This is truly amazing. Most of my posts are in support of the Holy Father and critical of those who undermine him. And yet I am supposed to have a toxic influence on a Catholic forum! Extraordinary.
As a book I read more than 20 years ago (Defending the Papacy) said in reference to doctrine changing or developing: "if a puppy becomes a dog that is development, but if a puppy becomes a cat, that is a change". What Pope Francis is speaking of (contraception) is surely not development, but change. Doctrine (faith and morals) can never change as it comes from the Divine deposit of the faith. Church discipline can change as it comes from the Human aspect of the Church ie., married priests.
This is a sophomoric response. Defending the Faith when it is under attack is never name calling or finger pointing. It reflects quite poorly on anyone who would attempt to mischaracterise it as such.
Although you think it "reflects quite poorly" on me, I do not believe my response was either sophomoric or guilty of mischaracterising the posts of another member. In hindsight, I think the worst one could say is that my tone was too flippant for the discussion at hand. I would direct your attention to the posts from Malachi to which I was reacting/responding - neither of which rises to a level worthy of being called "defending the faith". In the first, Malachi identifies another forum member as being a "toxic" influence and states: "I have a pet hamster more catholic than you." In the second, Malachi notes regarding that same member: "David is a thoroughbred modernist. He is a danger to the souls of Catholics on this forum not well grounded in their faith." As I read those comments, they are name calling and finger pointing. In the brief space of 4 or 5 posts, we shift from common ground to a "a danger to the souls on this forum." So, I stand by my original comment. Certainly, I will acknowledge that David's views on certain topics are different from yours and/or Malachi's. It may well be that David is wrong, and perhaps gravely so, on some of these matters. Heck, I rarely find myself in agreement with David's posts! Truth be told, I think that your (and Malachi's) desire to "defend the faith" is to be lauded, but fraternal correction does not require name calling or finger pointing. I would like to think that everyone on this forum is above making his/her points without comparing other forum members to rodents and declaring them a danger to others on the forum. On a related note - I will apologize now to CrewDog (and others) who have made the point recently that these types or arguments and back and forth are so much nonsense right now, in the face of the storm. I agree with you!! If I had a do-over, I suppose I would avoid commenting on this particular thread at all today! There are certainly bigger fish to fry. I suspect that these "tempests" in our MOG "teapot" are helpful to no one. Mea culpa.
“Contraception is one of these acts in itself and of itself it is always a moral disorder” “the moral norm of Humanae Vitae concerning contraception, as prohibiting an intrinsically disordered act, does not admit exceptions.” “What is taught by the Church on contraception is not one of the matters that may be freely disputed by theologians.” CDF 16/02/1989 “An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed.” CDF, 22/12/2010 Pope St John Paul II “Contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly illicit that it can never, for any reason, be justified. To think, or to say, anything to the contrary is tantamount to saying that in human life there can be situations where it is legitimate not to recognize God as God. Users of contraception attribute to themselves a power that belongs only to God, the power to decide in the final instance the coming into existence of a human being.” (Address on Responsible Procreation)
Like I said above and despite bflocatholies protest David is a modernist and his posts are a danger to those not grounded in their faith due to their latent and oft explicit heretical content.
Amen. This kind of toxic dissent is part and parcel of The Storm yet people refuse to see. They'd rather "maintain peace" than defend the Faith in the face of this apostasy. Are people really so clueless of the spiritual nature of this Storm that they desire peace over defending the Gospel of Life?
"Although it is theoretically possible that a pope might personally subscribe to a heresy, the Holy Spirit would protect the Church from that pope ever infallibly defining the heresy as orthodox dogma. Such a pope would govern illicitly (i.e., govern in an unlawful manner by his willful adherence to known heresy), but he would still be a valid pope." - Michelle Arnold, Catholic apologist
Fatima, I need to make clear that I said not a word in my post about changing doctrine. I need to make that clear. Things seem to be getting a bit heated at the moment so I think it is better that I take a lower profile for a while but I remain a staunch defender of the Faith and our Holy Father.
Pope Francis' comments on Zika have rekindled the old debate on whether or not a Pope can be a heretic and what the proper course of action is in such a circumstance. The following article seemed to do a good job of covering the issue, an one section in particular stood out and gets to the heart of the controversy: "John of St. Thomas, Suarez, Cajetan, and others all teach that a general council alone would be the competent authority to oversee the matter of an heretical Pope. John of St. Thomas explained why. He wrote: “since the matter at hand concerns the universal Church, it must be overseen by the tribunal that represents the universal Church, which is that of a general council”. (30) He cites three historical examples to confirm the point: "This is indeed evident from the practice of the Church, for in the case [Pope] Marcellinus, who offered incense to idols, a synod was gathered together for the purpose of discussing this case, as is recorded in Cap. Hunc c, distinct. 11. And in the case of the schism in which there were three reputed pontiffs, the Council of Constance gathered for the purpose of settling that schism. And also in the case of Pope Symmachus, a council at Rome was gathered to treat those things which were presented to it. It is known, from the resources cited above, that the pontiffs, who, being accused of various crimes and wanting to excuse themselves of charges, did so in the presence of a council." (31) Suarez said it is “the common opinion of the doctors” that a general council would be responsible for overseeing the matter of a heretical pope. He began by saying: “I affirm: If he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declarative sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church.” Then one paragraph he adds: "In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? Some say that it should be the Cardinals; and the Church could undoubtedly assign them this faculty, above all if it were established with the consent and decision of the Supreme Pontiffs, as was done for the election. But to this day we do not read anywhere that such a judgment has been confided to them. For this reason, it must be affirmed that, of itself, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general Council. This is the common opinion of the doctors. One can read Cardinal Albano expounding upon this point at length in De Cardinalibus, (q. 35, 1584 ed., vol. 13, p. 2)." (32) Perfect and Imperfect Council This brings up a question: How can the Church convene a general council to oversee such a situation, when a general council must be called and overseen by a Pope, either personally or through his legates? In answering this question, theologians make a distinction between a perfect council and an imperfect council. A perfect council is one in which the body is united to its head, and therefore consists of the Bishops and the Pope. This is sometimes referred to as an absolutely perfect council. (33) Such a council has the authority to define doctrines and issue decrees that regulate the universal Church. (34) An imperfect council is one that is convened “with those members who can be found when the Church is in a given condition.” (35) Cardinal Cajetan refers to an imperfect council as “a perfect council according to the present state of the Church”, and explained that such a council “can involve itself with the universal Church only up to a certain point”. (36) Unlike a perfect council, it cannot define doctrines or issue decrees that regulate the universal Church, but only possesses the authority to decide the matter that necessitated its convocation. Cajetan notes that there are only two cases that justify convoking an imperfect council. They are: “when there is a single heretical pope to be deposed, and when there are several doubtful supreme pontiffs”. (37) In such exceptional cases, a general council can be called without, or even against, the will of the Pope. Writes Cajetan: "A perfect council according to the present state of the Church [i.e. an imperfect council] can be summoned without the pope and against his will, if, although asked, he himself does not wish to summon it; but it does not have the authority to regulate the universal Church, but only to provide for the issue then at stake. Although human cases vary in infinite ways … there are only two cases that have occurred or can ever occur, in which, I declare, such a council should be summoned. The first is when the pope must be deposed on account of heresy; for then, if he refused, although asked, the cardinals, the emperor, or the prelates can cause a council to be assembled, in which will not have for its scope the care of the universal Church, but only the power to depose the Pope. (…) "The second is when one or more Popes suffer uncertainty with regard to their election, as seems to have arisen in the schism of Urban VI and others. Then, lest the Church be perplexed, those members of the Church who are available have the power to judge which is the true pope, if it can be known, and if it cannot be known, [it has] the power to provide that the electors agree on one or another of them." (38) The council of Constance is often cited as an example of an imperfect council. It was convened during The Great Western Schism, when there were three claimants to the papacy and sufficient uncertainty as to which of the three was the true Pope. The council ended the schism by deposing or accepting the resignation of the papal claimants, which then paved the way for the election of Cardinal Odo Colonna, who took the name Martin V. (39) Another council that is often mentioned is the Council of Sinuesso, which was conveyed by the Bishops to oversee the matter of Pope Marcellinius (d. 304), who offered incense to idols. (40) Today such papal actions would likely be explained away (“10 Reasons Why Pope Marcellinius Didn’t Really Offer Incense to Idols”), or praised as a positive ecumenical gesture. In the time of the early Church, however, there was a different reaction: a council was called, and the Pope, through shame, deposed himself. But this tragic story had a happy ending. For the bishops were so edified by his public repentance that they re-elected him to the Papacy. Pope Marcellinius went on to die as a martyr for the Faith and is now a canonized saint. Here we see the good fruit that followed such a council. How different his end may have been had his scandalous actions been explained away or, worse still, defended and praised as a positive good. Deposing a Heretical Pope One of the difficult questions the theologians have had to sort out, is how a Pope “who is judged by no one” and who has no superior on earth, can be judged and deposed for heresy? How can a pope be declared a heretic, and then deposed for his heresy, without the Church judging him or claiming authority over him? Theologians have had to navigate through these difficult questions while carefully avoiding many errors, especially that of Conciliarism, which maintains that a general council is superior to the Pope. Four Opinions John of St. Thomas discusses at length the four opinions enunciated by Cardinal Cajetan (41) regarding this question. Of these four opinions, there are two extreme opinions and two middle opinions. The two extreme opinions are: That a Pope who commits the sin of heresy falls from the pontificate ipso facto without human judgment. The second holds that the Pope has a superior over him on earth, and therefore can be judged and deposed. Both of these opinions are shown to be false and therefore rejected. (42) Within the two extreme opinions, there are two middle opinions: The first maintains that a Pope does not have a superior on earth unless he has fallen into heresy, in which case the Church would be superior to the Pope. This is a variant of Conciliarism and is therefore rejected. This leaves the second middle opinion which holds that the Pope has no superior on earth, even in the case of heresy, but that the Church does possess a ministerial power when it comes to deposing a heretical Pope. This opinion avoids the error of Conciliarism by affirming that the Church has no authority over a Pope, nor does the Church herself depose the pope, but only performs the ministerial function required for the deposition. The ministerial function consists of those acts which are necessary to establish that the Pope is indeed a heretic, which is then followed by a public declaratory sentence of the crime. It is God himself, however, who causesthe man to fall from the Pontificate, but not without the Church herself performing the ministerial functions necessary to establish the crime.... http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/1284-can-the-church-depose-an-heretical-pope
I think that is very important to understand. To me it boils down to this: did Pope Francis make a mistake and speak incorrectly on the plane? Yes. Did he change doctrine? No. We have learned by now that Pope Francis has at least one flaw, and that is speaking off the cuff, especially on the plane going home at the end of a long trip. He's made the mistake before. He'll make it again. He's human. Possibly in the Year of Mercy, we could exercise mercy and forgive him for that?
I asked a friend, a professor of systematic theology at one of the good Newman colleges, about this pope and "heresy." He replied, "Francis' dissent from the Church's infallible teaching on contraception does not rise to the level of heresy because that requires dissent from a dogmatically defined teaching. The teaching on contraception is definitive and infallible, but has never been solemnly defined. That's why I've been saying in my posts that Francis has lost full communion with Christ and the Church [edit to add: a canonical censure for an offense one step below heresy, but as such he still suffers excommunication Latae sentientae] - but not that he's a heretic." If he had expressed heresy as defined above, canonical proceedings would have already been filed by those in authority to do so.
Right Brian, reading this interesting thread and in my humble opinion, to my knowledge I am not aware to date of any canonical procedure from the CDF about Pope Francis last comments, Nothing also from any Cardinals especially from some of them as Cardinal Burke and so on, Nothing to date, so it's of course good to remind the Teachings of the Church but to me, Pope's answer to a specific (and probably tricky) question about Contraception should not be exaggerated more than necessary, his next apostolic exortation shoud be much more important.
Many Churchmen realize they have a duty and an obligation to respond but since we're in uncharted waters they are still praying and researching the best way to deal with this sad situation.
http://www.ncbcenter.org/resources/the-ncbc-responds-to-the-zika- The National Catholic Bioethics Center Zika Does Not Justify Abortion or ContraceptionFebruary 22, 2016© 2016 by the National Catholic Bioethics Center Zika Does Not Justify Abortion or Contraception February 22, 2016 Given the spread of the Zika virus and microcephaly within the Western Hemisphere, some have recommended the use of abortion and contraception as appropriate tools in the fight against this disease. In the following statement, the Ethicists of the NCBC reply to numerous media inquiries and give guidance to faithful Catholics on this topic. A suspected connection between the Zika virus and microcephaly, or abnormally small heads, in children who were in the womb when their mothers contracted the virus has raised public health alarms in South America, the United States, and elsewhere around the globe. There is little question that the risks associated with the virus should continue to be carefully examined by medical experts. Appropriate recommendations to safeguard the health of all persons, and particularly those most susceptible to any serious effects of the disease, are warranted. Zika is the most recent and high-profile instance of any number of diseases that might have deleterious effects on the unborn children whose mothers contract it while pregnant. In no way, however, would it justify a change in the Catholic Church’s consistent teachings on the sacredness and inviolability of human life and the dignity and beauty of the means of transmitting life through marital relations. Direct abortion and contraceptive acts are intrinsically immoral and contrary to these great goods, and no circumstances can justify either. Based on available information, it does not appear that Zika poses any particular threat to the life of a pregnant woman who contracts it. Although the association is not yet confirmed, the virus’s harmful effects appear to be on the development of the child in her womb. Proposing abortion as a “medical solution” to the child’s pathology is suggesting the direct destruction of innocent human life as a means of healing. This is an evident self-contradiction. Pope Pius XI addressed the issue of “therapeutic abortion” in his encyclical Casti connubii: What could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: “Thou shalt not kill.” The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. (CC, n. 64) More recently, in his encyclical Evangelium vitae, Pope St. John Paul II reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching: The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. (EV, n. 57) Beyond the issue of abortion, governments and public health experts may be justified in recommending that married couples delay childbearing temporarily in view of the great number of apparent risks associated with contracting Zika during pregnancy. Married couples should prayerfully assess any such recommendations. Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae vitae clearly addresses this issue, teaching that “with regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time” (HV, n. 10). Therefore, the couple should choose whether and to what extent they will accept such a recommendation, assessing all of their pertinent spousal duties and reliable medical facts: “The exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society” (HV, n. 10). Delaying pregnancy can be achieved through complete or periodic abstinence during the wife’s fertile period, which can be generally ascertained through bodily signs (natural family planning). Humanae vitae also goes on to explain what “due respect to moral precepts” includes. Paul VI teaches that such respect excludes “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” (HV, n. 14). In response to the notion that contraception might be an acceptable lesser evil when compared to direct abortion, he further clarifies: 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. . . . Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. (HV, n. 14) This provides the foundation to answer a question increasingly being asked—whether it is ethical to use contraceptive methods, such as condoms, to reduce the likelihood of transmission of the Zika virus. Apart from the scientific questions about the actual effectiveness of condoms in disease prevention, using condoms to reduce the likelihood of Zika transmission amounts to directly intending contraceptive acts of intercourse as a means to a good end. It “deliberately frustrate . . . the natural power and purpose” of marital intercourse (see CC, n. 54). In the case of a woman who is already pregnant, condom use could not have the effect of preventing pregnancy, but it would prevent a true marital act from taking place, which always involves a complete giving and receiving on the part of the husband and wife. Some might also wonder about the use of contraceptive pills or intrauterine devices as a form of self-defense against the disease. This line of reasoning is invalid: hormonal contraceptives, IUDs, and morning-after pills do nothing to prevent sexual transmission of disease, but rather prevent the conception of a new human life or the implantation of an existing embryonic human being. Their use would amount to directly intending contraception or early abortion as a means of preventing potential birth defects. In other words, it would deliberately violate the unitive and procreative meanings of human self-giving in marital intimacy or purposefully destroy innocent human life, which are means that no good end can justify. The National Catholic Bioethics Center
