contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter stepahnie52706
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Slavery is often mentioned as an example where Catholic teachings have changed in regards to faith and morals. Another example is freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

The death penalty is also often thrown around but the Church still recognizes the right of states to impose the death penalty under certain circumstances.

I would also be interested in researching the history of torture in regards to the evolution of Church teaching. This to me is another example where the Church’s teaching has changed.

Mind you , we should take a page from John Roberts when he stated that a previous (judicial) decision should be reviewed if the basis of the decision has erroded.

Adam
 
This thread is on contraception. Has the teaching of the Church changed ( or is it a development) on artificial contraception? Would it be correct to say that the previous teaching of the Church used to be that artificial birth control and abortion were always wrong. However,it looks like the current teaching is a bit different from that, I guess, if what I am reading is correct. The current teaching is that it is the case that generally, ABC and abortion are wrong, but there are now some exceptions to the rule, so that both ABC and abortion are allowed in some cases. For example, according to:
National Catholic Reporter, Feb 16, 2001 by John L. Jr. Allen
"Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, an expert in moral theology at Rome’s prestigious Alphonsiana Academy, told NCR that in the early 1960s, the Vatican gave permission for religious women in the Belgian Congo to use contraceptives as a defense against rape.
“It was seen as a protection against pregnancy arising from unwanted, unfree sexual intercourse,” Johnstone said.

Referring to Humanae Vitae, the 1968 document of Pope Paul VI that reiterated the church ban on birth control, Johnstone said the document “prohibits the inhibition of procreation in the context of free sexual intercourse.”

“What happens in rape is not free,” Johnstone said, explaining the logic of the 1960s-era Vatican statement. “It can be regarded as an unjust attack, and thus the woman is justified in using chemical means in repelling the effects of the attack.”

Johnstone noted that although the Vatican exception for the Congo pertained specifically to nuns, from a moral point of view “it makes no difference whatsoever” if the woman is in religious life. Hence, he said, other women in grave danger of rape would have the same liberty."
And there is a bishop who allows nuns to use the pill. See:
network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=4227&messageid=981326515
And EWTN also says it might be OK:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showme…7&number=450012
But
According to:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=976756&postcount=48

“artificial birth control, it is a scientific fact, not theory, that these methods are abortafacients. And abortion by a persons willful interaction, is always gravely sinful.”

To support the fact that the pill causes abortions, reference was made to:

prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

But, it looks like according to the current teaching, Catholic nuns are allowed does to use the pill under certain circumstances.
 
Interesting info. I must defer further discussion of slavery until I have time to read up more on the issue, thanks! In the meantime, perhaps hit up the apologists forum for an explanation.

Regarding contraception, I can see a few possibilities. The quote noted that it was in the 1960’s that this permission was granted for unmarried women not sexually active, but at risk of rape to use the pill. The pill of that era had much higher dosages of hormones and it was relatively new. Little would have been known at the time about the risk of breakthrough ovulation and the dosages given at the time would have made such occurences exceptionally rare. Possibly rare enough to justify the risk. I would expect that a well-formed catholic nun today in such hazardous circumstances would monitor her fertility using and NFP method and keep a few pills handy (for use as described below).

Today’s pill is given in MUCH lower dosages to reduce side effects on women, but with the result that breakthrough ovulation is much more likely. I think it is instructive that the catholic moral guidelines currently in effect for treatment of rape victims allow the victim to take ovulation-suppressing meds (pill) immediately after a rape if a quick blood test shows that the woman has not ovulated within the past couple days. (can’t find the link on this, but think I read it here…) In lieu of a blood test, I would think a 3rd world nun aware of the stage of her cycle could make an informed decision as well.

Thus, the church HAS varied specific instructions based on how the scientific understanding of the day applies to the unchanging moral principal. That is that married sex cannot be deliberately frustrated using ABC because it transforms the act from one of giving to one of taking. None of this applies to rape cases. In those cases, only reasonable precautions against the unintended killing of an innocent unborn child are required.

Contrary to what you’d like to think, this is NOT an OK of abortion in some circumstances. If the intent of the medication is the defense of a rape victim by preventing conception AND reasonable precautions are made to protect innocent life, it is acceptable. This is the same moral reasoning as finding it acceptable for cops to use their guns to defend the innocent when necesary. Cops do not have the right to shoot up whoever they want. But if their own or the life of an innocent is in immediate danger from a criminal and reasonable precautions are taken to ensure that firing the gun won’t harm the innocent, then the cop is NOT morally prohibited from shooting the bad guy who is pulling his own gun. Even though there is a small chance that somebody might be back in those shadows unseen behind the bad guy and might be at risk of being hit… As long as the cop has a life/death need to use deadly force and he takes precautions against the unintended killing of an innocent, he can do it.

Similarly, when a woman is raped, she need not submit and allow conception to occur. She can take active steps to FIGHT her attacker by preventing conception as long as precautions are taken against the unintended killing of a CONCEIVED unborn child.

If, in spite of precautions taken, an unseen innocent bystander (cop) or an unborn child (rape victim) is in fact killed, neither the woman nor the cop becomes a murderer in catholic moral theology.
 
40.png
manualman:
Similarly, when a woman is raped, she need not submit and allow conception to occur. She can take active steps to FIGHT her attacker by preventing conception as long as precautions are taken against the unintended killing of a CONCEIVED unborn child.

If, in spite of precautions taken, an unseen innocent bystander (cop) or an unborn child (rape victim) is in fact killed, neither the woman nor the cop becomes a murderer in catholic moral theology.
Click to expand...
A poster indicated that it is known that the pill causes abortions, so how would anyone be able to take precautions against an abortion in such a case?
 
Exactly the way I described. No abortion can happen if there is no child there to be aborted. If the blood test or NFP chart indicates that the liklihood of her having ovulated within the lifespan of an egg is low, then there is very little risk of unintended abortion.

Again, it’s the same as the cop who needs to shoot at a criminal even though he can only take LIMITED precautions against making sure nobody else is at risk. He ain’t a murderer if he misses and the bullet hits an unseeable person behind the crook.

You schooled me on slavery. I’ll give you that one, but I’m hardly up on that issue beyond 8th grade civics class. Contraception has had my attention a lot more and I’ve studied it in depth. It’s consistent.
 
40.png
manualman:
Contraception has had my attention a lot more and I’ve studied it in depth. It’s consistent.
Click to expand...
Since the thread is on contraception, there is a question about the morality of NFP when compared to artificial contraception. For example, Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, :

*“*Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Doesn’t NFP, used to prevent or space children, work against the primary purpose of marriage, which is the procreation and education of children?
 
This is exactly what I was trying to say earlier in the thread
I believe that this was the stand of the church before Vatican II
After Vat II the church watered down on the morality of
sexual intercourse between spouses and brought in the
term ‘expression of love’ , unitive etc. in addition to procreation
as objective of sex in marriage, there by allowing
NFP as a means for birth control.

In my grand parennts’ time people used to confess
that they had sexual intercourse with in marriage!

Then the issue of artificial contraception came
in view of exploding population especially in third world countries

After much debates and 2 commissions set up by Pope
Paul VI both of which recommended artificial contraception by a HUGE majority (Both the Laity’s and Clergy’s) the Pope threw out those openions and came out with ‘Human Vitae’

Thats why I said that going by progression some time later
the Church will allow contraception with in marriage

Any one feels the same?
40.png
stanley123:
Since the thread is on contraception, there is a question about the morality of NFP when compared to artificial contraception. For example, Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, :

*“*Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Doesn’t NFP, used to prevent or space children, work against the primary purpose of marriage, which is the procreation and education of children?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
cmgeo:
After much debates and 2 commissions set up by Pope
Paul VI both of which recommended artificial contraception by a HUGE majority
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to know why this commission was set up, if it was known ahead of time that their decision would not be followed?
 
All right! I have been staying out and just following but can no longer keep quiet. To those folks who keep harping that “contraception will change” please listen up.

The first major battle the Church faced on people caving to contraception was in 1930. 1930 folks, is a full 30+ years before Vatican II. Please stop throwing around Vatican II as if it were some “update on contraception.”

There were homilies given in the 1950’s to get people to STOP confessing intercourse in marriage! It had nothing to do with contraception. It was because the religious life was emphasized as such a holy thing that people believed it was sex that made married couples sinful. It was because of misguided people believing every rumor they heard that made them think they had to confess sex. It was handled pastorally to tell people that sex in marriage was good. When The Holy Father later declared sainthood of a married couple it was such a huge deal because they were the first married to be declared so.

Those “commisions” that were convened were to STUDY the issue of the nature of contraceptive devices. It was thought that the pill caused abortions and it was wanted to know what they did and how they worked. Since it was discovered that contraceptive devices did in ALL cases frustrate the marriage act and MANY caused abortion it was reaffirmed, read that reaffirmed, that contraception was still inherently disordered no matter what kind of pretty bow you want to tie around it!

Please please please STOP referring to rape as an act of sex! It is an act of violence and therefore held to a completely different set of rules. Just because the act of rape sometimes has the “accidents of the sex act,” it does not make it so. Abortion is NEVER moral not even in the case of rape, but preventing ovulation is completely moral if a woman has been raped. Rape is not sex. Conception can occur without sex ever taking place as we know from the high use of IVF in today’s society. That an evil rapist can also conceive life has nothing to do with the act itself. The child is innocent. That a child can be conceived by IVF (also immoral) does not lower the value of the life of the child. Neither are acts of sex and yet both result in conception. Intentional abortion is always immoral since there is a life, no matter what the circumstances of his or her conception.

Contraception is only an issue in an act of sex. Hence abstinence is NOT contraception since it doesn’t involve an act of sex. For those who are confused about the nature of NFP, please understand at least this point. NFP is NOT contraception. Since it is also FOR conception it is not CONTRAception. We who have babies because we charted get really annoyed by those who call something contraception when we specifically used it to conceive. That some might use NFP to a selfish purpose is a different story and should be addressed in another thread.

I would go on but this is long already. Kudos to manualman for taking this topic head-on and solo. 👍 I am here and reading if you need anything. Contraception teaching has not and will not change! Just because it may take some folks a lot to finally get it doesn’t mean the Church is changing.

BTW Please keep the slavery, torture and other topics in their own thread. These subjects have been refuted many times under the headings of “Church teachings change?” and other such titles. Bringing them up over and over does not make them true.
 
40.png
LittleDeb:
BTW Please keep the slavery, torture and other topics in their own thread. These subjects have been refuted many times under the headings of “Church teachings change?” and other such titles. .
Click to expand...
I would like to see this refutation. The Catholic encyclopedia does not seem to agree with you.
 
40.png
cmgeo:
I believe that this was the stand of the church before Vatican II
After Vat II the church watered down on the morality of
sexual intercourse between spouses and brought in the
term ‘expression of love’ , unitive etc. in addition to procreation
as objective of sex in marriage, there by allowing
NFP as a means for birth control.

…
Thats why I said that going by progression some time later
the Church will allow contraception with in marriage

Any one feels the same?
Click to expand...
I would like to comment on this.
First of all, I think that NFP was approved before Vatican II, but I am not sure exactly when. I heard it was approved by Pope Pius XII. Anyway, I don;t think that NFP, when used to prevent birth, is in line with a declaration of Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, :
*“*Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
According to him it is intrinsically vicious to exercise the conjugal act and to frustrate its purpose. Now if the primary purpose of the conjugal act is the procreation and education of children, it looks like this would mean that to use NFP to prevent children would be a shameful and intrinsically vicious act. Of course, it would not be wrong to use NFP to bring children into the world.
Also, I think that you are right on the radical change in Catholic teaching on the primary purpose of marriage. It used to be that before Vatican II, the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation of children. however, the teaching of the RCC has radically changed after Vatican II so that there are now two apparently equal purposes of marriage, procreative and unitive. This change in Catholic teaching has then provided the underpinning for the use of NFP to prevent the birth of children. This is where I would agree with you.
Now the Church has changed its teaching on so many other things, I don’t think that it would be impossible to change its teaching on ABC. In fact, I recall hearing a Catholic nun on radio saying that she thought that the Church could change its teaching on the use of the condom.
 
With reference to the question of whether or not the teaching on contraception is generally accepted by Catholic lay people or by Catholic clergy, one can take a look at the following two articles, one from US Catholic magazine, and the other from America Magazine:
According to the following article in US Catholic

uscatholic.org/2005/09/featb0509.htm

“It is well-known that the overwhelming majority of U.S. Catholics do in fact use artificial contraception.”
“After much thought and prayer, they decided that contraception was the best solution for them. Freedom from fear of conception has had a very positive impact on their relationship and their family life as a whole.”

**". . . (Fr. Richard McCormick maintains that) there are many Jesuits who do not accept the thesis that every contraceptive act is morally wrong. I can vouch for the fact that very many bishops share the same conviction." **
****Thomas J. Gumbleton, Auxilliary Bishop of Detroit, in America, November 20, 1993.
 
40.png
stepahnie52706:
kaymart,
i’ve heard soemthing about the pill having an abortion effect as sort of a ‘back up plan’. i think that is a probable explanation, however no one that i have heard it from has had an authority in the area of medicine and no one has been able to give me the medical explanination of why it is so. again, i’m not saying that it doesnt have an abortion effect, i would just like to know if it is medically proven or if that statement has slipped through the wires like in childhood game of ‘telephone’
Click to expand...
Actually there was a question on EWTN and Judy Brown, God bless her, answered as follows:

Every birth control has THREE modes of action (ways of working) and the same information I am giving you now is on the patient package insert, though the pharmaceutical companies NEVER admit that irritating the lining of the uterus is abortifacient, even though it is.

The three modes of action:
  1. It can prevent ovulation (releasing an egg from the ovary)
  2. It can cause the mucus in the cervix to change so that if sperm reach the cervix, they are not allowed to enter, and
  3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first two actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the tiny baby boy or girl will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.
In other words, if the third action occurs, the woman’s body rejects the tiny baby and he or she will die. This is called a chemical abortion.

PROPONENTS of the pill argue that pregnancy does not begin until IMPLANTATION; that is false; pregnancy begins when the baby begins at conception.

Hope this helps 👍
 
I’m back!

I’m going to go a little out of order here to get a few principles clear. You asked why Paul VI assembled a commission on birth control if he already knew what he was going to say.

To me, this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the magesterium is guided by the Holy Spirit. Contrary to the impressions of some, we do not believe that the pope has some sort of magical insight whereby he knows all and sees all. Infallibility is NOT omniscience. Repeat it a few times. The pope has to come about moral judgements the same we we all do. Reason, prayer and discernment. If he’s a GOOD pope, he’s going to get (name removed by moderator)ut from a variety of sources on any issue he considers. This does NOT mean he is obliged to agree with the majority of those giving (name removed by moderator)ut or the ones with the most impressive credentials. (If this were the case, the church would have adopted the Arian heresy as doctrine many centuries ago. Many, maybe MOST nominal christians went for that too, including a fair number of individual bishops.)

Back to the proper order now with the above point made. As we have already discussed, the church grows in her understanding of truth and morality, but does not contradict herself. Thus it is both possible and probable that in earlier times, there was an emphasis on the procreative aspect of marital sex and a lack of development in the understanding of the unitive role of sex. This was a natural result of a major pastoral problem that DID exist before Vatican II; the idea that radical holiness was just for priests and religious. If married folk never participate in the theological and philosophical discussions that lead to maturation and growth of church teaching, how will there ever BE any growth on the understanding of the unitive role of sex? (Strangely, today the situation is reversed and married couples seem to believe that the perspective of holy ,but celibate priests on matters of sex is worthless. Neglect of either perspective, IMO, results in a warped, unhealthy understanding)

So the situation we had 50 years ago was a lopsided understanding of the role of sex in marriage. None of the teachings were wrong, just not adequately developed. Casti Connubi is specifically addressed to artificial birth control, not NFP or the principles behind it. This is NOT a reversal! Modern NFP had not yet developed, but the older rythm method has existed for centuries. It was widely discussed and practiced among catholics even then. You seem to suggest that the prohibitions against FRUSTRATING the procreative marital act include NFP. Not so. Obviously not so. Had the pope been concerned that the old rythm method FRUSTRATED the procreative nature of sex, he would have said so! But he did not. Because it does NOT frustrate the procreative nature of sex. It is in HARMONY with it. Both NFP and rythm are merely means of understanding how God made our fertility. They CAN be used wrongly in ways that frustrate God’s procreative designs for marital sex, but they do not ALWAYS constitute a deliberate divorce between the unitive and procreative aspects of sex.

The church has NOT reversed itself on any matters of sexual morality and/or theology. She has built on top of what she previously understood without repudiating any of the truths she proclaimed earlier.

If you are really interested in this, read about the Theology of the Body starting with author Christopher West. It’s quite amazing. And quite good for your married sex life!
 
By the way, does it amaze anybody else how many people try to say that NFP is morally the same as contraception?

Um, hello? If they are the same, then why are you so opposed to using NFP yourself and so devoted to defending the use of ABC? If it’s just Kleenex verus Puffs, why the fuss? Just buy the Kleenex and humor those silly popes!

In reality, it IS a big difference and everybody knows it. ABC is easy, requires no sacrifices, allows instant gratification, and pleasure on demand. NFP when used for avoiding pregnancy requires sacrifice on the part of both, good communication, encourages self-examination of the reason for avoiding, and fosters a giving approach to sex instead of a taking attitude.

If there’s no difference, why are you all so keen on rationalizing the ABC?
 
40.png
stanley123:
There are a few examples that I would like to talk about.
I was also taught that the Church will not change a moral teaching. However, there do seem to be a few problems that have been brought up:
  1. Slavery. Pope Nicholas V on January 8, 1455 in the bull Romanus Pontifex allowed slavery. Jesuit missionaries owned slaves in the New World (America) in the 16th century. However, the present teaching of the Church is that slavery is not allowed.
  2. Torture. Pope Innocent IV sanctioned the use of torture to extract confessions. However, according to the present teaching torture is not allowed.
  3. Indisolubility of marriage. The teaching of the Church has been that marriage is indissoluble. At the present synod of bishops being held in Rome, there have been discussions about allowing divorced Catholics to receive Holy Communion. Also, the teaching has not changed theoretically, but operationally, there has been a change if you look at the number of annulments being granted. In 1930, there were about 9 annulments granted in the USA, whereas in 1989, it has shot up to about 60,000 in the USA. The allegation is that the theologians have gotten around the teaching of indissolubility of marriage by introducing the concept of easy to obtain annulments.
  4. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This has been changed so that according to the new teaching, Judaism is salvific for a Jew and he does not have to convert to Catholicism to be saved. A Jew may be saved within Judaism because the covenant that they have with God is suficient for them to be saved. This is the new teaching.
Click to expand...
This is all off topic and should be another thread. The topic of slavery, as one example, is very complicated. Can you show me where the Church ever said chattel slavery is morally licit?

There are many types of slavery and not all are intrinsically evil. These important distinctions, and historical context, will show the Church has never reversed Herself in doctrinal matters.

The other issues are presented in a distorted manner.
 
40.png
cmgeo:
In my grand parennts’ time people used to confess
that they had sexual intercourse with in marriage!
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate?
After much debates and 2 commissions set up by Pope
Paul VI both of which recommended artificial contraception by a HUGE majority (Both the Laity’s and Clergy’s) the Pope threw out those openions and came out with ‘Human Vitae’
Click to expand...
The commission was not the magisterium and HV only said what the Church has always taught.
 
In your grandparents time, They had to confess when they had sexual relations within the marriage:confused: I don’t get it, Do you mean if they used BC or what? Excuse me I went up read the post and still don’t get it? What do you mean by that? I never thought it was a sin ever.
 
I don’t believe some of you people are being fair here.
Here’s why:
First of all, we see the following post which says that we can talk about examples which are brought forth to illustrate whether or not the Church has changed its teachings.
40.png
manualman:
No cmgeo, the church has NOT even changed a doctrine or moral teaching. Discliplines, yes. Morals, no. Won’t happen. We can talk about examples if you’d like to raise some.
Click to expand...
Then, when I bring forth some examples, we see:
40.png
LittleDeb:
BTW Please keep the slavery, torture and other topics in their own thread. These subjects have been refuted many times under the headings of “Church teachings change?” and other such titles. Bringing them up over and over does not make them true.
Click to expand...
Or
40.png
fix:
This is all off topic and should be another thread. The topic of slavery, as one example, is very complicated. Can you show me where the Church ever said chattel slavery is morally licit?.
Click to expand...
First fix says that a discussion of slavery is off topic and should be in another thread. Then she says that she wants me to show her an example where the Church says that chattel slavery is morally licit.

Well, which is it? Do you want me to give you examples of where the Church has changed her teaching or not?
 
40.png
stanley123:
I

First fix says that a discussion of slavery is off topic and should be in another thread. Then she says that she wants me to show her an example where the Church says that chattel slavery is morally licit.

Well, which is it? Do you want me to give you examples of where the Church has changed her teaching or not?
Click to expand...
I think it should be another topic. I started an answer because I did not want your words to go unchallenged. Everything you wrote has been debated, and refuted, here many times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top