A wholly reasonable approach to birth control

[AlNg]

Point is, the RCC doesn’t really change these kinds of things.

I am not sure you are right about burning a person alive at the stake. The question is whether or not moral teachings can change since there have been bishops who advocated a change in the teaching on artificial birth control. Is there a precedent whereby a moral teaching has ever changed ? If there is a precedent, then a change in teaching may not be as unlikely or impossible as some here say it is.

 

[vsedriver]

But people are free to seek God through other religions or have no religion at all

You won’t starve eating celery but I prefer to dine at a banquet.

My point is: we may be giving out lots of dogma and details and “rules” to a steadily declining population of couples.

as you said, people are free to choose. That gate is narrow. It is not the job of the church to make it easier for people to do what they wish. It is the job of the church to dispense truth. A lot of people don’t like the truth because truth is hard. Very, very hard. Even the disciples complained at how hard Jesus’s teachings on marriage were.

 

[kapp19]

am not sure you are right about burning a person alive at the stake.

I said nothing about it. And you are falling down the rabbit hole… I am not going with you, Alice!

 

[1ke]

Would the Eastern Orthodox have to accept the Roman Catholic teaching on contraception for a reunion to occur?

Yes.

And as I illustrated with the Anglican and Episcopalians who entered the church, not to mention all the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches that returned to the Catholic Church from Orthodoxy, that isn’t impossible.

 

[kapp19]

The question is whether or not moral teachings can change since there have been bishops who advocated a change in the teaching on artificial birth control. Is there a precedent whereby a moral teaching has ever changed ? If there is a precedent, then a change in teaching may not be as unlikely or impossible as some here say it is.

As for this, as close as you get is usury - another rabbit hole, much deeper than capital punishment. I can recommend some literature, but the ultimate conclusion is that no Catholic teaching falling into the category or “note” of doctrine (the kind otherwise claimed to be irreformable) was actually reversed. You have to make a thousand distinctions and account for the development of economic modalities. Sam Gregg has a recent book that deals with it, and I can also recommend the chapter on the issue in “The Abuse of Casuistry.”

 

[1ke]

It is. But the most widely used is the Billings Ovulation Method.

No, scientific NFP Methods are not the same thing as the rhythm method.

Calendar Rhythm was based on calendar averages and estimations not actual observation of fertility signs and symptoms in real time.

 

[fredystairs]

Way past the need to use it

 

[1ke]

The morality of burning someone alive at the stake has changed. Now it is wrong to do so, No?

A) the Church didn’t burn people at the stake. The state administered capital punishment.

B) Capital punishment itself is not intrinsically evil. Application and need of capital punishment to protect society has varied over the ages.

C) Use, non use, and methods of capital punishment used by the state are not matters of divine revelation. The Church can certainly weigh in on the matter in different times and places as to the necessity of such measures and humane methods of capital punishment.

 

[o_mlly]

Contraception is contraception, there are no qualifiers such as “artificial” or “natural”. Contraception is intrinsically evil. That is the teaching of the Church.

As a medical term, contraception covers all methods and devices that in their object avoid pregnancy. The Church normally uses the word “contraception” as synonymous with “artificial contraception”. Use “birth control” or “avoid pregnancy” instead to avoid the definitional differences.

The point being made is that NFP is not always licit. The intention of the couple weighs in determining whether NFP is licit or not.

The Church teaching makes those distinctions:

Natural Family Planning is an umbrella term for certain methods used to achieve and avoid pregnancies (USCCB).

It [is] lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception (HUMANAE VITAE).

Means are unnatural methods and all artifices.

It cannot be denied that in each case [unnatural and natural] the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result (HUMANAE VITAE).

[R]esponsible parenthood is exercised …by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time (HUMANAE VITAE).

 

[1ke]

Is there a precedent whereby a moral teaching has ever changed

No. There isn’t.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

I think we are getting off in the weeds here, but the argument can certainly be made that doctrine has changed. Even in the last 10 years. You will type your fingers to nubs trying to nuance the explanations of changes in theology.

 

[1ke]

Use “birth control” or “avoid pregnancy” instead to avoid the definitional differences.

Contraception is a method of birth control. Abstaining is a method of birth control. They are not the same thing.

Birth control is not intrinsically evil. Contraception is an immoral means of birth control. Abstaining is not an immoral means.

Means are unnatural methods and all artifices.

Um, no, abstaining is a means. A moral one.

 

[kapp19]

Um, no, abstaining is a means. A moral one.

…But that is not what the context is in the Encyclical…

 

[rosejmj]

No one really knows how many are miscarried. I said up to 50 percent, not that it is 50 percent. Just as no one really knows the number and it would be difficult to know, it is difficult to really know how many fertilized eggs are miscarries due to birth control pills and not due to other factors etc etc.

 

[o_mlly]

Um, no, abstaining is a means. A moral one.

No. Please read more carefully. Abstinence only during the ovulation cycle to avoid pregnancy is specifically a natural method, but not necessarily a moral one. As a natural method, NFP is not moral without serious reason.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

“the primary purpose of marriage is the generation and nurturing of offspring;”

catholicculture.org

Library : On the Primary Purpose of Marriage​

On the Primary Purpose of Marriage In this scholarly essay, Jennaya Arias sets forth the three purposes that God ordained for marriage: procreation and education of children, mutual help and support of the spouses and the remedy for concupiscence…

Thomas Aquinas stated, “It is clear that offspring is the most essential thing in marriage,
Summa Theologiae IIIb:49:3

" The procreation of children is the first and natural and lawful reason for marriage"
St. Augustine
( On Adulterous Marriages 2:12:12 [A.D. 419]).

“Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place .”
encyclical Casti Connubii on Christian Marriage

" The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children . It’s secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscense. "
1917 Code of Canon Law #1013.

" the primary purpose of Matrimony is children, and the secondary purpose (mutual support and regulation of lust) is subordinated to the primary purpose. "

The Meaning of Catholic – 27 Dec 19

Church Teaching on the Purpose of Marriage​

The primary purpose of Matrimony is children, and the secondary purpose (mutual support and regulation of lust) is subordinated to the primary purpose. These purposes are not equal in importance for Matrimony.

Please give us your source to show that the above teachings declaring that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children is false. Thank you kindly.

Here are the ten hearts I would give this post, if it were possible to give more than one heart in the “like” function:

 

[choose_to_love]

Respectfully, it is you who needs to read more carefully. 1ke is stating the teaching very clearly.

Abstinence may not be justified, as to serious reasons, theoretically, but even if, arguendo, the reasons are not serious, abstaining during the fertile time is still ‘not contraception’, as the couple has taken no action to sterilize the marital act.

In the “moral theology” forum, IMO it is probably best to use terms as they are defined in moral theology, and fertility awareness, used to postpone pregnancy, is not contraceptive because it takes no action to sterilize the marital act.

ETA: added a comma after ‘justified’ to clarify the meaning, hopefully; “arguendo” means ‘for the sake of argument’ if that was not clear

 

[o_mlly]

Respectfully, it is you who needs to read more carefully. 1ke is stating the teaching very clearly.

Respectfully, it is you who needs to write more carefully. Please write in coherent sentences.

 

[choose_to_love]

“not the context” I would suggest the context specifically states that the serious reasons exist, so 1ke’s answer is correct, in context. I suggest it is you and other posters who are going back a step, so to speak, to evaluate the morality of the desire to postpone pregnancy and/or whether or not serious reasons to do so exist.

 

[kapp19]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Honestly.