Humanae Vitae....

  • Thread starter Thread starter TravisandJill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TravisandJill

Guest
I know that the church has always been against birth control, but before Humanae Vitae was written was there anything written against it? Or was it just accepted as an unspoken teaching??
I had also read somewhere that Paul VI really struggled because of the birth control issue when writing HV…is this true??
 
birth control is nothing new, and the Church has always been against artificial birth control. All Christian denominations shared this belief until 1930, when the Anglican Church at the 1930 Lambeth Conference made the decision to allow married couples in limited circumstances to use modern forns of artificial birth control to plan their families. In response to this Pius XI wrote Castii Connubi which reinterated the Church’s constant teaching against artificial birth control. This encyclical reaffirmed the Church’s traditional teaching that the purpose of marriage, a holy sacrament instituted by God, not by man, is to join a man and a woman in both body and soul:

“Therefore the sacred partnership of true marriage is constituted both by the will of God and the will of man. From God comes the very institution of marriage, the ends for which it was instituted, the laws that govern it, the blessings that flow from it; while man, through generous surrender of his own person made to another for the whole span of life, becomes, with the help and cooperation of God, the author of each particular marriage, with the duties and blessings annexed thereto from divine institution.” (#9)

The natural result of the gift of self between the spouses is children , as God has ordained that people be “his helpers in the propagation of life” (#11), to raise up children to be members of the Church of Christ, and to be saints (#13). But marriage is also to perfect the spouses; indeed, this can be seen as the “chief reason and purpose of marriage (#24). Therefore, any attempt to frustrate these purposes of marriage is a “grave sin” (#56).

It is interesting that the faithful received this teaching without batting an eyelash.

In the late 50’s and early 60’s when the anovulant pill was developed, some Catholic moral theologians proposed that this was a different kind of birth control, and might be morally licit. After all, the pill merely altered a woman’s hormonal cycle. It wasn’t so obviously a barrier like a condom.

Moral theologians also proposed that the “principle of totality” could be used to justify using the pill, and that as long as the procreative purpose was served by the couple’s conjugal life as a whole, the procreative outcome of individual conjugal acts could be impeded on occasion for good reason.

These arguements were put forth by a commission that was started by John XXIII and continued by Paul VI to advise him on this issue.

As far as I know, Paul VI was pretty clear that brith control is intrinstically evil, and he never “struggled” with that. But he did have a clue that this teaching restated in a new encyclical may not go over well (he says as much in the encyclical).

He was assisted in writing Humanae Vitae by Karol Woytila. It is said that he read Woytila’s book Love and Responsibility while writing the encyclical.

George Weigal discusses this in his book on JPII (Witness to Hope) on pages 200-210 or something close to that.**
 
I know that the church has always been against birth control, but before Humanae Vitae was written was there anything written against it?
yes read the encyclical to midwifes ~1930
Or was it just accepted as an unspoken teaching??
I had also read somewhere that Paul VI really struggled because of the birth control issue when writing HV…is this true??
I would doubt this to be correct, the work clear states a panel reviewed and developed the encyclical

*Special Studies
  1. The consciousness of the same responsibility induced Us to confirm and expand the commission set up by Our predecessor Pope John XXIII, of happy memory, in March, 1963. This commission included married couples as well as many experts in the various fields pertinent to these questions. Its task was to examine views and opinions concerning married life, and especially on the correct regulation of births; and it was also to provide the teaching authority of the Church with such evidence as would enable it to give an apt reply in this matter, which not only the faithful but also the rest of the world were waiting for. (5)
When the evidence of the experts had been received, as well as the opinions and advice of a considerable number of Our brethren in the episcopate—some of whom sent their views spontaneously, while others were requested by Us to do so—We were in a position to weigh with more precision all the aspects of this complex subject. Hence We are deeply grateful to all those concerned.

The Magisterium’s Reply
  1. However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.
Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions. *
 
I know that the church has always been against birth control, but before Humanae Vitae was written was there anything written against it? Or was it just accepted as an unspoken teaching??
Pius XI wrote CASTI CONNUBII
in 1930 which I think dealt with this.
I had also read somewhere that Paul VI really struggled because of the birth control issue when writing HV…is this true??
It was my impression at the time that Paul VI wanted to approve use of the Pill. However, he could find no theological justification so had to condemn it. I tend to regard it as the Holy Spirit working on the papacy to preserve infallibility.

It is interesting to note that while he lived several years longer, he did not write another encyclical; nor did he work strenuously to enforce it.
 
The constant teaching of the Church since the 1st century is that contraception is morally evil. I suggest you look up the Didache (the 1st century teaching of the 12 apostles). You will find in the second principle - two ways are proposed — the way of life and the way of death. In following the way of life, the Didache exhorts, “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods….” Scholars link such phrases as “practice magic” and “use potions” with contraceptives.

Whether or not Pope Paul VI struggled with contraception or that a number of bishops opposed Humanae Vitae is completely irrelevent. After reflection the Pope did issue the encyclical. In addition only the Pope and those bishops in communion with him are the authentic teachers of the faith.

Remember, the Church has never made a definitive pronouncement condemning abortion…however, beginning with the Didache up until today the constant teaching of the magisterium that abortion is always intrinsically evil makes this teaching infallible - irrevokable.

Iowa Mike
 
The Response We Used In College To The Contraception Question Is That Every Time A Woman Menstruates, Then She Did Not Give Consideration To The Opportunity For The Egg To Unite–in Other Words-she Allowed It Waste Purposely.
 
Whether or not Pope Paul VI struggled with contraception or that a number of bishops opposed Humanae Vitae is completely irrelevent. After reflection the Pope did issue the encyclical. In addition only the Pope and those bishops in communion with him are the authentic teachers of the faith.
Sometimes I wonder if Pope Paul VI struggled with the questions about abortion (seems like a no-brainer when looking at the traditional teaching through two milleniums) or if his struggle was caused by a heavy heart knowing that Catholics were by and large going to reject this teaching.
 
The Response We Used In College To The Contraception Question Is That Every Time A Woman Menstruates, Then She Did Not Give Consideration To The Opportunity For The Egg To Unite–in Other Words-she Allowed It Waste Purposely.
One would hope that college students were better informed than your post indicates.

The Holy Catholic Church has been very clear in her teachings.
 
birth control is nothing new, and the Church has always been against artificial birth control. .
Just to nit pick a bit, it’s not really birth control the Church is against, after all we can abstain so as not to have more children and this is birth control. Also, it’s not the artificialness of “birth control” (I think you mean contraception) that is the problem. It’s the misuse of the marital embrace. Contraception separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital embrace. The act itself is altered either by chemicals or barriers. Each act of the marital embrace should be both unitive and procreative—but procreative doesn’t mean fertile–just that the potential for procreation is intact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top