[Catholic Caucus] ‘Humanae Vitae’ Rethink?

The formal declaration format used to canonize would seem to say yes, a statement of finding of sanctity by Pope would be infallible.

Believe that is substatiated by the historical fact that early “saints” not declared by that formula and only be bishops xare the iffy ones now.

Thank you for thoughtful post. Even if Paul V1 Was head faking, the continuity of teaching is present in the Encyclical. Remember the future JPII was present at the Council and the heroic intervention of Ford and Grisez at the BC Commission were both Providential.

The big issue is the confusion in the Church caused by the use of the word mortal sin and the deformation of the concept of conscience, neitherc ever remedied.

BTW. I had a dear Jesuit friend present at Councul and BC commission. He worked tirelessly to promote H.V.

From my link in post #13:

All Popes, or rather, all the most recent Popes, starting from the Second Vatican Council, are presented as saints. It is not by chance that the canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II have left in their wake the canonization of Pius IX and the beatification of Pius XII, while the cause of Paul VI moves forward. It almost seems that a halo of sanctity must envelop the Conciliar and Post-conciliar eras, to “infallibilize”an historic age which saw the primacy of pastoral praxis assert itself over doctrine in the Church.

Could that fact be just God’s blessings on his Church, the way for us to recognize the issues with Pope F. and to rid the Church of Papolatry?

If I’m understanding you correctly, perhaps we just simply disagree on the role of the Catholic Church. I do not believe for a moment that the Catholic Church confuses anyone with the term “mortal sin”.

But what has confused a great many Catholics, and in my view is largely responsible for the unchecked immorality sweeping across the world, is the Protestant concept of “let your conscience be your guide” that you are suggesting. Unlike the worldly-influenced subjective beliefs of the conscience, mortal sin is a well-defined objective standard that has faithfully guide for millenniums.

I would never disobey Church’s teachings. Nor do I think you would.

So what is your understandng of Church’s teaching on mortal sin?

On conscience?

The Church once taught that certain acts and behavior constituted a mortal sin. We were taught that we were no longer in Sanctifying Grace if we had a mortal sin on our soul, and that if we died in that state we were placing our souls in eternal jeopardy.

It is the rare priest that will even mention the possibility of anyone going to hell today. The term, mortal sin, has not been mentioned in most churches for over 50 years. Indeed, even the new term, “serious sin”, intended as a substitute for “mortal sin” is also not mentioned.

The teaching on the Church has not changed, although the teachings of the popes and the bishops have changed dramatically. In fact, with respect to specific sins which were once called “mortal sins”, (the practice of homosexuality, or second marriages without annulment of the first) it would depend upon the episcopal conference one listened to in order to determine whether it would fall under it or not.

Generally speaking, fewer than 2% (by one statistic) of Catholics avail themselves of the Sacrament of Confession even once a year. Many have given it up completely. This is largely because many priests teach that it is almost impossible to commit a “serious” sin (formally “mortal” sin). Consequently, few see the need for Confession.

Protestants have taught since the days of Luther, to “let your conscience be your guide”. Essentially, that is what Pope Francis teaches today as well. As a result, many Catholics who are guided by their conscience have adopted erroneous beliefs like, birth control is not sinful, living together as man and wife is acceptable if you intend to ultimately get married, homosexuality is not wrong if you truly love your same sex partner, etc. etc.

The true teaching of the Catholic Church rejects, out of hand, the notion that we should be guided by our conscience. She has always taught that we are to be guided by the true teachings of the Catholic Church. Today, those teachings have gone silent, as the popes, bishops and priests of the Church no longer engage in that teaching.

Great post. Agree with it almost entirely.

My concern is based on what you say yourself that about the concept of mortal sin we all used to know.

Then, as now, the commission of a mortal sin required the matter be grave, the actor must have full knowledge it is grave and must do the act with full consent of the will.

Because of poor catechizes etc. many people do not have the certainty of grave matter and and are not trained in the use of their own will, but rely on feelings.

So they are often victims committing acts of grave matter and reaping the whirlwind of them. But again, the Church leaders will keep up the cruelty of bending over backwards to try to keep people from falling into mortal sin, that they continue mushy teachings , pat them on the back and leave them in the unhappy state of the pain of the results of objectively evil acts.

I will never the pain in the voice of one woman who cried out at a meeting with the bishop “why didn't you tell us about NFP”?

We have to speak out.

Yes, you are exactly correct; the faithful have been slowly weened off the truth. Intentionally or otherwise, the bishops and priests have allowed, if not encouraged, Catholics to think of themselves as Protestants, not Catholics. It is actually rare that one hears a priest, bishop or even a pope refer to the faithful in the pews as Catholics. All have been conditioned to refer to themselves as “Christians”. They will to admit this, of course, but it is undeniably true.

A number of years ago when I was attending the Novus Ordo Mass, a visiting priest celebrating a daily Mass at the church I was attending suggested that there was never a reason not to receive Holy Communion. He said that in spite of what “some people” may believe, it is rare that anyone ever commits a mortal sin (which he called a serious sin). He did not explain his reasoning but I’m sure there were those in attendance who took him to heart––after all, he was a “priest”.

I rarely comment on this site anymore as my views as a traditional Catholic are so dramatically inconsistent with many of the otherwise sincere Catholics who post and comment here that I’m certain my views are so radical that I come across as almost anti-Catholic. Of course, I’m not, but the teachings of the true Catholic Church are so very different than what is being taught by the Conciliar leaders in the Church today, I can well understand why many may feel that way.

The true teaching of the Church is not different. It is not being taught.

I rarely comment on this site anymore as my views as a traditional Catholic are so dramatically inconsistent with many of the otherwise sincere Catholics who post and comment here that I’m certain my views are so radical that I come across as almost anti-Catholic. Of course, I’m not, but the teachings of the true Catholic Church are so very different than what is being taught by the Conciliar leaders in the Church today, I can well understand why many may feel that way.

And that is why they need to hear from posters like yourself. They need to learn the true teachings of the Catholic Church. Who cares whether they think you are "radical"? Christ was "radical".

It is great to see you post again. I hope you will post more often.