of view, the issue of birth control isn't particularly relevant in my life right now. Barring a miracle, my wife and I won't be having any children, and thus we do not practice birth control of any type, natural or artificial.

(...) are abortificient.  there is a possibility of a conceived baby dying from them.  that means it is abortion, and at least that part of contraception is thereby submitted to the infallible teaching against abortion.

The infallible teaching on abortion is that the termination of an ensouled fetus is the moral equivalent of murder. However, there is no infallible teaching on when this ensoulment occurs. There is a convincing argument that ensoulment cannot occur until after the embryo has progressed beyond the point of possible twinning.

[jasJis]

The infallible teaching on abortion is that the termination of an ensouled fetus is the moral equivalent of murder. However, there is no infallible teaching on when this ensoulment occurs. There is a convincing argument that ensoulment cannot occur until after the embryo has progressed beyond the point of possible twinning.

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.

[Aloysius]

the three requirements of infallibility are:

1> taught by a council

2>taught ex Cathedra Peter

3>taught magisterium ordinadum

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

[PhatPhred]

You are in big trouble if you ignore your conscience or ignore the Church.

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.

[Aloysius]

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.

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

[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.