Are the statements against contraception truly infallible?

[MrSnaith]

No private interpretation is valid. I don’t want that Catechism not to say contraception is wrong. I am balancing the evidence. “Sterilization is a surgical operation by which the subjects are made incapable of procreation. Formerly it consisted of castration in men, and excision of the ovaries in women. But recently two much simpler operations have been discovered, namely, vasectomy for men and ligature of the Fallopian tubes (Kehrer’s method) for women.” (Old Catholic Encyclopedia) There is lots of “well what that really means is…” on this forum (“No salvation outside the Church”, more difficult Bible passes on the Scripture forum). You have to be prepared to deal with various interpretations of passages when there is no clear cut situation at hand

But this quote that you’re using denotes sterilization as a “surgical procedure,” while the Roman Catechism refers to contraception and abortion “with recourse to medicines.” How is reading it as sterilization only even remotely consistent?

 

[Rau]

But this quote that you’re using denotes sterilization as a “surgical procedure,” while the Roman Catechism refers to contraception and abortion “with recourse to medicines.” How is reading it as sterilization only even remotely consistent?

I refer you to posts #118 and #119. There is no basis to give your interpretation favour. Your interpretation is the least likely that one could possibly proffer. This is true when one simply reads the language/grammar, and it is cemented when one examines the substance and context of what is being said.

 

[Rau]

No private interpretation is valid. I don’t want that Catechism not to say contraception is wrong. I am balancing the evidence. “Sterilization is a surgical operation by which the subjects are made incapable of procreation. Formerly it consisted of castration in men, and excision of the ovaries in women. But recently two much simpler operations have been discovered, namely, vasectomy for men and ligature of the Fallopian tubes (Kehrer’s method) for women.” (Old Catholic Encyclopedia) There is lots of “well what that really means is…” on this forum (“No salvation outside the Church”, more difficult Bible passes on the Scripture forum). You have to be prepared to deal with various interpretations of passages when there is no clear cut situation at hand

I refer you to posts #118 and #119. There is no basis to give your interpretation favour. Your interpretation is the least likely that one could possibly proffer. This is true when one simply reads the language/grammar, and it is cemented when one examines the substance and context of what is being said.

 

[thinkandmull]

Medicines could make someone permanently sterile. Temporally infertile is a different question. The Catechism of Trent reads fine with that interpretation. There were saints that condemned dancing. What did they mean?

 

[Rau]

Medicines could make someone permanently sterile. Temporally infertile is a different question. The Catechism of Trent reads fine with that interpretation. There were saints that condemned dancing. What did they mean?

A medicine that causes permanent infertility in women but is otherwise safe to take? Do you have facts on this or speculation? By “speculation”, I mean something you invented in your mind to bolster a baseless argument.

Can’t comment on your non- quote regarding dancing. But I have no difficulty in agreeing that forms of dancing exist that deserve condemnation.

 

[thinkandmull]

It was common knowledge in my Catholic youth circle growing up about saints saying dancing was wrong.

Anyway, read about ancient medicines. There are lots of things that have been lost to history. Something orally taken to cause permanent sterility is not hard to imagine. Recently I heard of “psychedelic beans” in an ancient culture. Who knows

 

[Rau]

…read about ancient medicines. There are lots of things that have been lost to history. Something orally taken to cause permanent sterility is not hard to imagine. Recently I heard of “psychedelic beans” in an ancient culture. Who knows

“Imagine”? Yes, we can all do that. Particularly useful when writing fiction.

 

[thinkandmull]

There are medicines nowadays which sometimes have the side effect of permanent sterility in women. In previous ages, women known as “witches” had lots of herbs that had various effects. I haven’t seen evidence yet that contraception per se (taking something that makes you temporarily infertile) was condemned by any Catholics previous to modern times

 

[MrSnaith]

I invite you to read:

The moral norm of “Humanae Vitae”
and pastoral duty*

 

[Rau]

There are medicines nowadays which sometimes have the side effect of permanent sterility in women. In previous ages, women known as “witches” had lots of herbs that had various effects. I haven’t seen evidence yet that contraception per se (taking something that makes you temporarily infertile) was condemned by any Catholics previous to modern times

You appear to have ceased reasoned discussion and adopted ideas from Harry Potter. It is not possible to take these “flights of imagination” seriously.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The infallible character of the Church’s teaching on contraception does not rise and fall with HV. ** It was the constant teaching of the Church before HV.**

The progress of knowledge is changing.
The teaching is changing and evolving with it.
The HV would not be able to be written 300 years ago. There was no knowledge about the fertile and infertile periods.

The old Church’s teaching is based on the wrong understanding of the biology.
The Church’s teachers believed that every marital act is needed for procreation. They did not have a clue about sperm, ovum and the periods.

It appears that nobody knows why the old Church’s teaching required for the marital act to be done in the specific way.

 

[thinkandmull]

You appear to have ceased reasoned discussion and adopted ideas from Harry Potter. It is not possible to take these “flights of imagination” seriously.

I think you are assuming the Catechism of Trent is including temporary contraception in that quotation. There is much we don’t know about past medicines, or at least what was believed about their powers

 

[edwest2]

The progress of knowledge is changing.
The teaching is changing and evolving with it.
The HV would not be able to be written 300 years ago. There was no knowledge about the fertile and infertile periods.

The old Church’s teaching is based on the wrong understanding of the biology.
The Church’s teachers believed that every marital act is needed for procreation. They did not have a clue about sperm, ovum and the periods.

It appears that nobody knows why the old Church’s teaching required for the marital act to be done in the specific way.

That is incorrect. The Bible refers to seed (semen). Women had periods in olden times just as today. There is no reason to believe they did not know that they carried something, like human eggs, that required fertilization. Just as male and female animals required sexual intercourse in order for reproduction to occur.

The constant teaching of the Church is that artificial contraception is wrong.

catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Ed

 

[SonOfMan]

That is incorrect. The Bible refers to seed (semen). Women had periods in olden times just as today. There is no reason to believe they did not know that they carried something, like human eggs, that required fertilization. Just as male and female animals required sexual intercourse in order for reproduction to occur.

The constant teaching of the Church is that artificial contraception is wrong.

catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Ed

Well, the constant teaching of the Church was that unbaptized infants went to Limbo, but that changed just a few years ago. How do we know that the teachings on contraception are not in the same boat as the teachings on Limbo?

 

[edwest2]

Well, the constant teaching of the Church was that unbaptized infants went to Limbo, but that changed just a few years ago. How do we know that the teachings on contraception are not in the same boat as the teachings on Limbo?

From my previous answer link:

"This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.

"There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience.”

"NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

“IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004”

Ed

 

[SonOfMan]

From my previous answer link:

"This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.

"There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience.”

"NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

“IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004”

Ed

Couldnt one just dismiss all that as prudential judgement since it doesnt explicitly say “I infallibly declare…”?

 

[thinkandmull]

Geocentrism was once a constant teaching among Catholics. Anyway, the quotes from the Fathers can all be interpreted as applying to people who go to witches or early chemists called alchemists to become permanently infertile in order to avoid their vocation to have children. I haven’t seen a quote from the Fathers that directly applies to what most contraceptive couples do, except for onanism.

 

[thinkandmull]

Fr. E. Buonpensiere, O.P gave his opinion to the Holy Office on January 21, 1895 that “Evolution, as all Catholic philosophers teach, stands resolutely condemned by the science of ontology as well as by empirical science”.

My concern is not that Rome may be wrong about contraception, but that it should no longer straddle the fence in its phrasing but from now on always say “this is now infallible” when they intend to teach thusly. I doubt my voice can raise from a simple forum to actually accomplish this though

 

[Jaaanosik]

That is incorrect. The Bible refers to seed (semen). Women had periods in olden times just as today. There is no reason to believe they did not know that they carried something, like human eggs, that required fertilization. Just as male and female animals required sexual intercourse in order for reproduction to occur.

The constant teaching of the Church is that artificial contraception is wrong.

catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Ed

Let’s assume you are right. They knew about the sperm, ovum and how they relate to periods.
If you read this: catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization
Do you think they asked married couples to have sex only when they wanted to procreate?
2-3 times in their life?

How do you reconcile the HV, the unitive aspect, with this teaching?

The only logical conclusion is that they believed that every single act is needed for procreation hence they did not know about sperm, ovum and their relationship to periods.

Edit:

If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman.

No space for the unitive sex.

 

[Jaaanosik]

From my previous answer link:

"This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.

"There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to** “individual disobedience.” **

"NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

“IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004”

Ed

The individual disobedience is different from the invincible ignorance though.