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

[Corki]

I was speaking of contraception as an action, not as a thing. I am aware that things cannot be evil in and of themselves.

Also, if a woman tests negative for ovulation, isn’t contraception unnecessary?

This is a theory of some bishops, not a universal teaching. But the idea is that, in the case of rape, a contraception can be used to prevent ovulation and thus prevent a pregnancy as the result of rape. That was the background in the link I posted about the PA hospitals. It’s where the phrasiology of the unwanted agressor comes from.

The primary action of “the pill” is to prevent ovulation rather than to actually inhibit the moment of conception. Unfortunately the pill, and even more so the morning after pill, also prevent implantation of an early pregnancy which is why, even in the case of rape, an ovulation test is stipulated to make sure that the result is preventing ovulation and not forcing an early abortion.

 

[Rence]

I was speaking of contraception as an action, not as a thing. I am aware that things cannot be evil in and of themselves.

Also, if a woman tests negative for ovulation, isn’t contraception unnecessary?

No, because she can start ovulating afterwards and conceive several hours later up to the next day, which can result in her conceiving still. Emergency contraception prevents ovulation from happening, if it hasn’t arleady. That’s why the Bishops allow it as long as the rape victim tests negative for ovulation.

Testing negative for ovulation means that the woman is not ovulating right then and there, BUT still may begin ovulating in the next few hours or later. Testing negative for ovulation also means that she didn’t just finish ovulating, which is a very high risk for conception. Unfortunately (or fortunately, however you look at it), this requirement can still result in a woman being pregnant. (That’s why some people, would take the emergency contraception with or without the results of the ovulation test).

 

[frindro]

Thoughtfulone, you base your view that the Holy Father had called the commission to change Church teaching based on some article (with an unnamed source) that you quote, though right in the Catholic Herald article you linked to, Professor Marshall, who was on the commision, says the commission’s job was not to modify the traditional teaching of the Church. If anything, this article demonstrates that the Church’s position is infallibly defined since the Holy Father, instead of attempting to change Church teaching, and was merely asking what was allowed by the current teaching. The commission gave advice to Pope Paul VI, the Vicar of Christ, who was then guided by the Holy Spirit, realized that the commission’s recommendations did not fit within the framework of the infallibly defined teaching of the Church regarding artificial contraception, so rejected the commision’s advice. Furthermore, mentioning the future Pope John Paul II working with the commission does not prove your point since he was likely one of the people who opposed what the commission supported, given that as Successor of Peter, he did not seek to change Church teaching.

Furthermore, Thoughtfulone, I don’t think your argument about the necessity of consensus among the bishops is accurate (though I will allow myself to be corrected if someone can prove me wrong). I think its wrong since the First Vatican Council defined papal infallibility (something in existence already, but, from what I understand, the council clarified what it meant as well as reaffirmed its existence), despite two bishops voting against it. I saw on this website that at least one of those bishops revised his position, but that does not mean the council needed the assent of those two bishops.

And regarding overpopulation theory, while I do not know whether or not he was Catholic, Julian Simon famously opposed the theory.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thoughtfulone, you base your view that the Holy Father had called the commission to change Church teaching based on some article (with an unnamed source) that you quote, though right in the Catholic Herald article you linked to, Professor Marshall, who was on the commision, says the commission’s job was not to modify the traditional teaching of the Church. If anything, this article demonstrates that the Church’s position is infallibly defined since the Holy Father, instead of attempting to change Church teaching, and was merely asking what was allowed by the current teaching. The commission gave advice to Pope Paul VI, the Vicar of Christ, who was then guided by the Holy Spirit, realized that the commission’s recommendations did not fit within the framework of the infallibly defined teaching of the Church regarding artificial contraception, so rejected the commision’s advice. Furthermore, mentioning the future Pope John Paul II working with the commission does not prove your point since he was likely one of the people who opposed what the commission supported, given that as Successor of Peter, he did not seek to change Church teaching.

Furthermore, Thoughtfulone, I don’t think your argument about the necessity of consensus among the bishops is accurate (though I will allow myself to be corrected if someone can prove me wrong). I think its wrong since the First Vatican Council defined papal infallibility (something in existence already, but, from what I understand, the council clarified what it meant as well as reaffirmed its existence), despite two bishops voting against it. I saw on this website that at least one of those bishops revised his position, but that does not mean the council needed the assent of those two bishops.

And regarding overpopulation theory, while I do not know whether or not he was Catholic, Julian Simon famously opposed the theory.

The Catholic Encyclopedia on infallibility, especially as regards to the ordinary magisterium. This seems to put the greatest weight on the pope and ecumenical councils and (if I’m reading it right) seems to indicate that for centuries, any magisterial teachings which are bound by infallibility have been essentially defined as such by either ecumenical councils or ex cathedra statements so as to avoid ambiguity.

“As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ’s promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.
Through the first of these is exercised what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i.e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church; through the second and third the magisterium solemne, or undeniably definitive authority. Practically speaking, at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions.”

I think you’re right about the consensus of the bishops, but this seems to indicate that the Church’s teaching on birth control is not necessarily infallible per se.

 

[frindro]

Your quote doesn’t deny that the ordinary magisterium is infallible, merely that it is not as effective. [.ex cathedraone of whichLumen GentiumLumen GentiumLumen GentiumLumen GentiumHumanae VitaeHumane VitaeHumanae VitaeHumanae VitaeCasti ConnubiiGaudium et SpesHumanae VitaeHumanae VitaeCasti ConnubiiHumanae VitaeHumanae VitaeCasti ConnubiiCasti Connubi**Gaudium et Spesthis](http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp)