Sorry, but this article is incorrect. John Paul II spoke infallibly in Evangelium Vitae in three instances. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994 (on the ordination of women) was intended as an infallible, irreformable pronouncement. This was tested when pro-womens-ordination people sent a formal inquiry to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a “dubium”) asking whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was intended as an infallible papal statement. The CDF replied in the affirmative and with the pope’s agreement.
Infallible statements can be embedded in non-infallible documents. Evangelium Vitae contains three pronouncements that satisfy the “definiteness” criterion cited in the canon quoted in the article.
The first pronouncement was that taking innocent human life deliberately is always wrong, no exceptions. John Paul cited both natural law and unbroken Catholic tradition before invoking his office as successor of Peter to confirm natural law and tradition, confirming DEFINITIVELY. He used language that made it clear that this was intended to be a definitive, final, irreformable, hence infallible statement.
He only did this because, for the first time in human history, some people claim that innocent human life may be taken for some “higher cause.” Formerly people always tried to show that whomever they wished to kill was not innocent, not human etc. Brazenly, today, some say it’s okay to kill innocents. So he had to make this statement, which should never have needed to be made.
The other two pronouncements were variations:
2. deliberate (rather than spontaneous, accidental) abortion is indeed an instance of taking innocent human life (since some have argued that it’s not taking human life or not innocent human life—again, he only had to make this infallible, definitive pronouncement because some people, even Catholics, argue otherwise.
3. euthanasia (which he defined) is also a subset of no. 1: taking of innocent human life.
In the same encyclical he addressed capital punishment. Many Catholics have exalted that section, saying that the Church now opposes capital punishment and so forth. For clarity, one has to realize that that section was clearly set off from the three pronouncements because capital punishment deals with guilty life, not innocent life. So it’s not an exception to the “taking of innocent life is always wrong” infallible pronouncement but is a related issue, taking of human life, but guilty rather than innocent. The development of doctrine statements he makes there (that the only justification for taking guilty human life are as a last resort to defend the innocent, not retribution or punishment) is NOT surrounded by invoking natural law and ancient tradition or his authority as successor of Peter.
So, in the same exact document, one finds 3 infallible statements that confirm long-held teaching and one new statement that marks a development of doctrine. The latter is clearly not infallible but proposed with serious intent (and later put into the Catechism). It cannot simply be sloughed off and ignored but it clearly is not surrounded with the definitive infallible language.
So popes have spoken infallibly on more than 2 occasions since 1870. But no, they haven’t invoked that level of teaching very often.
Because in the first place, Catholics are supposed to give assent not just to infallible teaching but to the ordinary teaching as well. (Lumen Gentium, # 25, as I recall). So there’s a need for highest level infallible teaching relatively rarely, only when people “just don’t get it” (women’s ordination, abortion). But the ordinary teaching, including the new development on capital punishment, is supposed to be assented to by faithful Catholics.
I think we still need more theological discussion of the “CP is only justified to defend the innocent” principle but in the meantime, I give assent to the teaching that it should virtually never be implemented, which carries with it the responsibility to find other ways truly to protect the innocent, which means locking up dangerous criminals and not pardoning or paroling them etc. We aren’t doing that and the bishops should put as much effort into that aspect as into crusading for repeal of CP laws (which repeal I do not support and JPII’s teaching does not require me to support). So I assent to JPII’s teaching on CP but that doesn’t make me a repeal-activist. But I assent not because it’s infallible teaching but because I am required to assent by Lumen Gentium etc.
Assent to or defer to? I defer to the pope even in matters where I do not give assent.
The article says that the writer is a canon lawyer. Amazing! But does not surprise me at all. Your simple layman’s comments are more professional precise and accurate than “the canon lawyer”.
This is why I stated that it was another article for dumb down Catholics.