AmericanPapist Comments
People have simply GOT to stop paying attention the secular media on ANYTHING having to do with the Church. It is hopeless. btw, that post below Hugh Henry is excellent.
I concurr. Unfortunately, the clumsy, perhaps ill intentioned way in which the mainstream press all over the world is covering the story will certainly create confusion, doubt and error in the minds of millions of Catholics who do not read strictly Catholic newspapes and who do not consult the official sources of the Church.
By the way, Dr. Peters, I would love to hear your opinion on the canonical implications of the recent remarks by Card. Martini.
It seems to me that his statement regarding the formation of human life after conception, and the consequent lack of human status by the zigote, with the resulting lack of any moral impediment regarding its manipulation, contradict a constant, definitive, and infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium, reaffirmed by several Popes (John Paul II - Evangelium Vitae; John XXIII - quoted in Evangelium Vitae) and by the Second Vatican Council (Gaudium et spes statement that life begins upon conception and is sacred from that point - quoted in Evangelium Vitae).
My questions to you, to Thomas and to all would be:(i) doesn´t that doctrine pertain to the field of Catholic morals, that, together of the field of Faith, are the possible objects of the Magisterium? (not to mention the involvement of the precept You shall not kill, a matter of Faith, that is affected by the Cardinal´s opinion that it would be ok to manipulate with the zigote freely)(ii) do you thing that this is a formal dogma?; (iii) do you agree that, not being a formal dogma, this is a definitive teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium that is irreformable and also infalible?; (iv) do you agree that the Cardinal would be subject to ´a just penalty´ in light of Canon Law, for dissenting from the Church´s teaching that human life begins upon conception and is sacred from that point on?
Professor, did Pope Paul VI declare Humanae Vitae "ex cathedra"? It's my understanding that he did not for some reason. So would this make it a formal dogma? I really don't know enough canon law to say. In any case, I do think that the Cardinal should be reprimanded, though I'm not sure to what extent.
I don't understand how anyone can have "personal views" that contradict matters of morality and faith. I mean, to be truly Christian, you have to live out the faith, and that means personally believing that what the Church teaches is Truth. Obviously these kinds of controversies coming from the secular media confuse Catholics, and some, I'm sure, may be led astray.
Andrew, I´m a Brazilian (and Portuguese) citizen, and I am a professor of Law in Brazil. I´m saying that so as to clarify that I´m not a Professor either of Canon Law or of Theology.
In my view, the teaching of Humanae Vitae is irreformable. It was an act of the Papal Magisterium, adressed to the whole of the Church universal, on a topic of morals (the subjects of magisterial action are faith and morals), a topic which --- in regard to abortion ---- has direct links to the teachings of our Faith regarding the precept You shall not kill. Thus, even if there is no solmemn dogmatic proclamation in Humanae Vitae, there is a judgement, settling a matter of morals, and restating the constant teaching of the Church.
Humanae Vitae dealt with two separate questions in one stroke: post-conceptive birth control (i.e. foetus killing, a.ka. abortion), and pre-conceptive artificial birth control (e.g. pills, condoms, etc).
Of course, Humanae Vitae strongly rejected the possibility of allowing any form of abortion (HV, item 14). The basis for this teaching, already recorded in several previous magisterial teachings to the same effect, would be later and adressed in a more detailed fashion in John Paul II´s Evangelium Vitae.
Given the widespread practice of the henious crime of abortion, in spite of the constant, centuries old condemnation of the Magisterium, Pope John Paul II, in his Enc. Evangelium Vitae, speaking clearly "ex cathedra", and using a solmen tone rarely seen in modern documents of the Church, after stating that Paul VI held the Church doctrine against abortion unchangeable, after making reference to ancient and recent sources of Church docrine and practice, quoting quoting both the Codes of Canon Law of 1917 and 1983, and quoting also Pope John XXIII and Vatican II´s Gaudium et Spes, proclaimed, stating explicitly unanimous communion with the College of Bishops, that abortion is always inadmissible. For the record, John XXIII quote regarded the fact that life from the start involves God´s creative activity and is thus sacred, and Vatican II statement that abortion is to be condemned and that Human life must be safeguarded since the point of conception. Thus, the teaching on abortion is ex cathedra, and that on the beggining of life in the moment of conception stems from the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church, expressed in the judgement of Popes and Councils, and is thus also irreformable.
As for the pre-conceptive methods of birth control, Humanae Vitae explains that it is readressing the question in view of the expansion of the thechnology of birth-regulation. As the Encyclical pointed out, the changes in the thechnology of birth regulation led people to ask whether or not there could be some relativization of the Church´s moral law.
In reply, Humanae Vitae not only restated the Church´s opposition to sterilization, but also adressed the problem of artificial contraception, proclaiming that artificial methods
From Humanae Vitae the solution to the present debate:
"Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one..."
Roma locuta, causa finita.
Okay. Thanks for the clarification Professor. I knew that's what the Church taught, it's just that nowadays, some teachings can be ambiguous.
Of course, one of the contentions being made in the present debate is that condom use to prevent HIV transmission isn't "deliberately contraceptive," but rather is analogous to the use of therapeutic means that have the effect of impeding procreation (which HV says are allowed). So what HV says about "lesser evil" doesn't necessarily settle the present debate.
HV 14 defining contraception: "Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means."
Kevin M. focuses the issue nicely. Does condom use to prevent HIV transmission fit this definition? If not, on what basis would it be proscribed by the Church?
Anon:
Well - as I've said elsewhere - even if condom use to prevent HIV transmission isn't contraception (insofar as the prevention of procreation in that case may not be intended as an end or means), that doesn't mean there's no basis on which to proscribe it. As I've said elsewhere (and as others like Rhonheimer have said too), it seems awfully unwise, given that AIDS is still deadly, and that condom use hardly gives 100% protection from its transmission.
Kevin, I would recommend reading Hugh Henry's article that I link to:
http://www.americanpapist.com/
nc...rsyCOLatest.pdf
one of the primary points he makes is that condomized sex renders the act IMPOTENT in addition to contraceptive. a very important insight...
Some years back John Paul II had published a Vade Mecum for confessors that, if I recall rightly, had something to say about a married partner protecting herself from an AIDs-infected husband. This might be worth looking up.
AP:
Yes - I've seen that claim - I've alluded to it myself in noting that it's possible that even if it isn't contraceptive, it's in some other way at odds with the meaning of the marital act.
But while I think it's possible, I don't think it's been established with anything like certainty.
Thomas, you quoted the article in which Msgr. Soto is quoted:
"'Let me take a specific example,' he told CNA, in which one member of a couple 'has AIDS, and requests matrimony, has the other partner the right to protect his health in any way?'"
I believe that, due to a poor translation of Msgr. Soto's words, you misinterpreted the above words, Thomas, when you wrote: "This is a very different question -- about pre-matrimonial consent (perhaps when one spouse fails to tell the other they have the HIV/AIDS virus)."
In reality, Msgr. Soto was not talking about "pre-matrimonial consent." When he spoke the words that were translated as, "requests matrimony," Msgr. Soto actually meant, "requests marital intercourse."
In other words, he was talking about a married couple, one of whom becomes infected with AIDS. The Church may soon rule on whether or not the uninfected spouse, in that situation, may (1) refuse intercourse indefinitely or (2) require that intercourse take place only with a condom.
On another topic broached in the comments above, I have long been certain that the teachings found in "Humanae vitae" are infallible. However, the teachings are not infallible via the ("ex cathedra") papal extraordinary magisterium. Rather, they are infallible in the same way that the CDF declared the teaching in "Ordinatio sacerdotalis" [on male-only ordination] to be infallible.
The teachings of "Humanae vitae" are infallible through the Church's "ordinary and universal magisterium." What does that mean? For over 1,900 years, all the popes and bishops in union with them, throughout the world, (1) taught that only men could be ordained and (2) condemned all contraceptive acts as mortally sinful. According to "Lumen gentium," this unanimity is sufficient to recognize both teachings as infallible.
God be with you.
Anunsi, your comments re: matrimonial intercourse are of course correct - that makes far more sense.
your qualification on the status of the teaching in HV is also well taken.
Thank you!
That´s right AnUnSi.
In my post above, I also mentioned the constant teaching of the ordinary magisterium.
The extraordinary magisterium (of a Pope speaking ex cathedra or of an Ecumenical Council in a dogmatic document) is only one source of infallibility. But the Church holds that the constant teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium is another teaching equally infallible.
The only difference is that an infallible teaching of the extraordinary magisterium (Papal or conciliar) is a formal dogma; and an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium, even those that are the object of a definitive statement of the Roman Pontiff, are not formal dogmas (except if, by a subsequent formal proclamation of the extraordinary magisterium they are declared formally as dogmas).
This difference between a formal dogma and an infallible teaching that has not been formalized as a dogma corresponds to the difference between formal heresy (punished with latae sententiae excommunication, i.e. the automatic one) and material heresy (punished with a just penalty not excluding ferendae sententiae excommunication).
This matter, and the corresponding canonical discipline, was clarifyed by Pope John Paul II in his motu proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem. Cardinal Ratzinger´s press conference announcing this motu proprio is also relevant for a better understanding and more detailed explanation of the rationale of the said document.
Cannon Law now summarizes the things that are to be held as a matter of divine and Catholic Faith:
Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
---
Thus, not only the extraordinary magisterium is to be held as a matter of faith (de fide tenenda).
Cardinal´s Ratizger commentary on the new text of the profession of faith to be taken by hierarchs of the Church clarifyes this point, with several examples, including references to Evangelium Vitae´s teaching. He speciffically points out that nondefining definitive teachings (those not set as formal dogmas divinely revealled, but as definitive tru
continuing...
Thus, not only the extraordinary magisterium is to be held as a matter of faith (de fide tenenda).
Cardinal´s Ratizger commentary on the new text of the profession of faith to be taken by hierarchs of the Church clarifyes this point, with several examples, including references to Evangelium Vitae´s teaching. He speciffically points out that nondefining definitive teachings (those not set as formal dogmas divinely revealled, but as definitive truths nontheless) are also infallible:
"9. The magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed ... or to be held definitively ... with an act which is either defining or nondefining. 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 nondefining 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... or as a truth of Catholic doctrine... 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. 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."
Here is the link to the full Ratzinger commentary, formally issued as a document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith upon the announcement of the text of the profession of Faith to be taken by the hierarchs of the Church:
http://tcrnews2.com/doctrine.html
Gosh! Every day we can find a new rule or teaching that Card. Martini has violated with his bizarre statements.
Commenting by HaloScan
