Originally posted by ivanhoeThat's true, but it's my understanding that this particular encyclical entails a definitive teaching
Whether an encyclical is a document which can be called infallible is an open question.
stemming from the Pope in his capacity as a moral leader for his flock.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/AUTHUMVT.HTM
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/Infallibility-stated-Humanea-Vitae.htm
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html
Section 2:4
The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.
What arguments can you offer for the rejection of infallibility on these teachings?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI'm afraid this subject is, althought interesting, a wee bit off topic.
That's true, but it's my understanding that this particular encyclical entails a definitive teaching
stemming from the Pope in his capacity as a moral leader for his flock.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/AUTHUMVT.HTM
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Catholics-955/Infallibility-stated-Humanea-Vitae.htm
http: ...[text shortened]... What arguments can you offer for the rejection of infallibility on these teachings?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrNumber (2) is not the sense in which the RCC uses the word natural. In fact, in some cases, they claim NOT refraining from intercourse during those periods to be contrary to the natural order (e.g. outside of marriage for example).
Yes, either way. It depends on which of the following claims Nemesio endorses.
(1) It is unnatural to refrain from intercourse during fertile intervals in virtue of the fact that, as a statistical matter, humans typically do not refrain from intercourse during fertile intervals.
(2) It is unnatural to refrain from intercourse during fertile intervals ...[text shortened]... gical imperatives that signify opportunities to achieve the procreative function of intercourse.
Nemesio is clearly using (1) to argue that the RCC is wrong to have that position.
Nice try, though.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThe Pope is appealing to the woman's natural biological cycle, but is ignoring her God-given natural libido.
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Here, again, I object that "natural" is not a primary reason for moral recommendations to the RCC. In fact, the idea is for the human to try to rise above his natural and animal instincts. The concept of self-mastery is recurrent in the parts of the Catechism regarding sexual acts. This also applies to masturbation as rom the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith qualify as infallible.[/b]
The Pope says the couple can 'take advantage' of the biological cycle. This clearly indicates that the RCC does NOT view her biological cycle as an imperative source of morality and therefore, clearly does not need to view libido as one such source in order to be consistent.
Even if it did, it does not follow that every biological feature must be seen as a moral imperative. After all, the RCC recognizes the intrinsically imperfect nature of the biological man (e.g. concupiscence).
The 'thing' that the RCC considers is the product of blind faith with no evidence.
Actually, it is purely the product of reason. The RCC's position on sexual pleasure and chastity requires, for consistency purposes, to also treat masturbation as a sin. Changing their position on masturbation would require first a dramatic change in their position regarding chastity.
Point number eight.
Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed
* which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
* and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
* whether by her solemn judgment
* or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
Nowhere does it say that the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible. In fact, I find it amazing that you think Vatican I would devote an entire chapter to papal infallibility but extend it to the ordinary magisterium in a simple bullet point (and BEFORE the said chapter to boot) as if with a sleight of hand.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou've lost track of the argument. I am not claiming, and neither is Nemesio, that the RCC endorses anything like (2). Rather, the claim is that if the RCC were consistent in their application of the perfectionist version of Natural Law Theory that they explicitly endorse, they would be committed to something like (2). It is the deviation of RCC from the entailments of the normative ethical theory they explicitly endorse that leads Nemesio to charge them with hypocrisy.
Number (2) is not the sense in which the RCC uses the word natural. In fact, in some cases, they claim NOT refraining from intercourse during those periods to be contrary to the natural order (e.g. outside of marriage for example).
Nemesio is clearly using (1) to argue that the RCC is wrong to have that position.
Nice try, though.
Originally posted by bbarrthe claim is that if the RCC were consistent in their application of the perfectionist version of Natural Law Theory that they explicitly endorse, they would be committed to something like (2).
You've lost track of the argument. I am not claiming, and neither is Nemesio, that the RCC endorses anything like (2). Rather, the claim is that if the RCC were consistent in their application of the perfectionist version of Natural Law Theory that they explicitly endorse, they would be committed to something like (2). It is the deviation of RCC from the en ...[text shortened]... mative ethical theory they explicitly endorse that leads Nemesio to charge them with hypocrisy.
And why would it be inconsistent? You need (1) to argue for it or you're just stating the contradictory position without support.
Secondly, you gravely misunderstand Aquinas statements on natural law. For example, he clearly stated that the Bible contains the full extent of natural law.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not arguing anything here. I popped into this thread simply to point out something about the term 'natural' as used with regard to ethics from the perspective of the RCC. Since I think that God-based teleology is bunk, I simply do not care whether they are being inconsistent. Finally, I understand Aquinas quite well. Unlike you, I've taken classes on his work, read the Summa, and have taught his particular version of Natural Law theory more than once. It is you who are in complete ignorance here about Aquinas' indebtedness to Aristotle, and you who have no idea what 'perfectionism' means with regard to these views.
[b] the claim is that if the RCC were consistent in their application of the perfectionist version of Natural Law Theory that they explicitly endorse, they would be committed to something like (2).
And why would it be inconsistent? You need (1) to argue for it or you're just stating the contradictory position without support.
Secondly, you gravely ...[text shortened]... ral law. For example, he clearly stated that the Bible contains the full extent of natural law.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrAppeal to authority and no argument. Keep trying, professor.
I'm not arguing anything here. I popped into this thread simply to point out something about the term 'natural' as used with regard to ethics from the perspective of the RCC. Since I think that God-based teleology is bunk, I simply do not care whether they are being inconsistent. Finally, I understand Aquinas quite well. Unlike you, I've taken classes on h d to these views. So spare me your immodest nonsense, unless you want your bluff called.
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not arguing anything about the RCC or Aquinas! I made a completely untendentious claim about the RCC and Aquinas in my first post, with which only an idiot would take issue. I'm making a claim about what Nemesio meant and about the structure of his argument. Jesus Christ, Is English your second language? If you want to go round and round about Aquinas and his Natural Law Theory, then ask your question and I'll cite the Summa, with corroborating secondary literature. If not, suck it.
Appeal to authority and no argument. Keep trying.