![\"PaulVI\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2017\/10\/PaulVI.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(12-31-07)<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
The teaching against contraception as a grave sin was already firmly entrenched in Catholic tradition, having been strongly asserted again in 1930 by Pope Pius XI in response to the Anglicans [Casti Connubii<\/a><\/em>]. Such declarations often come in response to heresy. No one (not even any Protestant body) had officially disagreed with the prohibition until 1930, so it was a non-issue. Once the Anglicans started sanctioning sin, then it was time to clarify the constant teaching. Hence, the heroic encyclical\u00a0Humanae Vitae<\/em><\/a>, written by Pope Paul VI in 1968.<\/p>\n The papal commission originally appointed by Pope John XXIII and then later modified a bit by Pope Paul VI thought it was acceptable for married couples to contracept in order to space children. This is why we have\u00a0popes<\/i>! Commissions, even those appointed by popes, are not\u00a0themselves the magisterium. The commission clearly didn\u2019t properly understand the received Catholic tradition on contraception.<\/p>\n But Pope Paul VI\u00a0did<\/i>\u00a0(thank God and bless his heart) and that is all that matters. The commission was guilty of erroneous ethical reasoning. The Pope saw that and went against their recommendation. That\u2019s how Catholic authority works: it is a Church run by popes, cardinals, councils, and bishops, not commissions and pointy-headed, trendy theologians. What the commission thought doesn\u2019t amount to a hill of beans, authority- or doctrine-wise, anymore than discussions in ecumenical councils prior to the decisions rendered have any magisterial bearing. It might be interesting for historians and sociologists and those who get into Church politics, but it has nothing to do with what Catholics are to believe.<\/p>\n Just because some people on a commission came up with an opinion (that was ethically wrong), proves nothing. The commission existed to aid the pope in the decision-making process; to inform him of new technology and science. He is not bound, however to what they concluded. I trust the pope\u2019s judgment because he has the charism of infallibility and the responsibility of leading the Church.<\/p>\n I shall now proceed to argue that\u00a0Humanae Vitae<\/em>\u00a0not only promulgates an\u00a0infallible<\/i>\u00a0doctrine<\/i>, but also\u00a0possibly<\/i>\u00a0ex cathedra<\/i>\u00a0doctrine, as argued by Fr. Brian Harrison in a\u00a0lengthy, meaty article<\/a>\u00a0posted at EWTN. The article begins:<\/p>\n In \u201cLiving Tradition,\u201d No. 12 (July 1987),[1] the present writer favourably reviewed a recent book by Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M., \u201cHumanae Vitae e Infallibilita\u201d (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1986), in which the thesis is sustained that the teaching against contraception in Pope Paul VI\u2019s encyclical letter \u201cHumanae Vitae\u201d (25 July 1968) is infallible, not merely by virtue of being an instance of the constant, ordinary and universal magisterium of the Popes and Catholic Bishops against this practice, but because the encyclical itself contains (in article 14) an \u201cex cathedra\u201d definition. Lio claims, in other words, that \u201cHumanae Vitae\u201d contains an intrinsically infallible pronouncement: an instance of papal infallibility as defined by Vatican Council I.<\/p>\n To my knowledge Lio\u2019s book has been virtually ignored by the theological community, in spite of his eminent qualifications as a professor of long standing in Rome\u2019s Pontifical Lateran University, as a \u201cperitus\u201d at Vatican Council II, and an adviser to Pope Paul VI over the birth control issue\u2013not to mention a personal autographed letter from Pope John Paul II thanking Fr. Lio for the presentation of his book, which was published by the Vatican Press.<\/p>\n Certainly, Lio\u2019s thesis goes against the common view of theologians (both those who assent to \u201cHumanae Vitae\u201d and those who dissent from it), who have usually described the encyclical as being, in itself, a \u201cnon-infallible\u201d document. Very often this conclusion seems to be drawn merely from the fact that there is no definition of a \u201cdogma\u201d\u2013a point of \u201crevealed\u201d truth to be held as \u201cof faith\u201d (\u201cde fide\u201d)\u2013in Pope Paul\u2019s encyclical. But Lio\u2019s point is that such definitions, while they represent the most solemn form of papal teaching, are not the \u201conly\u201d form which satisfies the conditions for an \u201cex cathedra\u201d definition as laid down by the constitution \u201cPastor Aeternus\u201d of Vatican I. In this paper I propose to develop this theme, in support of Lio\u2019s thesis, i.e., the \u201cex cathedra\u201d status of \u201cHumanae Vitae.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n After very interesting treatments of the question of infallibility and its proper conditions, Harrison gets back to the subject at hand,\u00a0Humanae Vitae<\/em>: (my blue highlighting):<\/p>\n Paul VI revealed his state of mind regarding \u201cHumanae Vitae\u201d to the College of Cardinals in his end-of-the-year address on the year\u2019s events on December 23, 1968. He said that as a result of his long and scrupulous examination of the arguments against the traditional teaching on birth control, \u201cthis teaching showed itself to Us anew in all its severe and yet \u2018serene certainty<\/span>.'\u201d) . . .<\/p>\n The dogmatic definition specifies four elements which constitute an \u201cex cathedra\u201d definition:<\/p>\n 1. The Pope must speak as \u201cthe pastor and teacher of all Christians\u201d (\u201ccum omnium Christianorum pastoris et doctoris munere fungens\u201d). As Bishop Gasser explained, this means \u201cnot . .. when he decrees something as a private teacher, nor only as the bishop and ordinary of a particular province.\u201d[62] Nobody can possibly doubt that this condition is fulfilled in the case of \u201cHumanae Vitae.\u201d 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\u2013perhaps 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: \u201cTo 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.\u201d[63] The definition adds after \u201cfungens\u201d the words \u201cprosuprema sua Apostolica auctoritate\u201d\u2013\u201cby virtue of his\u2019 supreme Apostolic authority.\u201d 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 \u201ccan\u201d speak \u201cas the pastor and teacher of all Christians,\u201d so there could be no question of his ever speaking in that capacity \u201cwithout making use of,\u201d or depending on, his supreme apostolic authority. In any case, this aspect of an \u201cex cathedra\u201d decision is also spelled out in \u201cHumanae Vitae.\u201d\u00a0In article 6 the Pope declares that the decision he is about to announce is being promulgated \u201cby virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ\u201d<\/span>\u00a0(\u201cvi mandati Nobis a Christo commissi\u201d).[64] He has just asserted in article 4, in regard to that \u201cmandate,\u201d \u201cJesus 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.\u201d This, he says, \u201cis indisputable, as our predecessors have many times declared.\u201d\u00a0It 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\u2019s supreme teacher on earth. He thereby indisputably fulfils the first condition for an \u201cex cathedra\u201d statement.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n . . .\u00a03. The dogma of 1870 then adds that in an \u201cex cathedra\u201d pronouncement, this doctrine must be proposed as \u201cab universa Ecclesia tenendam,\u201d literally, \u201crequiring to be held by the universal Church.\u201d 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 \u201cabsolutely excluded as licit means for regulating birth\u201d (\u201comnino respuendam\u2026 ut legitimum modum numeri liberorum temperandi\u201d). [he goes on at length to elaborate on this condition]<\/p>\n . . . 4. The final condition for an \u201cex cathedra\u201d pronouncement is that the Roman Pontiff \u201cdefine\u201d (\u201cdefinit\u201d in Latin) the doctrine he is proposing for acceptance by the whole Church. . . .<\/p>\n Now, the fact that Pope Paul in \u201cHumanae Vitae\u201d 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 \u201cex cathedra\u201d decision- -a final, doubt-dispelling, certain resolution of a very specific doctrinal question\u2013is an urgent pastoral necessity, in order to restore peace to millions of troubled Catholic consciences. The question had been formally reserved for the \u201cjudgment\u201d 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 \u201cpass judgment\u201d (\u201ciudicium ferat\u201d).<\/p>\n Now in that kind of situation, the \u201cjudgment\u201d which is awaited from the supreme ecclesial tribunal on earth\u2013not the \u201cRoman Rota\u201d nor the \u201cCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith\u201d but the Successor of Peter in person, from whose judgment no appeal is possible\u2013is by its very nature a \u201cdefinitive\u201d judgment: the last word; the end of the argument.<\/p>\n Pope Paul VI was well aware that this kind of \u201cdefinitive, certain\u201d judgment was being expected of him, and made clear in his encyclical that he intended to give it there and then. In the introductory section, he states that he enlarged the papal commission so as to gather \u201copportune elements of information.\u201d This would better enable him to give \u201can adequate reply to the expectation not only of the faithful, but also of world opinion.\u201d[74] Then, in article 6, the Pope makes it clear that this encyclical will give the reply which the world has been anxiously awaiting:The conclusions at which the Commission arrived could not be considered by Us as manifesting the force of a certain and definitive judgment (\u201cvim iudicii certi ac definiti prae se ferrent\u201d), dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally such a grave and momentous question (\u201cquaeque Nos officio liberarent, tam gravis momenti quaestionem per Nosmetipsos consideratione expendendi\u201d).[75]<\/p>\n Already the implication is completely clear: \u201cthe Commission\u201d could not produce a statement with \u201cthe force of a certain and definitive judgment,\u201d but \u201cthe Pope\u201d can and will give such a judgment after having \u201cpersonally examined\u201d the matter. The Holy Father then formally announces his intention (still in article 6) to hand down the long-awaited judgment in this present document. His solemn words are usually diluted or weakened in vernacular translations. The following is an accurate rendition of this key passage:<\/p>\n Wherefore, having carefully pondered the documentation placed before Us, having most diligently examined the matter in mind and spirit, and after having raised ceaseless prayers to God, We now resolve, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, to give Our reply to these grave questions.[76]<\/p>\n Article 6 thus makes manifest the Pontiff\u2019s intention to give, in this document, a \u201cdefinitive\u201d teaching on birth control\u2013one handed down with no less than divine authority. It is worth remembering that the \u201cmandate\u201d from Christ referred to here is specifically his teaching authority, not merely the governing authority by which the Pope can make disciplinary decisions. Pope Paul has just asserted in article 4, \u201cIt is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, that \u2018Jesus Christ, when communicating to Peter and to the apostles His divine authority,\u2019 constituted them as guardians and authentic interpreters \u2018of all the moral law.'\u201d[77]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Do I agree that it is\u00a0ex cathedra<\/i>? I don\u2019t know. I\u2019ll let theologians tackle that. I think Harrison makes a great argument, though (as usual), and I do strongly believe it is\u00a0infallible doctrine<\/i>\u00a0in the ordinary magisterium (and can\u2019t imagine how this could be denied). Here are some of the stronger authoritative statements in the encyclical itself (from the copy on the Holy See website):<\/p>\n The Magisterium\u2019s Reply<\/i><\/p>\n 6. However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were\u00a0at variance with the moral doctrine\u00a0on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.<\/span><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it\u00a0<\/strong>interprets by its constant\u00a0doctrine<\/span>, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.<\/p>\n Union and Procreation<\/i><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0This particular\u00a0doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church<\/span>, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.<\/p>\n Unlawful Birth Control Methods<\/i><\/p>\n 14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a\u00a0human and Christian doctrine\u00a0of marriage\u00a0<\/span>when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children.<\/p>\n Recourse to Infertile Periods<\/i><\/p>\n 16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against\u00a0this particular\u00a0doctrine\u00a0of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage<\/span>, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. . . .<\/p>\n Neither the Church nor her\u00a0doctrine\u00a0is inconsistent<\/span>\u00a0when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious.<\/p>\n Consequences of Artificial Methods<\/i><\/p>\n 17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of\u00a0the truth of the doctrine\u00a0laid down by the Church on this issue<\/span>\u00a0if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control.<\/p>\n [see also in section 29: implied as applying to this question]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019m not alone in my opinion, by any means. Catholic Answers has asserted\u00a0that the prohibition of contraception is infallible<\/a> teaching. Now, lest someone think, \u201cso what?\u201d, I would point out that Catholic Answers is supported by a great many bishops (many of whom write in its magazine).<\/p>\n The late Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., one of the leading catechists in America, who is now being considered for sainthood,\u00a0agrees, too<\/a>:<\/p>\n Is it infallible Catholic doctrine that contraception is a mortal sin? Yes! How do we know? We know this from the twenty centuries of the Catholic Church\u2019s teaching. Already in the first century, those who professed the Catholic Faith did not practice either contraception or abortion, which were commonly linked together.<\/p>\n . . . What do we call the Church\u2019s unbroken tradition in forbidding contraception? We call it her ordinary universal magisterium or teaching authority. This has always been considered a proof of infallibility, or from another perspective, irreversibility. What do these two terms mean? Infallibility means that God protects the Church from error in her 2000 years of teaching that contraception is a grave sin against God. Irreversibility means that this teaching will never be reversed. Contraception will remain a grave sin until the end of time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He even argues in the same article that those who defend contraception cease being \u201cprofessed Catholics\u201d and lose divine grace.<\/p>\n Well-known moral theologian\u00a0Germain Grisez\u00a0<\/a>concurs:<\/p>\n With \u201cHumanae Vitae,\u201d Paul VI reaffirmed the constant and very firm teaching of the Church excluding contraception. I believe and have argued that teaching had already been proposed infallibly by the ordinary magisterium \u2014 that is, by the morally unanimous agreement of the bishops of the whole world in communion with the popes. Together, they had taught for many centuries that using contraceptives always is grave matter.<\/p>\n Their manner of teaching implied that what they taught was a truth to be held definitively. Thus, the teaching on contraception met the conditions for infallible teaching, without a solemn definition, articulated by Vatican II in \u201cLumen Gentium,\u201d 25.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Another argument made is that the Church allows regulation of bodily functions, such as cough medicine or heart medicine and pacemakers, etc. We regulate digestion and help improve breathing. We use radiation in cancer treatment that sometimes causes sterility. Why, then (so the reasoning goes), should regulation of fertility or ovulation be a special ethical case?<\/p>\n It is because the deliberate separation of natural, intrinsic aspects that shouldn\u2019t be separated, contravenes moral law. It\u2019s not merely a matter of technology, as those who argue like this seem to be assuming. It is the nature of the act and intention, that violates natural law. The deepest, most intrinsic, ontological purpose of sexuality is to produce children. Contraception inherently involves a \u201ccontralife\u201d or \u201canti-children\u201d mentality. Medicine to stop a cough does not pervert the normal operation of a throat; it aids it\u00a0to be what it is<\/i>.<\/p>\n It\u2019s the same with a pacemaker or heart medicine. We\u2019re not causing the heart to violate its own essence (which would be to pump blood). Eyeglasses help eyes to see better, a cane helps a weak leg to walk, etc. Sterility in the process of radiation is an unintended consequence; therefore it involves no contralife will, and is permissible. Now, if it were known that it would absolutely, certainly make one sterile, I\u2019m not sure of the ins and outs of that (in serious cases like cancer). If justified according to traditional ethics, the reasoning would be that the will is to heal the person of cancer, not to prevent conception.<\/p>\n I would have to study that further. But I know that a deliberate decision to contracept or to be sterile is immoral. Sometimes there is a risk. Say that was 6% or something and the only thing available to cure a cancer had this possible side effect. As far as I know it would be permitted, because it is not the intention in using it to be infertile, but to cure cancer, and the variables of future prognosis are not completely known.<\/p>\n If some new form of contraception were invented tomorrow, where a woman has to drink cranberry juice, stands on her head and then applies some electrical apparatus to her belly, and it became the latest rage in contraception, it would be condemned in\u00a0Humanae Vitae<\/i>\u00a0(and\u00a0Evangelium Vitae<\/i>) also, and infallibly, as soon as it was demonstrated to be an effective contraceptive. It wouldn\u2019t matter a hill of beans whether it was a new technology or not, just as murder remains wrong, no matter what method is used, because the evil lies in the\u00a0intention and\u00a0result: a dead human being killed immorally and unjustly.<\/p>\n Humanae Vitae<\/em>\u00a0was not innovative at all. This is what many don\u2019t seem to grasp. The Church has always opposed contraception. The Pill was simply a new\u00a0form<\/i>\u00a0of it. Dissenters from\u00a0Humanae Vitae<\/em>\u00a0are hung up on technology and miss the forest for the trees.<\/p>\n It is said that many Catholics don\u2019t follow the prohibition; therefore it is not a doctrine held universally by the faithful; therefore it is not binding and magisterial.<\/p>\n But the\u00a0entire Christian world\u00a0opposed contraception until 1930. That\u2019s exceptionally universal: including Protestants along with Catholics and Orthodox. So we are supposed to now assert that universality is lacking when in fact it was there for some\u00a01900 years\u00a0until it was broken down via numerous means of propaganda (Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, sterilization of black people and Jews and disabled people, eugenics, and so forth)? That\u2019s backwards \u201clogic\u201d.<\/p>\n It was condemned just as strongly in 1930, when virtually all Christians still agreed that it was wrong. 1968 added nothing essentially beyond that encyclical. But it was a different time: the height of the craziness of Baby Boomer sexual revolution, and so it was rejected by more-relevant-than-thou trendy liberal dissidents who had a very poor understanding of Catholic authority, and were deliberately looking for ways to undermine it.<\/p>\n The traditional prohibition of contraceptives goes back to ancient times<\/a>, and those ancient methods (potions and so forth) were definitely regulating body functions. They either killed sperm or otherwise impeded it in its usual course of action: attempting to fertilize an egg. That\u2019s\u00a0two<\/i>\u00a0bodily functions. Whenever these methods worked to repress what would have been a conception, they were \u201cregulating\u201d natural physiology.<\/p>\n\n