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

[PJM]

=nsper7;6951357]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 is a MORTAL SIN:

**1643 **“Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.”

2370 "Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. "

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[manualman]

Statistics from the dusty archives of my college classes: If action A has a 90% individual probability of success and the action is taken 5 times, the probability of AT LEAST one failure in there somewhere is 1-(0.90.90.90.90.9) = 41%.

If action B has a 99.75% of success and is tried 1,560 times, the probability of failure is 1-(0.9975 ^ 1,560) = 98%.

Please do not argue with this concept again until you have found a statistics textbook (or website I suppose).

Let me try phrasing it another way for you. Something with a 99.75% success rate will be expected to have 1 failure per 400 tries on long term average.

This is also why people are shocked when their home floods and they pull out a FEMA map and say, “This shouldn’t have happened. The 100 year floodplain ends over there (across the street). FEMA screwed up again!” These people fail to realize that “100 year flood” really means 1% chance happening in any given year. If you live AT the 100 year flood elevation and live there for 30 years, you have a 26% of being flooded at least once in that time. I’m not interested in THAT game of Russian Roulette either, so I live on high ground (which is a relative term in Illinois!).

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Statistics from the dusty archives of my college classes: If action A has a 90% individual probability of success and the action is taken 5 times, the probability of AT LEAST one failure in there somewhere is 1-(0.90.90.90.90.9) = 41%.

If action B has a 99.75% of success and is tried 1,560 times, the probability of failure is 1-(0.9975 ^ 1,560) = 98%.

Please do not argue with this concept again until you have found a statistics textbook (or website I suppose).

Let me try phrasing it another way for you. Something with a 99.75% success rate will be expected to have 1 failure per 400 tries on long term average.

This is also why people are shocked when their home floods and they pull out a FEMA map and say, “This shouldn’t have happened. The 100 year floodplain ends over there (across the street). FEMA screwed up again!” These people fail to realize that “100 year flood” really means 1% chance happening in any given year. If you live AT the 100 year flood elevation and live there for 30 years, you have a 26% of being flooded at least once in that time. I’m not interested in THAT game of Russian Roulette either, so I live on high ground (which is a relative term in Illinois!).

Statistics class or no, the fact is that the vast majority of people who have sex with a partner with AIDS over a lifetime do not contract AIDS. The vast majority of people who use “the pill” over a lifetime will not become pregnant. It’s just a fact based on ACTUAL statistics. I cannot tell you why, it’s just the way it is. Look it up.

“A preponderance of medical research demonstrates that condoms help prevent the spread of HIV. For example, the European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV followed 124 discordant couples (in which only one of the pair is infected with HIV) who consistently used condoms. Over a two-year period and roughly 15,000 sexual acts, none of the HIV-negative partners contracted the virus. Thai investigators examining the impact of condom use among the military reported that new infections dropped from 12.5 percent in 1993 to 6.7 percent in 1995. The number of new HIV infections in Thailand plummeted after the introduction of a “100-percent condom use” program.”

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19561

 

[davidv]

I hate to say it, but you are wrong about the overall possibility of contracting AIDS. Anyone will tell you that if you only have a .25% chance of getting AIDS each time you have sex, the chances of you getting it, even over a lifetime, are minuscule.

I hate to break it to you, but manualman is correct. I have advanced statistics training on which to base this claim.
{snip}

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I hate to break it to you, but manualman is correct. I have advanced statistics training on which to base this claim.
{snip}

Maybe so, but in practice, these statistics simply aren’t true.

 

[davidv]

thoughtfulone:

Maybe so, but in practice, these statistics simply aren’t true.

How would you know this?

The CDC seems to have data to the contrary.

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. CDC estimates that there are approximately 19 million new STD infections each year — almost half of them among young people 15 to 24 years of age.1 The cost of STDs to the U.S. health care system is estimated to be as much as $15.9 billion annually

cdc.gov/std/stats08/trends.htm

How is this possible with condoms so freely available?

 

[jilly4ski]

Maybe so, but in practice, these statistics simply aren’t true.

So where do the statistics come from? (Answer: Real life data)

 

[frindro]

Thoughtfulone:

How much evidence do you have to support your claims? For example, your “over 80%” statistic or your ridiculous claim that Pope Paul VI tried to undermine Church teaching about artificial birth control? Your claim that openness to life in every marital act will “destroy the planet”? And about the birth control pill, perhaps the fact that it also can abort a child conceived while a mother is on the pill would account for why so few people on the pill ever give birth.

Also, I find it bizzare that you consider it “immoral” to tell people with AIDS to be celibate (if I understood you correctly). I think telling people a way to avoid spreading AIDS with near 100% certainty (of course, if one is raped or if there is some other unlikely event, AIDS could still be spread) is more moral than giving people false hope by telling them to use condoms and not worry about it.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

How would you know this?

The CDC seems to have data to the contrary.

cdc.gov/std/stats08/trends.htm

How is this possible with condoms so freely available?/QUOT

See the article I posted above. In 15,000 sexual encounters with a condom, not ONE case of HIV transmission was reported. Your statistics don’t even have information as to whether or not condoms were used, making it impertinent to the topic altogether.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thoughtfulone:

How much evidence do you have to support your claims? For example, your “over 80%” statistic or your ridiculous claim that Pope Paul VI tried to undermine Church teaching about artificial birth control? Your claim that openness to life in every marital act will “destroy the planet”? And about the birth control pill, perhaps the fact that it also can abort a child conceived while a mother is on the pill would account for why so few people on the pill ever give birth.

Also, I find it bizzare that you consider it “immoral” to tell people with AIDS to be celibate (if I understood you correctly). I think telling people a way to avoid spreading AIDS with near 100% certainty (of course, if one is raped or if there is some other unlikely event, AIDS could still be spread) is more moral than giving people false hope by telling them to use condoms and not worry about it.

It’s late now, but I will find the article about Pope Paul. It was an interview conducted with one of the individuals who was on the particular panel of experts that the Pope convened to study the topic of ABC for several years. The panel was made up of doctors, theologians and some cardinals as well and nearly 80% of the panel voted to change the Church’s position on ABC.

I agree with you about the pill. Notice I am not defending its use.

What I find immoral is over-population (destroying the planet). What I find immoral is telling people who aren’t going to listen to never have sex and then to not provide any other alternatives when everyone knows that it is completely unrealistic. If the massively widespread epidemic in Africa isn’t stopping people from having sex, do you really think telling them not to do it is going to have ANY effect whatsoever? The very idea is ridiculous. If you read the article I cited above, you will see that a 3-pronged approach has worked wonders in Thailand. That approach teaches abstinence first and responsibility and safe condom use when abstinence is not followed. This is the only way to stop AIDS and personally, I care more about living, breathing human beings than I do about standing on some moral soapbox telling people they should just stop having sex when that HAS not and WILL not work.

 

[Jennifer_J]

It’s late now, but I will find the article about Pope Paul. It was an interview conducted with one of the individuals who was on the particular panel of experts that the Pope convened to study the topic of ABC for several years. The panel was made up of doctors, theologians and some cardinals as well and nearly 80% of the panel voted to change the Church’s position on ABC.

I agree with you about the pill. Notice I am not defending its use.

What I find immoral is over-population (destroying the planet). What I find immoral is telling people who aren’t going to listen to never have sex and then to not provide any other alternatives when everyone knows that it is completely unrealistic. If the massively widespread epidemic in Africa isn’t stopping people from having sex, do you really think telling them not to do it is going to have ANY effect whatsoever? The very idea is ridiculous. If you read the article I cited above, you will see that a 3-pronged approach has worked wonders in Thailand. That approach teaches abstinence first and responsibility and safe condom use when abstinence is not followed. This is the only way to stop AIDS and personally, I care more about living, breathing human beings than I do about standing on some moral soapbox telling people they should just stop having sex when that HAS not and WILL not work.

The Pope convened a panel to see what they had to say, he was under no obligation to take their advice, for that’s all it was. The Pope has an obligation to the moral truth handed down over the CENTURIES. He has no obligation to follow secular society.

So, you think the Pope should say the heck with Moral Truth and bend to secular society, because abstinence is hard? He should say, well, I know you’re going to sin anyway, so go ahead and sin some more? NO!!! The Pope should hold us to a moral highground. Handing out condoms doesn’t help people learn virtue. Telling them their behavior is fine, when it’s not, does nothing to elevate morality. Changing hearts and minds and behaviors is what the Pope is trying to do. Man is not ruled by physical wants and desires. We have control over ourselves. Handing out condoms says, well, you can’t control yourself, maybe this thin sheet of plastic will help. NO!

Can you show us all where overpopulation is destroying the planet?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

The Pope convened a panel to see what they had to say, he was under no obligation to take their advice, for that’s all it was. The Pope has an obligation to the moral truth handed down over the CENTURIES. He has no obligation to follow secular society.

So, you think the Pope should say the heck with Moral Truth and bend to secular society, because abstinence is hard? He should say, well, I know you’re going to sin anyway, so go ahead and sin some more? NO!!! The Pope should hold us to a moral highground. Handing out condoms doesn’t help people learn virtue. Telling them their behavior is fine, when it’s not, does nothing to elevate morality. Changing hearts and minds and behaviors is what the Pope is trying to do. Man is not ruled by physical wants and desires. We have control over ourselves. Handing out condoms says, well, you can’t control yourself, maybe this thin sheet of plastic will help. NO!

Can you show us all where overpopulation is destroying the planet?

Here is an interview of one of the only surviving members of the Papal Commission on birth Control:

archive.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000287.shtml

Here is a quote from another article on the same commission:

"In 1964, Pope Paul VI created the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control. It was a two-part commission and met from 1964 to 1966. One part consisted of 64 lay persons, the other, of 15 clerics, including the future Pope John Paul II, then a Polish cardinal. Pope Paul gave the Commission only one mission—to determine how the Church could change its position on birth control without undermining papal authority. After two years of study, the Commission concluded that it was not possible to make this change without undermining papal authority, but that the Church should make the change anyway because it was the right thing to do! The lay members voted 60 to 4 for change, and the clerics, 9 to 6 for change. Pope Paul did not act immediately.

And another article on the Papal Commission:

"The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed.[1][2][3][4] According to the majority report, use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method:
The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman–that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives–makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded. The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values.

This commission clearly agreed that the CC’s position on ABC was not infallible and could and should be changed.

Now you want me to explain how over-population is destroying the planet? How is it NOT destroying the planet? Nearly every scientist will tell you that we have reached the level of unsustainability. Pollution, deforestation, contaminated drinking water. The list goes on and on.

 

[jawgee]

Now you want me to explain how over-population is destroying the planet? How is it NOT destroying the planet? Nearly every scientist will tell you that we have reached the level of unsustainability. Pollution, deforestation, contaminated drinking water. The list goes on and on.

Ever heard of Demographic Winter and Demographic Bomb?

youtube.com/watch?v=IG2IZEzUmA0
demographicwinter.com/index.html

 

[Jennifer_J]

Here is an interview of one of the only surviving members of the Papal Commission on birth Control:

archive.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000287.shtml

Here is a quote from another article on the same commission:

"In 1964, Pope Paul VI created the Papal Commission on Population and Birth Control. It was a two-part commission and met from 1964 to 1966. One part consisted of 64 lay persons, the other, of 15 clerics, including the future Pope John Paul II, then a Polish cardinal. Pope Paul gave the Commission only one mission—to determine how the Church could change its position on birth control without undermining papal authority. After two years of study, the Commission concluded that it was not possible to make this change without undermining papal authority, but that the Church should make the change anyway because it was the right thing to do! The lay members voted 60 to 4 for change, and the clerics, 9 to 6 for change. Pope Paul did not act immediately.

And another article on the Papal Commission:

"The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed.[1][2][3][4] According to the majority report, use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method:
The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman–that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives–makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded. The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values.

This commission clearly agreed that the CC’s position on ABC was not infallible and could and should be changed.

Now you want me to explain how over-population is destroying the planet? How is it NOT destroying the planet? Nearly every scientist will tell you that we have reached the level of unsustainability. Pollution, deforestation, contaminated drinking water. The list goes on and on.

Did/does the commission have infalliblity? No. Are they the successors of Christ? No. This is an infallible teaching, taught through the history of the Church and supported by Biblical principles. Just because the laity thought they came up with a loophole doesn’t mean they were right. Infact, the Pope has been proved right…divorce, abortion, the failing of the family and so forth.

I’m still waiting for you to show how overpopulation is destroying the planet. Some actual facts from some actual scientists, please. I’m married to an actual scientist, btw…

youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM
youtube.com/watch?v=KUBTegfrQiM&feature=related

I’d say, it’s less population and more government mismanagement of resources. More people doesn’t have to mean pollution, deforestation and contaminated drinking water. It’s how countries manage growth and the environment. I will also say, that population numbers are slowing/stabilizing and will be dropping within the next decade. ADDITIONALLY, the Church calls us to responsible parenthood. We should look at our impact and take that into account as we plan our families. We are allowed to use periodic abstinence (NFP) or complete abstinence to plan our families. The Church DOES NOT TEACH that couples must produce all the children possible. The Church DOES teach that each act of sex must be ORDERED TOWARD PROCREATION–ie, be completed as God intended with no chemical or physical barriers. That has nothing to do with whether an act is naturally fertile or naturally infertile. Procreative doesn’t equal fertile. This is what’s meant by “open to life” (which is a term I hate, because it’s so misunderstood). The Church has given us her teachings and tools to live a holy life. You are free to dismiss them as old fashioned or in error, however, I find it interesting that you are willing to think that you are so much smarter than our 2000+ year old Church who merely teaches what Christ teaches.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Did/does the commission have infalliblity? No. Are they the successors of Christ? No. This is an infallible teaching, taught through the history of the Church and supported by Biblical principles. Just because the laity thought they came up with a loophole doesn’t mean they were right. Infact, the Pope has been proved right…divorce, abortion, the failing of the family and so forth.

I’m still waiting for you to show how overpopulation is destroying the planet. Some actual facts from some actual scientists, please. I’m married to an actual scientist, btw…

youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM
youtube.com/watch?v=KUBTegfrQiM&feature=related

I’d say, it’s less population and more government mismanagement of resources. More people doesn’t have to mean pollution, deforestation and contaminated drinking water. It’s how countries manage growth and the environment. I will also say, that population numbers are slowing/stabilizing and will be dropping within the next decade. ADDITIONALLY, the Church calls us to responsible parenthood. We should look at our impact and take that into account as we plan our families. We are allowed to use periodic abstinence (NFP) or complete abstinence to plan our families. The Church DOES NOT TEACH that couples must produce all the children possible. The Church DOES teach that each act of sex must be ORDERED TOWARD PROCREATION–ie, be completed as God intended with no chemical or physical barriers. That has nothing to do with whether an act is naturally fertile or naturally infertile. Procreative doesn’t equal fertile. This is what’s meant by “open to life” (which is a term I hate, because it’s so misunderstood). The Church has given us her teachings and tools to live a holy life. You are free to dismiss them as old fashioned or in error, however, I find it interesting that you are willing

to think that you are so much smarter than our 2000+ year old Church who merely teaches what Christ teaches.

Many people, bishops included, do not believe that this teaching rises to the level of infallibility. I suspect the Church doesn’t think so either, or they would come out and say it with all the controversy surrounding the issue. They have had ample opportunity to come out and say it, but hey never have. personally, I believe they know that at some point, they may HAVE to change their position and are leaving themselves some wiggle room, not much, but some. The bishops and priests of the Commission recognized that done prudently, certain forms of ABC can be used in the same spirit as NFP. The infallibility of Church teaching throughout the ages is based on a magisterial consensus. When the bishops are afraid to speak out or disagree with a specific teaching but submit to the Pope anyway, then there is no consensus and the credibility of the teaching becomes highly questionable to say the least. Again, this teaching is NOT infallible.

And I never said that I was smarter than the Church. I don’t question the Church’s intelligence, I question the human motives behind some of Her teachings. I truly believe that if Jesus came to Earth right now and saw what we are doing with regards to the AIDS crisis, He would take a lot of people to task for their complete misunderstanding of His will where this is concerned. The Church is putting Her authority above the lives of millions of people, children included! It is a terrible sin.

Also, I have never heard anyone (anyone who did not have a Catholic agenda, anyway) claim that overpopulation is not a problem and is not causing horrendous suffering throughout the world. Just Google “overpopulation” for crying out loud, or better yet, audit a sociology class at your local university and you will find more credible sources than you could read in a lifetime… It’s as close to a consensus as you’ll find on just about anything.

 

[PJM]

=StevenFrancis;6954551]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.

Steven,

The foundation for the Churches constant and consistant Teching on this matter is Biblical.

Gen 2: 20-25 "The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

[24] Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed

Gen. 1:[26]
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

From the very inception of humanity by God; it was and continues to be the Union of One man and One woman for the very purpose of “being fruitful” and having children. WHY?

READ Isa. 43: v.7 and v. 21… Only humanity is capable of this.

Recreational sex was NEVER part of God’s plan.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Jennifer_J]

Many people, bishops included, do not believe that this teaching rises to the level of infallibility. I suspect the Church doesn’t think so either, or they would come out and say it with all the controversy surrounding the issue. They have had ample opportunity to come out and say it, but hey never have. personally, I believe they know that at some point, they may HAVE to change their position and are leaving themselves some wiggle room, not much, but some. The bishops and priests of the Commission recognized that done prudently, certain forms of ABC can be used in the same spirit as NFP. The infallibility of Church teaching throughout the ages is based on a magisterial consensus. When the bishops are afraid to speak out or disagree with a specific teaching but submit to the Pope anyway, then there is no consensus and the credibility of the teaching becomes highly questionable to say the least. Again, this teaching is NOT infallible.

And I never said that I was smarter than the Church. I don’t question the Church’s intelligence, I question the human motives behind some of Her teachings. I truly believe that if Jesus came to Earth right now and saw what we are doing with regards to the AIDS crisis, He would take a lot of people to task for their complete misunderstanding of His will where this is concerned. The Church is putting Her authority above the lives of millions of people, children included! It is a terrible sin.

Also, I have never heard anyone (anyone who did not have a Catholic agenda, anyway) claim that overpopulation is not a problem and is not causing horrendous suffering throughout the world. Just Google “overpopulation” for crying out loud, or better yet, audit a sociology class at your local university and you will find more credible sources than you could read in a lifetime… It’s as close to a consensus as you’ll find on just about anything.

Dissent from the authentic teachings of the Magisterium doesn’t mean that a teaching isn’t infallible.
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

People need to take responsibility for their actions. If they are having sex with anything that walks, chances are they will get sick. We are not animals. We can control ourselves. Jesus would probably tell those people to GO AND SIN NO MORE! Their actions are what have made them sick. To say that people can’t control themselves and should just use a condom is NOT giving them any Human Dignity. The Church does more to help those people that ARE sick than any other organization out there.

But over population isn’t the problem…we will soon have declining populations. OVERCONSUMPTION is a problem. MISMANAGMENT of resources is a problem. GREED is a problem. And if you think sociology departments don’t have an agenda, I have a bridge to sell you. Science isn’t about consensus.

One more thing, even if you think that this teaching is in error, it is still current teaching and we are called to obedience…even when we don’t understand (or refuse to).

 

[choose_to_love]

T-one: " I don’t think it is unrealistic to be monogamous. for our society, it makes perfect sense."

Well, I don’t think its unrealistic either, but neither is having each act of sexual intercourse be properly ordered to procreation.

The point is not what either of us believe, but about the application of the principle. Why is it OK to have some acts of intercourse be disordered, but not OK to have occasional “disordered lapses” in fidelity, if we are allowed to judge by the whole, rather than by the act? As I understand it (open to correction), Catholic morality has always been concerned with individual acts rather than “acts over a lifetime”.

 

[Corki]

The Pope convened a panel to see what they had to say, he was under no obligation to take their advice, for that’s all it was. The Pope has an obligation to the moral truth handed down over the CENTURIES. He has no obligation to follow secular society.

Exactly! The commission was created to study the issue and make a recommendation. That is and was the limit of its authority. Education and advisory. The Pope was not convinced and neither has any Pope been since.

The issue of infallibility of the document is a red herring. Documents are not usually fallible or infallible. Doctrines are. There are a few (very few) documents that formally proclaim dogmas as ex cathedra. But ex cathedra proclamations are not the defining element of infallibilty. For example, there’s not an ex cathedra document that proclaims Jesus as the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Yet that is clearly an infallible teaching of the Church.

Birth control is not a doctrine of the Church. It is *part of *the doctinal teachings about the sanctity of marriage. HV, as a document, is full of language regarding the fullness of that doctrinal teaching. HV, didn’t change anything. It is simply a restatement of the long standing teaching of the Church. As such, it enjoys infallibility as it is part of what has been taught for centuries as a matter of faith and morals by the Magesterium. That’s the ordinary expression of infallibility.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

When a Pope is elected who decides that ABC, when used under very specific circumstances, is not sinful, then what will you all say to that? It’s inevitable.

Also, if ABC is INTRINSICALLY immoral, then that means that for an HIV positive rapist to contracept would be immoral also, no? What about the Catholic rape victim who knows about the Church teaching on ABC (who has full knowledge and full consent and has even reflected on this very topic before being raped) who begs her rapist to use a condom (which HAS happened, btw)? Is she or he guilty of mortal sin, or should she/he should just allow themselves to be raped with no protection without putting up a fight about it because of Church teaching? If that victim dies unconfessed without an act of perfect contrition, then is that rape victim destined to spend eternity in hell?