What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

The infallible declarations of a Pope is held to Faith and Morals and not the personal thoughts or feelings of the man himself. With that said I am curious as to what official infallible declaration that any Pope has ever made on Morals only,(Not on Faith) that any non-Catholic Chritian here on Catholic Answers Forum objects to and why? I am not really interested in debating you on any of the objections but really would like to learn some view points.

None that I can think of. My moral compass is in line with my Catholic siblings.

Isn’t there one about contraception? I guess its possible that it maight’ve come from JP2 but that discussion ‘feels’ older than that so I guess its one of his predescessors. Paul VI?

I’m only guessing but I’ve heard plenty of Anglican discussions (including a monty python send up in ‘the meaning of Life’).

You are thinking of the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” (Of Human Life) written by Pope Paul VI:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I’d imagine the teachings on re-marriage and contraception (and possibly masturbation) might be objected to by some Protestants, even some who are on the same page with other moral teachings.

No issue, a few things I’d love to see him change. But I’m not walking in his shoes so I’ll trust in God and the fact he sits in Peter’s Chair. May Gods will be done.

God Bless, Gary

You know I can understand the reasoning behind papal infallibility, but I don’t understand the purpose in dogmatizing it. It created much tension within and outside the Roman Catholic Church.

All in all, I find that Catholics dogmatize things too much. What’s the purpose of making the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and Papal Infallibility all dogmatized, unalterable doctrines? Does a person really need to believe such things to be a ‘good’ Catholic? To be saved?

Even Purgatory. I know some Orthodox believe in a similar concept, and others in a much more extreme ‘version,’ but nothing dogmatized.

Just for further reflection, would these kind of issues really be just the Pope projecting his opinion?
I personally have seen enough support for all the ones you mention not only in Scripture and Tradition but in life itself with Family and acquaintances to justify their immorality. In my humble opinion.

Only my opinion ok, but I do not see that all that is made dogmatic would necessarily have to pertain to salvation and being saved. We as Catholics are told that what has been pronounced dogmatic has to be believed and that is ok because who am I to say what is Truth. What I am getting at with this is if something is Truth whether liked or disliked, then why would you not pronounce it dogmatic.
Of the issues you stated the Church does have very good grounds to call them Truth and whether you believe in them or not is surely not what I am getting at, but I have yet to see anything pronounced dogmatic without at least a reasonable explanation for them.
But like I said some may not agree with the doctrines and have another way of seeing them but would the Church declare just for no good reason at all?

No. These are not merely opinions of the pope. These are Church doctrines on grave sins.

What has the pope of Rome declared infallibly on morals? The only infallible declarations I am aware of that the RCC teaches is the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Of course there is no infallible list of infallible proclamations, is there? :wink:

In Christ,
Andrew

I agree whole heartedly, my question would be for a non-Catholic view of why these could possibly be thought of as just some man projecting his opinion? Maybe that is not even the line of thinking they would take, I don’t know so i am asking.

I’m sure the Church has its reasons to believe in those issues. But why can’t it take an official viewpoint without making them ‘absolutely irreversible’ or allowing wiggle room among its members?

Many Catholics I know don’t even know the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary - they think it refers to Jesus. I just don’t see how the Catholic faith is ‘reduced’ if that becomes a more optional belief than a mandated one.

I am sorry but I am just a lowly field mechanic with a dull since of humor so I dont really get this.

Dear brother Andrew,

The Pope can declare infallibly in an ordinary manner (i.e., by virtue of the ordinary Magsisterium) or an extraordinary manner (i.e., by virtue of the extraordinary Magisterium).

The only infallible declarations I am aware of that the RCC teaches is the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

These were declared through an exercise of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium of the Pope.

Of course there is no infallible list of infallible proclamations, is there? :wink:

What would be the purpose of such a list?

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t get the point of such a list either.

Blessings

I do not really know how to put my thoughts into words here.

I would think that since we are a True Family first and a Kingdom of God then the only wiggle room is the free will our Father has given us to object His truth or not.

The Truth of God will never be in season to the worldly or to those who are just barely alive in Christ. But I feel the Church would fail us if it did not proclaim things like the Immaculate Conception as dogmatic.

I would also be interested in if you feel like it to understand why you would think the Immaculate Conception would allow wiggle room?

All that is being asked for is a partial list of some of the infallible moral teachings of the pope. Then we would have a starting point for indicating which ones we disagree with.

For example, is the prohibition on masturbation an infallible teaching?

Dear FabiusMaximus,

Morals are in the domain of Divine Truth. I guess the position you suggest would make sense to a moral relativist (not saying you are one), but not to an orthodox Catholic.

Many Catholics I know don’t even know the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary - they think it refers to Jesus. I just don’t see how the Catholic faith is ‘reduced’ if that becomes a more optional belief than a mandated one.

I don’t see how lack of knowledge of the Truth would make the Truth “optional.” Can you explain your position a bit more, for it is hard for me to imagine as both a Christian and a Catholic.

Now, the Catholic Church recognizes that there may be times when a person, through no fault of their own, is not able to come to a full knowledge, and thus acceptance, of the Truth. Though the Catholic Church may dogmatize a certain Truth, she in her wisdom does not condemn anyone who, through no fault of their own, does not come to the knowledge and acceptance of that Truth.

Blessings,
Marduk

You did not need a list to point that out, so why do we need one?. We can discuss the matter without recourse to a list.

Blessings,
Marduk

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.