|HV lacks Ordinary and Extraordinary infallibility||Birth Control in the Catholic Church|
||November 20, 2002, 06:23 PM
|HV lacks Ordinary and Extraordinary infallibility
From Kaufman's book Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic
"The condemnation of all use of artificial contraception by Pope Paul VI was not new. Pius XI had prohibited contraception in his 1930 encyclical, On Chaste Marriage. His prohibition had been confirmed by Pius XII. Paul VI had explicitly asked the bishops of Vatican II to repeat the teaching of Pius XI and Pius XII. His request was respectfully turned aside. Then at the last session of the council three cardinals and the Melkite patriarch called for change in the official teaching. They received spontaneous applause from a majority of the assembled bishops. All of this was clear evidence that there was strong desire for change. That same day Pope Paul removed the issue from the council and announced the existence of a birth control commission to study it.
The commission, as we shall see, was carefully selected to keep the old prohibition against artificial birth control. But, after two and a half years of thorough study, the overwhelming majority voted in favor of change. Of fifteen cardinals and bishops who took part in the final session of the commission, only three voted to keep the teaching of Pius XI.
Hundreds of theologians disagreed with the birth control encyclical when it came out. A majority of national bishops' conferences in their responses made changes in the encyclical's teaching, and many of the bishops at the 1980 Synod of Bishops on the Family asked that it be reconsidered. At the very least we can say that a majority of competent theologians and a substantial number of bishops did not accept the birth control encyclical's rejection of artificial contraception."
More can be read at www.saintjohnsabbey.org/kaufman
Clearly there never was a concensus among the bishops regarding the reception of HV, and although it appears that there is more now, most of it is maintained through coersion and force so is highly suspect. It seems like a cover-up for the CDF to say they believe the teaching is infallible?
|November 21, 2002, 08:31 AM
|Good quote from a good book, Jill! Thanks for sharing it.
We already have a discussion about infallibility going on this thread and this one.
Maybe we can keep discussions on this topic confined to one.
I'll ask the Admin. to close this thread and see if it can be moved to one of the others so we don't end up saying the same things again and again.
Let's hear more from you on one of those other threads on infallibility.
|November 21, 2002, 08:33 AM
|I'm online and will see to this at once.|