Is ban on birth control an infalliable teaching?

[edwest2]

Pope Paul VI had the option to change teaching regarding artificial contraception. No one disagrees with that. Do they?

Where prior to the 20th century was there a Catholic teaching on artificial means of contraception?

Nuclear war is also definitely a morality issue, right? Does this mean that the Church has one, unchanging, and clear teaching on it? No.

I disagree with that. Only for those who do not believe does God not enter the picture. Everything appears manmade to them.

Here is the history of contraception from the Christian perspective:

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Corki]

Pope Paul VI had the option to change teaching regarding artificial contraception. No one disagrees with that. Do they?

Yes, I disagree. Pope Paul determined he could not change the teaching.

Where prior to the 20th century was there a Catholic teaching on artificial means of contraception?

Ever since the Early Church Fathers, the Church has taught that contraception was sinful.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM

Nuclear war is also definitely a morality issue, right? Does this mean that the Church has one, unchanging, and clear teaching on it? No

Nuclear war didn’t exist as a possibility until the 20th Century. The same cannot be said about contraception.

 

[Zacdecat]

See the 10 commandments

Thy shalt NOT kill! Contraception is in most all forms an abortificant …

so yes it is an infalliable teaching from the Head of the Church…

 

[paperwight66]

See the 10 commandments

Thy shalt NOT kill! Contraception is in most all forms an abortificant …

so yes it is an infalliable teaching from the Head of the Church…

No, ‘almost all forms’ of contraceptive are not all abortifacient. Barrier methods (the condom and the cap to name the most used) do not allow conception to take place, so no abortion takes place either.

The Pill and the implant are said by some to run the risk of causing the loss of a conception by making the lining of the womb hostile.

But barrier methods? No. The egg and the sperm don’t meet in the first place.

 

[Holly3278]

No, ‘almost all forms’ of contraceptive are not all abortifacient. Barrier methods (the condom and the cap to name the most used) do not allow conception to take place, so no abortion takes place either.

The Pill and the implant are said by some to run the risk of causing the loss of a conception by making the lining of the womb hostile.

But barrier methods? No. The egg and the sperm don’t meet in the first place.

This is beside the point. Please go to www.omsoul.org and do some research.

 

[paperwight66]

This is beside the point. Please go to www.omsoul.org and do some research.

The claim was made that ‘almost all’ methods’ of contraception were abortifacient. i pointed out that barrier methods were not so.

What do you disagree with precisely?

 

[diggerdomer]

This is not what the Pope said. That was a mistranslation.

He merely said that there may be a first step of moral awakening in a male prostitute who recognizes a moral duty to not infect himself or another with HIV by using a condom. That’s it. He said that condoms are not a real or moral solution to HIV.

What exactly was the mistranslation? Thanks for any clarification.

As far as I know, the Pope’s reference to male prostitutes did not specify homosexual or heterosexual acts…is that right? Thanks again.

 

[diggerdomer]

I disagree with that. Only for those who do not believe does God not enter the picture. Everything appears manmade to them.

Here is the history of contraception from the Christian perspective:

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Peace,
Ed

If you disagree with me, then you disagree with my point:

Pope Paul VI established a Commission to advise him regarding the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception.

Did Paul VI establish such a body?

If so…was it a useless exercise, as Paul VI’s final teaching was already known a priori?

As far as I know, Paul VI did establish such a committee (or whatever the right term is), he considered their (name removed by moderator)ut, and he taught, as a result, according to his encyclical Humanae Vitae.

I nowhere suggested (nor did anyone the Committee I refer to) that God does not enter the picture.

Janet Smith does not speak for all Catholics, let alone all Christians. As a theologian, of course her thoughts should be appropriately considered. As I consider them.

So, what, exactly, do you disagree with? Thanks for any clarification.

 

[diggerdomer]

See the 10 commandments

Thy shalt NOT kill! Contraception is in most all forms an abortificant …

so yes it is an infalliable teaching from the Head of the Church…

Nope. Contraception is not killing, it’s preventing the beginning of human life. It’s not abortion.

And by the way, the Catholic Church morally accepts some forms of killing (e.g. just war, death penalty) which is a violation of “thou shalt not kill.”

 

[DickVanDyke]

Sorry but No, he is not allowed to change it because it’s regarding an issue of faith and morality so it is therefore infallible. Papal infallability only extends to issues of faith and morality and birth control is most definitely a morality issue.

Sorry, but just because an issue is one of morality does not automatically make any teaching upon it infallible. The Pope must declare that he is speaking ex cathedra (from the chair), asserting his infallible teaching authority, in order for that to be true. As far as I know, that has never been done with ANY statement about contraception, not just Humanae Vitae. The other way for the Church to teach infallibly on moral issues is if the bishops teach in unity, invoking the authority of the Universal Magisterium. I don’t think anyone could honestly say that the bishops are fully united on the issue of contraception, nor have they been for over 40 years.

The Papacy has only invoked ex cathedra infallibility twice in the entire history of the Church, once defining the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and the other stating that she was Assumed bodily into Heaven.

Obviously, infallibility is not something the Church just throws around. So you shouldn’t either.

And I also agree that morally, barrier methods are in a completely different moral class from hormonal methods. Barriers prevent conception only, if they fail, conception takes place and proceeds normally. Hormonal methods have many functionalities, including suppressing ovulation and thickening cervical mucus so sperm cannot get through. BUT their backup function is to thin the lining of the uterus, making it inhospitable for fertilized eggs to implant. THAT is an early abortion and immoral.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Where prior to the 20th century was there a Catholic teaching on artificial means of contraception?

“Chemical” contraception has been in use since ancient times, and the Church has constantly opposed it. Barriers may or may not be quite so old, but centuries of condemnation preceded Paul VI’s encyclical. The real question at hand for the different commissions to study birth control under Popes John XXIII and Paul VI was not whether the Church could change her teaching on contraception, but rather whether new forms of artificial contraception (specifically the pill) were so new as to fall outside that irreformable condemnation. Of course, His Holiness sided with the “minority report,” illustrating the old maxim that often a majority simply means all the fools are on the same side.