R
rose.gold
Guest
What do y’all think about this? The Church teaching on contraception has never been one I’ve struggled with necessarily. But I am confused about why the Church’s teaching on it has gone back and forth so much.
- Status
What do y’all think about this? The Church teaching on contraception has never been one I’ve struggled with necessarily. But I am confused about why the Church’s teaching on it has gone back and forth so much.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
The Church actually has been very consistent on the topic.
Before the advent of the pill, contraception methods were based on barrier methods and coitus intereruptus. Humana Vitae was in response to the pill, which was a new hormonal contraceptive. It was erroneously thought that the pill might be permitted because it wasn’t a barrier method.
But it’s always been against the church to use contraception.
Before the advent of the pill, contraception methods were based on barrier methods and coitus intereruptus. Humana Vitae was in response to the pill, which was a new hormonal contraceptive. It was erroneously thought that the pill might be permitted because it wasn’t a barrier method.
But it’s always been against the church to use contraception.
A
AlNg
Guest
Including for nuns in Africa?
R
rose.gold
Guest
The article seems to imply otherwise? That at least some popes disagreed with it being inherently evil? I’m not sure if the article is correct or not though.
J
Jen95
Guest
This is the “money” paragraph (from the linked article) - - this still seems to be a problem for the Church. Is it okay to use NFP routinely? Some say yes, some say no.
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
G
Gorgias
Guest
Different issue. That issue is whether post-coital efforts to prevent later conception are morally licit.
The answer has been “yes, they are.”
Last edited:
R
redcatholic
Guest
Having met Dr McClain on several occasions and having read her work, I have never doubted her love of history. She also is not used to being challenged on her opinions. However, she claims expertise In theology here she has no right to. Given the medium of the article and her bias, there really is no surprise here. But on Church history and theology and doctrine she would be debunked by many lay posters on this site.
S
stpurl
Guest
Not to mention the fact that the “Belgian nuns in the Congo given permission to take the pill by Pope Paul VI’ is an urban legend.
The incidents involving uprisings in the Congo whereby women were at risk from rape took place in 1961. And in fact a theological discussion took place, in 1961, regarding whether or not such use was morally licit, though no determination was finally made.
But Pope Paul VI was not the Pope then. Pope Paul did not become Pope until June of 1963.
OOPSIE.
But since there had been a discussion among theologians, and since there was a major crisis in the Congo in 1961 but there were various skirmishes in Africa throughout the 1960s, and since there was also the whole “Pope Paul wrote Humanae Vitae, therefore ANY discussion of contraception and abortion must have taken place with him”, in the typical fashion of an urban legend, a ‘tale that never was’, the usual “I heard it said by somebody who knew somebody who said he had heard from a most reliable source that this happened” apparently even our own clergy (who were obviously not there at the time and are relying on what THEY get told ‘happened’) can understandably wish to rely on trusted aides and not do pesky research, especially when there are other bigger problems to handle.
However, since we don’t have to deal with bigger problems, we can do the research and at least try to put forth truth instead of ‘urban legends’.
Since titillating talk is usually much more fun to pass on than dull truth, it may take awhile for the legend to be consigned to the dumpster. I mean, “Pope Joan” legends are still out there and one can actually trace that back to the first person who invented it, much as one can trace this back to the document and the theologians discussing it. But for a lot of people, that isn’t enough. “Just because we don’t have a written record of what Pope Paul said doesn’t mean he didn’t say this.” But the case is not that people are saying, “the Pope MAY have said this” (even though there exists no proof that he did). People are saying, “He DID say this” and using this assertion to claim that this gives contraception ‘moral authority’. That is something totally wrong. We know that in fact that whatever Pope Paul may or may not have said in his life, that he was not, in actual fact, a POPE who said this about these women at the time of the crisis in 1961.
People need to pay attention to facts. The claim that Pope Paul VI said something about Belgian nuns contracepting in the Congo is 1961 is flat.out.wrong.
The incidents involving uprisings in the Congo whereby women were at risk from rape took place in 1961. And in fact a theological discussion took place, in 1961, regarding whether or not such use was morally licit, though no determination was finally made.
But Pope Paul VI was not the Pope then. Pope Paul did not become Pope until June of 1963.
OOPSIE.
But since there had been a discussion among theologians, and since there was a major crisis in the Congo in 1961 but there were various skirmishes in Africa throughout the 1960s, and since there was also the whole “Pope Paul wrote Humanae Vitae, therefore ANY discussion of contraception and abortion must have taken place with him”, in the typical fashion of an urban legend, a ‘tale that never was’, the usual “I heard it said by somebody who knew somebody who said he had heard from a most reliable source that this happened” apparently even our own clergy (who were obviously not there at the time and are relying on what THEY get told ‘happened’) can understandably wish to rely on trusted aides and not do pesky research, especially when there are other bigger problems to handle.
However, since we don’t have to deal with bigger problems, we can do the research and at least try to put forth truth instead of ‘urban legends’.
Since titillating talk is usually much more fun to pass on than dull truth, it may take awhile for the legend to be consigned to the dumpster. I mean, “Pope Joan” legends are still out there and one can actually trace that back to the first person who invented it, much as one can trace this back to the document and the theologians discussing it. But for a lot of people, that isn’t enough. “Just because we don’t have a written record of what Pope Paul said doesn’t mean he didn’t say this.” But the case is not that people are saying, “the Pope MAY have said this” (even though there exists no proof that he did). People are saying, “He DID say this” and using this assertion to claim that this gives contraception ‘moral authority’. That is something totally wrong. We know that in fact that whatever Pope Paul may or may not have said in his life, that he was not, in actual fact, a POPE who said this about these women at the time of the crisis in 1961.
People need to pay attention to facts. The claim that Pope Paul VI said something about Belgian nuns contracepting in the Congo is 1961 is flat.out.wrong.
R
redcatholic
Guest
Yes. However I was shocked that in this article she didn’t talk about the most recent issue involving the current pontiff and condoms for Zika. Remember Zika? It was like the Covid of 5 years ago. And I think Pope Francis cites the Congo in his remarks.
Sometimes history professors can’t see the Forrest for the trees. Because she would have really driven her point home.
Sometimes history professors can’t see the Forrest for the trees. Because she would have really driven her point home.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Indeed. It is of course licit to cease the violation that is rape - certainly afterwards, and in my view, during (eg. pushing the man away). I also fail to see a reason why a person with no intention whatsoever to engage in intercourse ought not utilize, say, a barrier device or other means to defend themselves against elements of the violation.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Finish the story, though, please. Pope Francis spoke on this, ostensibly under the context of the question “would Pope Paul VI have approved?”. See this CNA article, which discusses both the “legend” and the apparent reasoning of Francis: Paul VI, nuns and contraception: did Pope Francis get it right? | Catholic News Agency
R
redcatholic
Guest
Yep. And who would have more information on what the pope did than, well, the pope.
S
stpurl
Guest
The article does not contradict what I said. There is no need to ‘finish a story’.
The point that I make is this: No matter what Pope Paul may have said or thought about the whole hypothetical case as presented in 1961, or if he agreed with it or not, the Fact is that the constant presentation of a the statements, “Pope Paul allowed the Belgian nuns in the Congo to take the pill” is flat out wrong.
The wrong statement implies that Paul was Pope (giving him ‘papal authority’), that HE determined this was correct, and that this was a real true event, setting a precedent.
NONE of those things is correct, but ALL of those things are being presented as the reason to believe that the CHURCH would allow such things, and DID allow such things.
Again, that is not correct.
The point that I make is this: No matter what Pope Paul may have said or thought about the whole hypothetical case as presented in 1961, or if he agreed with it or not, the Fact is that the constant presentation of a the statements, “Pope Paul allowed the Belgian nuns in the Congo to take the pill” is flat out wrong.
The wrong statement implies that Paul was Pope (giving him ‘papal authority’), that HE determined this was correct, and that this was a real true event, setting a precedent.
NONE of those things is correct, but ALL of those things are being presented as the reason to believe that the CHURCH would allow such things, and DID allow such things.
Again, that is not correct.
1
1ke
Guest
If this is a “Scholar” on Catholic history then my cat is a scholar on Catholic history.
J
Jen7
Guest
Except that there isn’t such a way. Conception happens in the Fallopian tubes. Making the womb hostile to implantation doesn’t prevent conception. People will say the woman “just” had a “chemical pregnancy.” But a chemical pregnancy means conception happened in the tubes and the baby couldn’t implant. I don’t understand how that’s not abortion.
Last edited:
If that is the case, then we need to be fighting “backup plans” for post-coital contraception tooth and toenail, just as we fight surgical or clinical, medical abortions. And I know this has been talked back and forth for decades, but if certain means of contraception have even a secondary, or tertiary possibility of causing an abortion, if the primary “way the contraceptive works” doesn’t succeed, then that’s something to be looked at also. Contracepting all by itself is a grave enough sin, but abortion is far worse.HomeschoolDad:
Except that there isn’t such a way. Conception happens in the Fallopian tubes. Making the womb hostile to implantation doesn’t prevent conception. People will say the woman “just” had a “chemical pregnancy.” But a chemical pregnancy means conception happened in the tubes and the baby couldn’t implant. I don’t understand how that’s not abortion.
If the baby can’t implant, as you say, that’s an abortion.
po18guy
Well-known member
Does it create doubt? Then, kindly ignore it. The world hates the truth; it hates the Catholic Church and for 2,000 years there has been a steady stream of rumors, innuendo and plain old lies against her.
Rather, ponder why the Creator of the universe gave you a reproductive system and why He gave you the power of self-restraint.
Rather, ponder why the Creator of the universe gave you a reproductive system and why He gave you the power of self-restraint.
- Status