In an old post, a member whom I’ve come to respect said
In my theological opinion, the teaching against artificial birth control has been taught universally and so is infallible, even though the papal teaching by itself in Humanae Vitae is not infallible under papal infallibility.
and I know that that’s the most widely held understanding.
But when I read HV, I see that it’s addressed to all the faithful. Paragraph 4 explicitly recalls the authority of the Magesterium over the interpretation of the moral law, and places this matter squarely within it. Paragraph 6 explicitly invokes the mandate of Christ and the intent to make a definitive judgement in order to dispel teachings that are at odds with the constant teaching of the Church. And the first three sentences of paragraph 14 are the definitive statements intended.
It looks obvious to me that this satisfies all of the elements given in *Lumen Gentium *for an exercise of papal infallibility. So why is it not considered to be one? Is it because the teaching was already infallible under the Ordinary Universal magisterium? If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be true that if the teaching wasn’t already infallible, HV would have made it so because all of the elements are present?
Thanks for any insight you can give.