Humanae vitae dissent - is it heresy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pope Paul VI had no intention of allowing Humanae Vitae to be misused, either in 1968 or the 1970s. I’m only pointing out what I know. Catholic schools, seminaries and Catholic institutions of higher learning were infiltrated and damaged, severely damage. This was not Pope Paul VI’s fault.

Within 24 hours after the publication of Humanae Vitae, it was attacked in what was described as “an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…”

“unprecedented in the history of the Church” I did not write that. That was taken from the National Catholic Register. To deny the facts is to harm Catholics in the pews.
 
Last edited:
You seem to know more about this kind of thing than I do. Why do you say that douching after having been raped is futile for contraceptive purposes?
 
Because the sperm are already dispersed. Douche isn’t spermicide. In fact, using a douche shortly after sex could even force sperm further up the vaginal canal and into the cervix, increasing the risk of pregnancy.

I chuckled when I read that, because that method is what the less-than-bright types in high school would use, thinking it would actually work. Then they would wind up pregnant. Everybody knew it was an old wives tale, and that was 40 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Pope Paul VI had no intention of allowing Humanae Vitae to be misused, either in 1968 or the 1970s. I’m only pointing out what I know. Catholic schools, seminaries and Catholic institutions of higher learning were infiltrated and damaged, severely damage. This was not Pope Paul VI’s fault.
“Infiltrated” by teachers the Pope chose as experts in their field? What are you talking about?

I agree that there was severe damage caused by this incident. It calls into question the basis for Papal authority. But your distortions only make things worse. Paul VI disagreed with people who expressed their opinion when he asked them. To call those people “dissenters” is dishonest. Charged language like “infiltrated” is deceptive when they were chosen by the Pope.

NC Register has become progressively unreliable. That you use their deceptive language does not make it more honest.
 
BTW, in neither the Shammai nor the Hillel school of Judaism did ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ mean having children on a regular basis. On the contrary, one fulfills the obligation of procreation by having two sons, based on the Shammai school, or a son and a daughter, according to Hillel, the latter of which is followed today. Moreover, it is only the man’s responsibility to be fruitful, not the woman’s. Thus a single woman is acceptable in Judaism, but a man must marry.

With regard to contraception, Jewish law is very nuanced, taking into consideration the health of the mother, which supersedes the commandment to procreate. Of course, the major streams of Judaism–Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform–do differ in several respects.

Carry on…
 
Last edited:
Isn’t that the same Register that is part of Catholic Answers?
 
Because the sperm are already dispersed. Douche isn’t spermicide.
There is no such thing as a spermicidal douche? (Sorry, this isn’t my area of expertise. Especially in that I am a male.)
In fact, using a douche shortly after sex could even force sperm further up the vaginal canal and into the cervix, increasing the risk of pregnancy.
I’ve heard this. I suppose, then, it comes down to saying “this woman has been raped, is it better to use a spermicidal douche here and now, or is it better to stand back and do nothing, lest the douching technique makes a bad situation worse?”. That would be a judgement call (not to mention the need for hygiene and disease prevention).

In these circumstances, if we could be morally certain that a “Plan B” type of emergency contraception is not abortifacient, that might be the way to go.
that method is what the less-than-bright types in high school would use, thinking it would actually work. Then they would wind up pregnant.
I’ve heard those tales too. For the most part, the crowd I ran with in high school were abstinent.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a spermicidal douche? (Sorry, this isn’t my area of expertise. Especially in that I am a male.)
There may be, but I am sure the Church would consider that ABC. If not, that would be some serious hair splitting.
 
Well, douche might at times work for some people because it often contains vinegar which will change the ph balance of the vagina and it can work to cleanse the mucus that help which in turn can kill sperm. On the other hand, douche can actually help the sperm travel up the vagina and it can cause yeast infections. I would never recommend douche to anyone and most midwives and drs don’t like women using it for hygiene even.
 
I don’t think it would, in those circumstances, be “hair splitting” at all. It would fall under the same rubric as the possibly hypothetical “Congo nuns case”. The rape victim is defending herself against an unjust aggressor.
 
Well I am one of those who disagree with the Church on many of it’s teachings on human sexuality, including contraception. I consider most of it to be hairsplitting, if I am being honest.
 
Actually, no it doesn’t.
If you read that document carefully, it says that there is no evidence the Vatican ‘ever gave permission for the use of contraceptives’ in this scenario (no actual date or place given, either).
My understanding is that it was not a case of requesting permission. It was a case that the local doctors looking after the nuns gave them anovulent drugs and in this doctor/patient/confessor forum, they were not held morally culpable of sin. It was not a case needing a papal document.
Check this out from Church Militant:
Do people still read that site?
And indeed, serious historians say that the story about Bd. Pope Paul VI and the Congolese nuns is a false one.

They agree there is no paper trail substantiating such a claim of papal approval for contraception. There’s no document to prove that any pope ever approved of nuns using contraceptives, whether in the Congo, Bosnia or elsewhere.**
No one ever claimed there was a paper trail. That isn’t how the internal forum works.

Cont.
 
Last edited:
Fr Gerald Coleman from CHAUSA gave a summary of the ‘position paper’ which was never denounced in order to prevent the situation of the Congo nuns.

Moral and pastoral concerns arose in the early 1960s regarding the plight of religious sisters and other women caught up in Belgian Congo uprisings. These women were given anovulant drugs by “doctors on the mission” in order to ward off pregnancy that might otherwise result from rape, which was a constant threat in that chaotic time. The physicians and their moral advisers did not consider their action either contraception or direct sterilization, in the sense in which the church stood against such interventions to prevent pregnancy.

Eminent Roman moralists Monsignor S. E. Pietro Palazzini, Francesco Hürth, SJ, Monsignor Ferdinando Lambruschini and Marcellino Zalba, SJ, addressed this plight by asking whether or not a nun or any woman who reasonably fears she may be raped can take progestational drugs to induce temporary sterility to prevent a possible conception. The nuns, of course, had no intention of consenting in any way to violent action imposed on them. These theologians gave posi tive replies by appealing to the principle of legitimate self-protection.

Zalba was a strong defendant of Humanae Vitae, and along with John Ford, SJ, persuaded Pope Paul VI to reject the recommendations of the majority opinion of the papal commission on contraception. On the issue at hand, however, he wrote, “the intention … is not the interruption of ovulation but the prevention of the consequences of a … violation of chastity.” The nuns were protecting themselves from physical and emotional disorder created by fear. Due to this “good motive,” the moralists concluded that the medical intervention constituted only “indirect sterilization.” Consequently, the nuns incurred no moral culpability, as all the blame and responsibility rested on the shoulders of the persons violating them.

The theologians explained that direct sterilization condemned by the magisterium as intrinsically evil is the direct sterilization ordered to prevent procreation in persons who want to exercise their sexual function. The nuns under threat of rape acted morally by ingesting progestational drugs because they had no intention of voluntarily exercising their sexual capability.

Zalba concluded, “We can assert with full conviction that pontifical doctrine does not exclude the putting of physical functions, even those which as functions are quite normal, at the service of the legitimate interests of the acting person. This may be done in order to ward off from the body itself hardships which are being imposed upon the person contrary to the person’s will. Or it may be done to deliver the soul and the spirit from calumny, rejection, social difficulties, etc. Or it may be done so that the person may enjoy simply the condition of liberty which the person does not want to give up.”


Cont.
 
Last edited:
Zalba is advocating an application of the principle of self-defense. In his Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (1981), St. John Paul II insisted that the conjugal act is both a sign (openness to procreation) and a language (“We love each other as only a husband and wife can”). When the internal commitment to conjugal love is revoked or made inoperable, the conjugal act itself is counterfeited and bereft of moral dignity. When a conjugal act is forced upon a woman, the language of love is not present and thereby contradicted.
This moral tradition amounts to what is called “solidly probable opinion” that a woman who cannot escape sexual oppression may licitly resort to artificial means to avoid a pregnancy from sexual acts forced upon her. In their extensive study of this question, Ambrogio Valsecchi, in Controversy: The Birth Control Debate, and Edward Bayer, in Rape Within Marriage, conclude, “This acceptance … has been carefully reviewed by the teaching authority of the Church without any objections whatsoever.”


 
Good information, as always. I do note that the commands far predates Judaism, yet is mentioned in Leviticus. Of note, Job had seven sons and three daughters, and the widow in Daniel has seven sons. Merely observations.
 
Your comment about catechesis for your generation did not get any better for the next generation, and likely a half generation since then.

Contraception is objectively morally evil. And therein lies the issue; it is those who have a correctly formed conscience who project out to others that they must also have one, because who could not figure it out? Sadly, most of the people using contraception is the answer.

It is not for us to determine the guilt of those who use; that is God’s problem. And we need to let God solve that problem. It is fine to have discussion with someone who is interested; most are not, and I have observed too many people of good will thinking they can convert the world if they just talk loudly enough.
You want to do something? Support faithful Marriage Prep. Pray. Support Pro Life groups. Pray. Do your best to teach your children why (and “Because the Church says so” is not even close to adequate).

And pray.
 
I thought birth control was a mortal sin, in the sense of grave matter. Does this mean then that there are exceptions?
There are no exceptions if the use of birth control is to prevent pregnancy.
 
Apparently there are Roman Catholic priests who do not agree with you.
Its irrelevant what individuals think. The Church teaching is clear. The Church is not in error. These priests you mention are and worse still it means they are encouraging the faithful to commit sins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top