Is the Church's Ban on Non-Abortive Artificial Birth Control a Doctrine or Discipline?

[nsper7]

Is the Church’s ban on non-abortive artificial birth control a doctrine or a discipline? In other words, at a later date, could the Pope legalize artificial birth control? I am not asking whether this would be a good thing or not, I am merely asking if it would be possible?

 

[JohnDamian]

Is the Church’s ban on non-abortive artificial birth control a doctrine or a discipline? In other words, at a later date, could the Pope legalize artificial birth control? I am not asking whether this would be a good thing or not, I am merely asking if it would be possible?

It could never happen; the ban on non-abortive birth control is justified by the sixth commandment; which is as strong as it gets.

Familiaris consortio is the official document on this; and it is a doctrine.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

How is the commandment of “Thou shall not commit murder” a justification for a ban against NON-abortive birth control like condoms? That’s one heck of a stretch.

Yes, I think it’s possible for the ban to be lifted. It’s not an infallibly taught doctrine. WILL it be lifted? Probably not. Surely not anytime soon.

 

[HickmanJosh]

Is the Church’s ban on non-abortive artificial birth control a doctrine or a discipline? In other words, at a later date, could the Pope legalize artificial birth control? I am not asking whether this would be a good thing or not, I am merely asking if it would be possible?

not even a possibility

 

[frindro]

How is the commandment of “Thou shall not commit murder” a justification for a ban against NON-abortive birth control like condoms? That’s one heck of a stretch.

You’re talking about the Fifth Commandment, but Thoughtfulone meant the next one, which deals with sexual immorality.

As for the original question, this is a matter of morals instead of mere practice, so, as far as I am aware (I expect it has been infallibly defined by the ordinary magisterium), this cannot be contradicted.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

You’re talking about the Fifth Commandment, but Thoughtfulone meant the next one, which deals with sexual immorality.

As for the original question, this is a matter of morals instead of mere practice, so, as far as I am aware (I expect it has been infallibly defined by the ordinary magisterium), this cannot be contradicted.

Haha. I was gonna say…

This is where I get a little shaky on the matter. The reason being because although the official church teaching has always been against any form of artificial contraception, the bishops have not always been in agreement on the subject. So while one can say that the Church has always taught ABC is wrong, they have often done so out of pure submission to the Supreme Pontiff, not out of the belief that it is intrinsically wrong. So does this affect the infallibility of the doctrine? It’s a weighty question. The infallibility of the magisterium’s teachings implicitly rests upon the idea that there is a general consensus on the morality or immorality of the doctrine in question. When there is no consensus, but merely faithful submission, how does this affect the infallibility of a specific doctrine?

Also, when debating this topic, we must take into consideration those from underdeveloped, starving countries. NFP (natural family planning) is very scientific and requires the use of thermometers, charts, LOTS of education regarding the science behind the practice and other tools used in conjunction with each other in order to produce an accurate representation of female fertility. Clearly, those most affected by poverty and starvation do not have these means available to them. While NFP might be more or less as effective as ABC, it is a fact that those who are most affected by this issue do not have the means to practice it. So the question is one of total and complete marital abstinence vs. the evils that come with the disease and heartache of over-population and starvation in poverty-stricken countries. Obviously complete marital abstinence is the better choice (I think?), but in these circumstances, wouldn’t condoms seem to be the logical and humane choice? These people are already living in the worst conditions we can possibly imagine, and we are essentially telling them that they can no longer have marital relations with their spouses as well?

It’s one thing to pronounce ABC to be unacceptable here in the West, where we have access to education and the tools necessary to space our children appropriately, but these people don’t stand a chance.

Lots of priests and theologians disagree on this matter and I can definitely see why…

 

[willofgods]

Non-Abortive Artificial Birth Control = N-AABC
…Assuming that it is proven that in fact there is no possibility of conception using N-AABC, it might be allowed in some cases…
I understand right now is that for certain medical reasons (e.g., hormonal imbalances) N-AABC is allowed. (In a hurry, so no time to find source…)
However, N-AABC for the purpose of not having children would never be allowed. This is because God made sex exist because it was intended to produce babies! Furthermore, only married couples should have sex.

CCC 2390: The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.

Short & sweet: N-AABC to not have children, never will be allowed; N-AABC for other legitimate medical reasons might be.

 

[mark_a]

Is the Church’s ban on non-abortive artificial birth control a doctrine or a discipline? In other words, at a later date, could the Pope legalize artificial birth control? I am not asking whether this would be a good thing or not, I am merely asking if it would be possible?

It seems to me that no matter how you slice it, any type of artificial birth control goes against the teaching that we are to be open to life.

 

[mark_a]

Is the Church’s ban on non-abortive artificial birth control a doctrine or a discipline? In other words, at a later date, could the Pope legalize artificial birth control? I am not asking whether this would be a good thing or not, I am merely asking if it would be possible?

Since most Catholics don’t believe the Church’s position anyway, the effect of the hypothetical reversal of her position on contraception would be nearly neglegible.

The Church would simply become just another also-ran.

 

[Julia1996]

I read somewhere on CAF that non-abortive birth control for not having kids is considered wrong because God struck down Onan for trying not to have kids with his brother’s wife on behalf of his brother.

I can’t seem to find the link right now.

 

[LilyM]

Thoughtfulone, prior to 1930 not only the Catholic Church’s Magisterium, but all CHRISTIAN leaderships of all the various non-Catholic denominations too, WERE 99% against ABC and viewed it as reprehensible and immoral.

It was as close to unanimity as any moral teaching ever has - of course there’s never been a teaching that’s been utterly undisputed, but the fact that a few radicals (or even a lot of radicals as in the case of the Arian and Protestant heresies) disagree about something doesn’t make that thing any the less dogmatic teaching.

It was only at the Lambeth conference in 1930 that the Anglicans first permitted ABC, and then various other non-Catholic denominations fell like a house of cards or a bunch of dominoes and started allowing it too. And it was only by the 1960s that Catholic laypeople were clamouring ‘me too!’.

 

[kozlosap]

Since most Catholics don’t believe the Church’s position anyway, the effect of the hypothetical reversal of her position on contraception would be nearly neglegible.

The Church would simply become just another also-ran.

Exactly!

 

[1ke]

Is the Church’s ban on non-abortive artificial birth control a doctrine or a discipline?

The Church does not have a **ban **on birth control.

The Church teaches the truth regarding the moral law of God. Contraception is an intrinsic evil and a violation of the sixth commandment. God’s law does not change. The Church cannot change this teaching, the Church can only faithfully communicate it to the people of God.

In other words, at a later date, could the Pope legalize artificial birth control?

No. There is nothing to “legalize.” Contraception is intrinsically immoral, not illegal.

I am not asking whether this would be a good thing or not, I am merely asking if it would be possible?

No it is not possible.

 

[EmeraldWings]

Is the Church’s ban on non-abortive artificial birth control a doctrine or a discipline? In other words, at a later date, could the Pope legalize artificial birth control? I am not asking whether this would be a good thing or not, I am merely asking if it would be possible?

technically it is a doctrine, but it’s not really a doctrine by itself, it’s just within the details of the church teachings,
but it’s not at all a discipline, it’s for the good of your soul, it’s a precaution, and it can’t change because it’s within the laws of God, and God as we know “changes not”,
it’s not just about whether or not a life is lost by birth control, it’s about not being open to life,
the teachings of the church on this matter are this - that only a husband and wife, who are validly married, and only in a natural manner, with their proper marriage partner, and only in a manner which leaves open the conception of a child, may engage in the marital act.
so it’s not just about abortion, it’s also about leaving open the conception of a child, so no birth control, no condom, no anything that purposefully prevents the conception of a child.

you have to understand that this is for your own good, if the church ever aloud birth control, they would be responsible for many souls going to hell,
many are angry with the church for condemning birth control, but that’s like saying “I hate you for caring for me! how dare you try to save my soul!” you know? i know sex may seem like the most wonderful thing in the world to alot of people, but you know what, it’s really not, there’s much more to life than that, and we just need to stop being slaves to our passions and see what’s really important in life, which is to know, love, and serve God, not serve ourselves, or let our neighbor do the same, we need to do what is best for our souls and our neighbors souls, all this will pass away, but your soul will live forever.

 

[manualman]

Great question that reveals a thinking mind! I think you are wondering if the ABC teaching is like the pre-Vatican II stance about eating meat on Friday.

The answer is pretty simple. No. Eating meat on Friday 50 years ago would have been sinful. But the sin would have been disobedience. There is nothing inherently sinful about meat on a Friday. Just the defiance of lawful authority would have been the problem.

Contraception isn’t like that. The sin in contraception is not primarily one of disobedience, it is inherently a sin against chastity. It makes the actions of the body into a sort of a lie. The fact that several bishops of recent history have been complicit in undermining this teaching means nothing. ABC is NOT new. Contraceptive methods have been around for many centuries. The extremely consistent position of the catholic church has always been that they are inherently sinful. Such moral teaching do not and cannot change.

Great question though.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I guess I don’t understand how any type, (abortive or non-abortive) , birth control squares with the church, and the policy of being open to life. It’s been a while since I read all the encylclicals, but the focus seemed to be on being open to having children, except under extraordinary circumstances, and the Church had even developed a natural means for those extraordinary, and temporary circumstances. Where would non-abortive (I’d like to see that broken down, there’s probably a lot of argument to be had on simply the word non-aboritve), fit into the Church teachings on theology of the body, natural family planning etc?

It the person questioning is of another faith? Heck I don’t know. But it remains, and I pray forever and always that Catholics, whether they can wrap their hearts around it or not, are supposed to NOT use any form of artificial birth control. I don’t think it’s based on abortive or non abortive.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

So I guess people in impoverished drought-ridden countries like Africa should just never marry and live lives of complete chastity according to the Church? It’s that or watch their children die horrible deaths because of disease or starvation.

 

[jilly4ski]

So I guess people in impoverished drought-ridden countries like Africa should just never marry and live lives of complete chastity according to the Church? It’s that or watch their children die horrible deaths because of disease or starvation.

Your post is a strawman, because NFP can be taught to the poor and be very effective. All methods require charting, but you can chart without literacy and learn all your signs without the deep scientific knowledge and most methods do not require a thermometer. Mother Theresa did just that for the poor. Billings & Creighton are two such methods that are like this and are very successful in third world countries. It is kind of like the old saying “Give a man a fish…” Well here it is give a woman a condom/pill and you prevent a pregnancy for one day, teach a woman NFP and she (and her spouse) can decide for themselves when to have another child.

 

[1ke]

So I guess people in impoverished drought-ridden countries like Africa should just never marry and live lives of complete chastity according to the Church? It’s that or watch their children die horrible deaths because of disease or starvation.

None of the above.

 

[manualman]

SF, Abortion aside, contraception alters the very foundation of sex from being a self-giving act to a mutually taking one. When one couple avoids pregnancy (for serious reason) by sacrificing sexual intimacy for a time, sex for them remains very much emotionally and spiritually tied to baby-making!

When another couple (for whatever reason) resorts to contraception to avoid pregnancy, they (perhaps unknowingly) CHANGE the nature of sex to something entirely peripheral to the subject of children. Without that link, human nature pushes extremely hard to debase the sex into a selfish experience instead of a giving one.

These, of course, are deep principles, not necessarily what is at the front of anyone’s mind at the moment in question! But God established our passions for a reason within healthy parameters. As with any passion, when it becomes unbalanced, it becomes self destructive.