However, John's comment impelled me to go back and reread Humanae Vitae, and I have to say I'm mystified that there could be any question of whether it's a reformable teaching.
First, if you read the Magisterium's reply in HV 6, it's clear that the Holy Father does not accept the findings of the commission convened to discuss the matter:
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.
So the question fell to the Magisterium to settle. Pope Paul VI then notes several points:
- This teaching has been constant from the earliest days of the Church (and earlier) and conforms to natural law. (HV 11)
- This teaching is the promulgation of the law of God Himself. (HV 20)
- Since the Church didn't make this teaching up, She cannot be its arbiter and can only guard and interpret it. (HV 18)
John's NFP website points to some of the early Scriptural references to contraceptive methods, as well as the early Church's prohibitions against pharmakeia (sorcery), which many consider to be a reference to abortifacient herns or medicines (Galatians 5:20; Revelation 9:21 and 18:23. The Didache also makes reference to pharmakeia as well.
This teaching has all of the marks of dogma, except for the formal declaration.
I'm still looking for an explanation from the camp that claims this teaching to be reformable. John's essay points out a few claims, but most of these seem like the kinds of smoke and mirrors used by those pushing for women's ordination—in large, delay and denial tactics.
What was missing from Humanae Vitae was a definitive statement. HV 14 declares the position, but without a clear statement in the kind of faith with which the faithful need to hold this teaching, the question will continue to be unanswered in the minds of many.
The Code of Canon Law, canon 749 §3 makes it clear when a teaching is to be taken infallibly: "No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this [a clear declaration that something is to be definitively held] is manifestly evident.
I think a definitive statement on the matter is overdue.
10 comments:
I don't think it is necessary to define because in HV 14 as quoted by the Catechism in #2370 state: "In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil." The Catechism adds the 'intrinsically evil' statement in conformity with Veritatis Splendor #80. Thus, since contraception is intrinsically evil, it can never be reformed by intention or circumstance. The object of the act is evil and can never be willed for itself.
That fact excludes any possible reformation since one can NEVER reform an intrinsically evil act.
I would tend to agree, but clearly Canon Law, in a way, sets up a problem. What is manifestly evident to you and me based on what's in the Catechism, HV 14, and VS 80, is apparently not manifestly evident to a large number of theologians. Heck, even when a definitve statement is made (as in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis), there still has to be a responsum ad dubium to confirm the teaching.
I see your point, though. How much clearer can it be?
Its difficult for me to comment. Your post is really about the reformability of the teaching. I think that the church can admit that it was wrong. B16 admits as much when he says the church was wrong to pursue theocratic empire in his new book. And of course, a rejection of theocracy, endorsement of separation of church and state, the devolution of the church from the government of spain, all of those things flowed from VII.
So I think that the church can reform and change.
Now let's look at HV.
"Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.
To me, HV is a reformable statement because of its clear errors. The idea that we should increase the suffering or consequences of sin is deplorable. It's evil. That's like saying that we should engineer a more devastating AIDS virus. Or that we should not have cured AIDS. I mean isn't curing AIDS the same thing as:
"[making] it easy for them to break that law"
Since it would be evil not to cure HIV/AIDS, since it would be evil not to cure HPV and thus cervical cancer, since it would be evil to engineer an STD, for all of these obvious reasons, it is clear that HV is flawed and can be rejected by the church without compromising the overall integrity of the truth the church is trying to teach.
(1) That avoiding children in marriage is an evil
(2) That promiscuity is evil-in-itself (not evil due to medical consequence)
OK? That's my take on it. Flame away if you like.
WP, you're mixing levels of magisterial teaching as if they were indistinguishible from each other. I'm looking solely at the issue of whether the teaching on contraception is reformable. I'm not addressing whether all teachings are reformable. That question is addressed in the Catechism, in Lumen Gentium, Donum Veritatis, the Code of Canon Law, and I'm sure many other Church documents. Some teaching can change. Definitive teachings and dogma cannot.
"And of course, a rejection of theocracy, endorsement of separation of church and state, the devolution of the church from the government of spain, all of those things flowed from VII."
These are political matters, disciplinary, and fall outside the protections of the charism of infallibility. As such, they were conditioned by the conditions of the time. Such matters are reformable. It's not that matters of politics have no bearing on morality, but that they in and of themselves are not matters of faith and morals.
However, with HV, you have something that clearly falls within the bounds of the Church's charism--faith and morals. The question of HIV/AIDS and the use of condoms is a separate question. I've dealt with it in other posts. Feel free to read that here.
"Since it would be evil not to cure HIV/AIDS, since it would be evil not to cure HPV and thus cervical cancer, since it would be evil to engineer an STD, for all of these obvious reasons, "
None of these have anything to do with whether promotion of contraception increases the likelihood that people will misuse sex. Forbidding contraception does not have anything to do with whether researchers pursue cures for disease. As far as engineering an STD goes, I don't even know what you're suggesting. You're confusing compassion denied to someone who suffers with a prohibition against an act that can lead to suffering. The Church does not do the former. It does do the latter.
You might also go read the essay on levels of magisterial authority. It clarifies what level of obedience we owe to each type of teaching.
Thanks Theocid, I'll check that out.
What I am having trouble with is the tendency of the church and many who teach on her behalf, to think that consequences of sin, ie suffering are good. That suffering should not be avoided or cured. And this is a real issue. There are those refusing to vaccinate their daughters against HPV on the grounds that removing a consequence might encourage fornication. This is very, very, very wrong on so many levels. Once you realize how evil that is, and you read that line in HV, you realize there is a light of truth shining behind HV on several issues. But, HV has some huge flaws.
So I guess what I am saying is, from a humble lay perspective like mine, it has to be reformable because it is wrong.
"What I am having trouble with is the tendency of the church and many who teach on her behalf, to think that consequences of sin, ie suffering are good."
The Church doesn't teach that the consequences of sin are good. The Church teaches that what one does with ones suffering can be good. There is a difference.
HPV vaccination really doesn't have anything to do with contraception. It has to do with disease prevention. That the disease is largely sexually transmitted is another matter. However, I'm highly concerned about the HPV vaccine because of the speed with which it was passed through. I'm not against the vaccination per se, but I am against state-mandated vaccinations.
"There are those refusing to vaccinate their daughters against HPV on the grounds that removing a consequence might encourage fornication."
That's not the point. The point is that vacination will give them a false impression of safety. They might be protected from HPV (might being the operative word here), but they wouldn't be safe from other STDs, or from pregnancy. Those people want to teach abstinence because it is the behavior with the least amount of risk, not because they want someone to suffer for their sin.
All sin eventually leads to suffering, either here or in the afterlife. That is what Christian parents needs to teach their children. Spiritually, obedience to God is the path of least risk.
Hi Theocid,
Your thoughts are well reasoned but there's little denying that a whole lot of people out there mistakenly think that removing consequences is evil. And HV seems to reflect that. That mentality ought to have a name with an 'ism' behind it, possibly as a heresy.
The HPV vaccine is massively effective. It protects women should their husbands fall from grace as well. That vaccine is just a good thing to do.
Heck, tell your daughter it is a cowpox vaccine. Just get her protected!
In any event, I think that the condom discussions I have participated in always seem to come back to 'not removing consequences' and 'encouragine fornication'.
I think condoms are, well, kind of gross. They are slimy latex bags. I think that the very act of carrying one around, using one, et cetera would tend to be instructive that (1)the condomistic sexual act lacks authenticity, and (2)the condom is a bandage against a raft of consequences that it only has a percent chance of stopping.
If I were a guardian angel and my ward was in the midst of fornication, I would ethically wish that a condom were in use. (1) to prevent disease and (2) to keep the unborn out of the crossfire.
Almost everyone agrees with that. In order to disagree, they go back in time, before the decision to commit the act was made. They claim that the slimy latex bag motivated the act.
I do not think that slimy latex bags motivate sexual acts. Sleazy condom advertizing might.... I think we catholics should focus on sleazy advertizing that markets the idea of non-consequences, has no concern for emotional consequences, and glamorizes dangerous behavior.
All the Best, +B
Maybe you should replace the word "evil" with "dangerous." When we remove the physical consequences and increase the liklihood of illicit behavior, we are making the situation more dangerous because the act has the illusion of being safe. No one would say that sending your children into a war zone wearing body armor is safe. Yet that's the mentality: "Well, their going to run off and shoot guns anyway." Father V. has a parody that illustrates the point here.
Paul VI was not saying that it's evil to remove consequences, but that removing consequences would allow a lax moral attitude to take hold. It would be hard to deny that exactly that has happened. And while you can argue that there is no provable causative relationship (as I've noticed you doing on one of your blogs before), the correlating data is substantial.
Correlating data doesn't establish cause, but as Thoreau said, "Some circumstantial evidence is damning, like a trout in the milk."
Post a Comment