Papal Infallibility and Contraception for Difficult Times

The world seems to be taking great interest lately in speculating about whether Pope Francis will change the Church’s position on birth control, especially in light of recent worries that babies born from women with the Zika virus might suffer birth defects.

This became a major news story when the pope made statements to reporters during an airplane flight from Mexico suggesting that women fearful of Zika might use contraception to avoid pregnancy. The question keeps being asked whether the pope will (or even can) “change the rules,” so to speak, on this issue.

First and Most Importantly: Know Your Faith

At times like this it is critical that Catholics understand the extent of the pope’s teaching authority and our duties as Catholics to follow his teachings.

On the one hand, we always need a proper respect and deference for the Church’s authority or we risk becoming like Protestants, forming our own opinions without any sure foundation for our faith. As some writers have put it, “every Protestant is his own pope.” At least, unwittingly so. After all, who decided which books belong in the inspired Bible in the first place if not an infallible early Church?

On the other hand, we can’t think that every offhand comment made by a pope is infallible. That would ignore history, common sense and the Church’s own teaching on the subject. It would lead to inevitable disappointment and scandal when we reflect on some of the mistakes popes have made over the more than 2,000 years history of the Church… A few such instances come to mind, namely censuring Galileo, for example… and some of the medieval popes who led less than exemplary personal lives

Church Authority 

The Church’s authority comes from Jesus himself, who promised Saint Peter, the apostles and their successors that “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b.) The Apostle Paul said that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

In order to preserve the Church as a rock solid guide in matters pertaining to salvation, Christ had to provide for a visible leadership to preserve His teachings. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error.

Even so, the Church’s infallibility cannot be thought of as a guarantee that each pope will be the best of teachers, that every pope will be a saint, or that all human disciplinary rules will be intelligently made.

It would be nice if the popes were omniscient and sinless, but that is not essential to the Church’s mission. What is necessary and essential is that the popes—acting in their official capacity as pope—be able to teach rightly regarding faith and morals, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. Some degree of papal infallibility is necessary so that faithful Catholics will have a steady rock to trust for official Church teaching. What the Church solemnly defines for the faithful to believe must be true.

So what does the Church say about papal infallibility?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), paragraph 891, quoting from Vatican II, says that the pope “enjoys infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful…he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

According to the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for infallible Church teaching are as follows: “the Roman Pontiff” “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”) “he defines” “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals” “must be held by the whole Church”

Notice a few things…

• Speaking specifically and officially as Supreme Pastor. The pope must be teaching in his capacity “as supreme pastor” of the whole Church. This must be more than informal statements, letters, articles or speeches to individual gatherings.

• Clearly and explicitly proclaiming official church teaching regarding faith and morals. He also needs to be proclaiming by some definitive act a “doctrine” (i.e. official Church teaching) pertaining to faith or morals. This would not include the pope’s personal opinions on scientific, political or economic questions (e.g. astronomy, climate change or government tax policy.)

• Other commentary is not “infallible,” Infallibility does not apply to mere disciplinary decisions or to unofficial comments on faith and morals. The pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, and on those matters other theologians and well educated, faithful Catholics may disagree.

Infallibility does not mean that the pope has a special inspiration to know or to teach what is true. It is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope. It only prevents him from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. The pope has to learn the truth the way we all do, through study, even though he obviously has some real advantages as a result of his education and experiences, his theological advisers and his personal prayer life.

So how do we know when the pope is making an official, infallible, pronouncement?

It would seem that official invocation of papal infallibility is pretty rare. Pope John XXIII is said to have remarked: “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible.” If we are to believe that the pope’s infallibility is something we can rely on for our faith, it must be incumbent on the popes to tell us which pronouncements are infallible.
Example… Mary’s Assumption into Heaven

Let’s look at an example…

One recent example of infallibility is the Doctrine of Mary’s assumption, whereby it is established that the body and soul of Our Lord’s Mother was assumed into Heaven.
On November 1, 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary as a dogma. Notice the authoritative wording of this document:

“By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”

This brings us back to the modern world question about Pope Francis, the Zika virus, and the Church’s teaching about contraception that was formally expressed in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae.

Is Paul VI’s teaching in the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae infallible when it declares that artificial contraception is inherently sinful?

Humanae Vitae was an official papal encyclical written to the entire Church, not an Apostolic letter, note, or any kind of casual commentary, and it clearly pertains to a moral issue. The question then, under the Catechism’s definition of infallibility, would seem to be whether Humanae Vitae was an official declaration of doctrine to the universal Church.

Note how the encyclical Humanae Vitae begins, addressed to the entire Church (capital letters are original in the document):

“ENCYCLICAL LETTER, HUMANAE VITAE, OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF, PAUL VI, TO HIS VENERABLE BROTHERS, THE PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES, IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE, TO THE CLERGY AND FAITHFUL OF THE WHOLE CATHOLIC WORLD, AND TO ALL MEN OF GOOD WILL, ON THE REGULATION OF BIRTH.”

Later in the document the pope states:

“This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation. No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation.”

“Now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us,” the Holy Father continues in Humanae Vitae, “and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions.”

With regard to the specific moral issue of artificial contraception, Paul VI writes the following:

“Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either 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.”

Based on this clear language of the encyclical, it would seem that Humanae Vitae‘s teaching on contraception was addressed to the universal Church as a clear definition of moral doctrine. Pope Paul VI used language suggesting an infallible teaching in line with the Church’s centuries-long tradition on contraception as taught through the Church’s ordinary magisterium long before Humane Vitae, including by saints and in the Catechism of the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. Pope Paul VI didn’t just make this up himself.

Some have objected that Humanae Vitae is not sufficiently dogmatic in its form to be considered “ex Cathedra” (literally “of the Church,” e.g., spoken with the full authority of office, especially referring to the pope’s infallibility in matters of faith and morals). Objectors claim that this document doesn’t have enough big words, literary flourishes and grand expressions of authority. However, this argument seems to ignore the very formal language expressed in the encyclical, as quoted above.

Assuming, then, that the Church’s teaching on contraception is infallible or otherwise free from any possible doubt, can infallible teachings change? Obviously not. “Infallible” by definition means true. Truth is reality. God is truth and God cannot change. Even popes can’t change what is infallibly true.

Today’s Zika virus and its possible effect on unborn babies

Still, what about the Zika virus? There are real fears, although quite possibly overblown, that this virus will cause birth defects in children born from a woman infected with the virus. Is this such an extraordinary situation as to justify contraception as the lesser of two evils, constituting a moral way for married couples to have sex without exposing their children to Zika? Humane Vitae (HV) addresses just this point:

“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… 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)

Humanae Vitae, therefore, has answered the question of whether it is moral to use contraception to avoid the risk of conceiving a baby infected with Zika. Apart from scientific questions (still quite unresolved) about whether Zika really is such a risk to unborn babies, the use of artificial contraception to avoid that possibility would be a directly intended act that is contrary to the natural power and purpose of marital intercourse, violating the Church’s moral teaching in Humanae Vitae, and therefore always an objective sin. Couples, of course, may use temporary abstinence (natural family planning) to avoid whatever risk they fear exists from the Zika virus.

The Catechism again emphasizes that the end doesn’t justify the means… “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception.” (CCC 2399.)

In light of all this, how are we to understood Pope Francis’ recent comments about Zika and contraception?

First of all, Pope Francis is not a medical expert. His opinions on the medical aspects of the Zika virus are outside his specific area of competence, just like scientific questions about climate change or many of his opinions on political and economic issues. In regard to the health consequences of the Zika virus, the pope is no more qualified than most other non-experts.

With regard to the pope’s informal comments on moral issues, he certainly has excellent qualifications as a theologian, but theologians can and do disagree on many points. His comments to reporters on an airplane are non-infallible statements. While he is the pope, of course, even popes have been known to make mistakes. His opinions on matters of faith and morals are entitled to humble and respectful deference from all Catholics, since he is the head of Christ’s Church, but these informal statements still must be viewed in subordination to the Church’s official, infallible declarations.

What if a pope were to make statements that cannot be reconciled with the Church’s official teachings, and what if they were widely publicized although not defined in any official capacity? As explained in the Catechism and the documents shown above, “widely publicized” does not equate to infallible. Faithful Catholics would be obligated to hold, as always, to the official Church teachings which must always bind us in our faith.

———————-
David G. Bjornstrom is a Santa Rosa, CA-based attorney at law with 32 years specializing in business, estate and tax law. He may be reached at David@CatholicBusinessJournal.biz

MORE »