Academy for Life Member Uses Amoris Laetitia to Justify Contraceptive Use

[goout]

Ok now you bring up a difficult and narrow situation that is suitable for an advanced bioethics class.

Jim, this is what you said:

We already know that there are some circumstances where artificial contraception can be licitly used, when it’s for medical purposes and not for prohibiting pregnancy.

Using hormones for medical purposes is NOT CONTRACEPTION.

You were responding to an article that proposed contraception as permissible in cases that have nothing to do with medical treatments.
And in that context your post above claims ““there are some circumstances where artificial contraception can be licitly used””.

We can simply observe the Church’s teaching on contraception here, and either accept or reject it.

 

[Mark121359]

It seems a lot of Catholic theologians and clergy have an unhealthy attachment to contraception and other sexual immoralities–they seem obsessed with trying to justify them. Why can’t they just let it go and be about their Father’s business?

Well, maybe they are going about their “father’s” business…that is, the “father of lies.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The problem is in that the article itself doesn’t provide details of which Choidi is speaking about.

For all we know, he’s talking about litcit use of hormone therapy drugs.

Either way, there has been debates for decades in that Huma Vitae is not infallible.

The point of the document was to address the use of ABC for couples seeking not to have children, so they could have a better material life.

The use for medical reasons was largely unknown by the Church at that time.

Jim

 

[goout]

The problem is in that the article itself doesn’t provide details of which Choidi is speaking about.

For all we know, he’s talking about litcit use of hormone therapy drugs.

Doesn’t sound like it:

But Father Chiodi, a professor of moral theology at the Northern University of Italy in Milan, clearly argued for contraceptive use, saying that in some cases where “natural methods are impossible or unfeasible,” it would be an act of “responsibility” to use artificial contraception.

He partly grounded his argument in the fact that the “urgency of this issue [contraceptive use]” seems “gradually to be diminishing” to the extent that many pastors don’t talk about it any more, which is also why he believes it’s hardly mentioned in Amoris Laetitia, nor explicitly referred to as “intrinsically evil.”

He believes that artificial contraception “could be recognized as an act of responsibility that is carried out, not in order to radically reject the gift of a child, but because in those situations responsibility calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality.”

Either way, there has been debates for decades in that Huma Vitae is not infallible.

I haven’t seen those debates. People debate lots of things. Infallibility is widely misunderstood and in many cases the discussions are moot.
I do know the Church holds contraception to be intrinsically evil. That’s really what matters.

The point of the document was to address the use of ABC for couples seeking not to have children, so they could have a better material life.

The morality of contraception is not subject to the desire for a better material life.
And before we get into it, NFP is birth control, but it is not contraception. NFP can help a couple prudently plan a family while not contracepting.