One of the frequent arguments encountered contra Humanae Vitae is that of the sensus fidei, or the understanding that "[t]he entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief" (Lumen Gentium par. 12). The argument usually contends that because nobody believes or adheres to what the church teaches with regard to the use of artificial contraceptives anymore that what the church teaches in this regard is not true and so is not binding.There are several responses to this line of reasoning, namely that most people do not really understand what it is they are rejecting because, as stated in the previous post, the pastoral care most of them receive, especially when preparing for marriage, either ignores the matter entirely, leaving couples completely on their own with no moral guidance, or they are actively encouraged to live contrary to the truth, instead of being compassionately challenged to be faithful. I always wonder why it is deemed more pastoral to tell people what they want to hear than to gently challenge them, especially by way of witness, to do what is right.
Stated more theologically, that is, ecclesiologically, this so-called sensus is at odds with received tradition. If we see, as did St. Vincent of Lérins some fifteen hundred years ago, that what constitutes orthodox tradition is antiquity, consensus, and universality, then we also recognize that the church, as the communio sanctorum, is not circumscribed by time and space. So, just as neither the pope nor a council can either introduce any completely new innovations into the Christian tradition, or overturn tradition, the sensus fidei cannot do that either. This is precisely what the committee, appointed by John XXIII who issued their report after the council, was urging Pope Paul VI to do. He made this clear in Humanae Vitae:
5. The consciousness of the same responsibility induced Us to confirm and expand the commission set up by Our predecessor Pope John XXIII, of happy memory, in March, 1963. This commission included married couples as well as many experts in the various fields pertinent to these questions. Its task was to examine views and opinions concerning married life, and especially on the correct regulation of births; and it was also to provide the teaching authority of the Church with such evidence as would enable it to give an apt reply in this matter, which not only the faithful but also the rest of the world were waiting for.This marks the last post of 2008 on HV. It has figured prominently this year because, as set out in my first post, this year was the fortieth anniversary of this much misunderstood and resisted teaching. The resistance to this teaching within the church has deeply compromised the church's authority and contributed to the massive societal confusion about sex, instead of enabling more Christians to live as salt and light, as beacons in the darkness.
When the evidence of the experts had been received, as well as the opinions and advice of a considerable number of Our brethren in the episcopate—some of whom sent their views spontaneously, while others were requested by Us to do so—We were in a position to weigh with more precision all the aspects of this complex subject. Hence We are deeply grateful to all those concerned.
6. However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.
Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us 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 (pars. 5-6- underlining emphasis mine)