Most Catholic women use birth control banned by church

[TMC]

One thing that most forget in this argument is that Humanae Vitae did not introduce a ban on artificial contraception. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church.

Take, for example, Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Connubii:
53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.

1. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.(He continues to speak about it through paragraph 62)

By the way, please note that Casti Connubii was published in 1930. You know what else happened in 1930? The Seventh Lambeth Conference.

You may or may not be familiar with the details, but it was Resolution 15 of the Seventh Lambeth Conference that said the following:
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.Compare that to the language of the 68th resolution of the previous conference in 1920:

We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race.

This 1930 Lambeth Conference was the first instance of a Christian ecclesial body (the Anglican Communion) approving any kind of artificial contraception.

Why bring up this history? Because Christianity, as a whole, and Catholicism, in particular, have always…ALWAYS…disapproved of artificial contraception. This opposition is not something that was put in place in 1968. Folks claim that the Church might change on this. The Church is as likely to change on the value of monogamy as change on the idea of artificial contraception. Bottom line is that it just isn’t going to happen. Period.

I didn’t say that the contraception rules were new with Humanae Vitae. As my other posts have explained, a doctrinal rule doesn’t have to be new to be the subject of some changes. Other long-standing rules have been modified significantly in the past. Your opinion is that this one will not be changed. You might be right. I think it is likely to be changed, I might be wrong. Only time will tell.

 

[wanner47]

That’s your argument, calling me names? Your going to have to do better than that.

It wasn’t my intent to call you a name. You are ignorant of Church history. That’s not name-calling; it’s stating a fact. Nevertheless, I apologize for inadvertently offending you.

I never said that all doctrine has to come directly from a statement made by Jesus, or that the fact that Jesus was silent on something means he encouraged it, or anything similar.

Actually, yes you did. From this post:

Jesus said nothing about contraception so I don’t see why the Church changing its teaching in anyway on this one small area of its teaching would shatter anyone’s faith

Jesus said nothing about cannibalism as well, so therefore you cannot claim that cannibalism is in any way wrong or immoral; nor can you claim that anyone practicing cannibalism is going against Church teaching.

Let me tell you something, TMC. Jesus did say contraception was wrong and immoral. He said it THROUGH HIS CHURCH. There’s a reason the Pope is called the Vicar of Christ. When the Pope in communion with the Magesterium issues a binding teaching on faith and morals, he is speaking for Jesus Christ.

I merely pointed out that the Church changing a doctrine like birth control does not make Jesus a “liar”, which is what was alleged.

Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, and that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. If the Church reverses its infallible teaching on contraception, it means that Jesus lied about both. If He lied about those, He lied about being God Incarnate as well.

If you insist, I’ll play along with the silly game. But first, is cannibalism explicitly banned by some doctrine of the Church? I don’t think so, if it is, please show me where it is.

Actually, that’s rather interesting. The Church considers cannibalism wrong in most circumstances because it violates the dignity and respect that we are to show the bodies of the dead. But if is a necessity, such as the instance of the events of the movie Alive, it can be morally permissible if it’s the only way to survive (however, killing another human being to harvest their flesh for food, even if needed for survival, is not permitted). A book excerpt from that topic is here.

Again, we disagree so you simply accuse me of ignorance. I am educated, thanks for your concern.

No, we disagree because you are wrong. Please educate yourself. Your comments are not indicative of one who is indeed educated in this matter.

Again, I am more than familiar with the many arguments that attempt to distinguish “natural” contraception from “artificial” contraception. That is not the point. The point is that sometimes the Church makes changes in the way its teaching applies to the lives of the faithful.

That has happened in the past, and will happen in the future. Birth control could very well be one of those changes in the future.

No, because the teaching against ABC is doctrine, not a discipline or a custom. It can’t and won’t be changed.

 

[wanner47]

I’m going to get attacked big time on this, but I think that NFP and ABC are the same thing. They are used to avoid or space children.

I have read all the Catholic teachings. I have read “Theology of the Body”.

Perhaps I should be Protestant; I don’t know. I surely do not believe that Luther or Calvin went to Hell.

Attack at free will. I know it’s coming. I usually avoid these threads for this reason and I don’t wish to offend anyone who uses NFP.

Serap, I’m not attacking you. I’m just genuinely puzzled as to how you could feel this way. The distinction seems to clear to me.

How, exactly, does NFP work to prevent already-ejaculated sperm from reaching an egg?

For the record, we don’t know if Luther and Calvin are in Hell. They might be. They might not be. We can’t know with certainty if *anyone *is in hell, even Hitler. That’s Catholic teaching so I don’t know why you think it means you should be Protestant.

 

[markomalley]

I didn’t say that the contraception rules were new with Humanae Vitae. As my other posts have explained, a doctrinal rule doesn’t have to be new to be the subject of some changes. Other long-standing rules have been modified significantly in the past. Your opinion is that this one will not be changed. You might be right. I think it is likely to be changed, I might be wrong. Only time will tell.

What I said was,

One thing that ***most ***forget in this argument

There are a whole lot of people saying that the Church’s doctrine MUST change…or that the Church is wrong on Her doctrine and so it’s OK to ignore it (and openly dissent)…or something else along those lines. Bluntly, assuming that the doctrine was put in place by Paul VI and so could easily be changed by some future pope. That is the reason I wrote down the history.

 

[TMC]

It wasn’t my intent to call you a name. You are ignorant of Church history. That’s not name-calling; it’s stating a fact. Nevertheless, I apologize for inadvertently offending you.

Actually, yes you did. From this post:

Jesus said nothing about contraception so I don’t see why the Church changing its teaching in anyway on this one small area of its teaching would shatter anyone’s faith

Jesus said nothing about cannibalism as well, so therefore you cannot claim that cannibalism is in any way wrong or immoral; nor can you claim that anyone practicing cannibalism is going against Church teaching.

Let me tell you something, TMC. Jesus did say contraception was wrong and immoral. He said it THROUGH HIS CHURCH. There’s a reason the Pope is called the Vicar of Christ. When the Pope in communion with the Magesterium issues a binding teaching on faith and morals, he is speaking for Jesus Christ.

Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, and that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. If the Church reverses its infallible teaching on contraception, it means that Jesus lied about both. If He lied about those, He lied about being God Incarnate as well.

Actually, that’s rather interesting. The Church considers cannibalism wrong in most circumstances because it violates the dignity and respect that we are to show the bodies of the dead. But if is a necessity, such as the instance of the events of the movie Alive, it can be morally permissible if it’s the only way to survive (however, killing another human being to harvest their flesh for food, even if needed for survival, is not permitted). A book excerpt from that topic is here.

No, we disagree because you are wrong. Please educate yourself. Your comments are not indicative of one who is indeed educated in this matter.

Again, I am more than familiar with the many arguments that attempt to distinguish “natural” contraception from “artificial” contraception. That is not the point. The point is that sometimes the Church makes changes in the way its teaching applies to the lives of the faithful.

You persist in calling me ignorant, which is insulting (and inaccurate) regardless of how you meant it. Not everyone that disagrees with you is stupid or ignorant. We obviously disagree on this point, and perhaps its better to leave it at.

 

[Serap]

Serap, I’m not attacking you. I’m just genuinely puzzled as to how you could feel this way. The distinction seems to clear to me.

How, exactly, does NFP work to prevent already-ejaculated sperm from reaching an egg?

For the record, we don’t know if Luther and Calvin are in Hell. They might be. They might not be. We can’t know with certainty if *anyone *is in hell, even Hitler. That’s Catholic teaching so I don’t know why you think it means you should be Protestant.

I don’t want to get into this. I appreciate your concern…sincerely I do. I just don’t wish to get into this.

Protestants use ABC with no concerns of mortal sin. That’s what I meant about that.

I’m still sure that Luther and Calvin didn’t go to Hell as my own personal opinion. There is no sin in that. It’s my opinion.

 

[Serap]

You persist in calling me ignorant, which is insulting (and inaccurate) regardless of how you meant it. Not everyone that disagrees with you is stupid or ignorant. We obviously disagree on this point, and perhaps its better to leave it at.

This is a very heated topic and if you don’t like the heat, stay out of these threads

I usually know better and stay out of them b/c of my beliefs. Some call me a cafeteria Catholic. I guess, people could call me ignorant too.

There’s nothing wrong with being called ignorant though. It’s not the same as calling someone stupid.

Ignorant: Lacking in knowledge or training.

I’m definitely not lacking in knowledge, so many would say that I am in mortal sin. I know fully well what the church teaches.

I feel in communion with God. I don’t feel like I’ve turned my back on Him at all.

 

[Tigg]

Don’t take cover…but I find that absolutely terrible.

I actually think that what these seminarians said reeks of scandal…

BTW my former confessor Is about 35 and he told me it was a mortal sin.

Sigh, how discouraging is it when you try to be faithful, and read that future priests think faithfulness is optional.

Take heart, MG! Most of the younger seminarians would dispute what this poster was told by his “friends.” (We just had some visiting in our parish; also had the Neo-Catechumenates for Lent!) They are all under going the correct formation of their faith and authentic catechesis. They are on fire for truth!

 

[wanner47]

TMC, people who misrepresent and misstate Church teaching do so when they are ignorant of Church teaching. You can call it disagreement all you want, but if you’re going to disagree you should disagree with what the Church *actually *teaches instead of what you *think *it does. You’re doing the latter, not the former.

I don’t want to get into this. I appreciate your concern…sincerely I do. I just don’t wish to get into this.

I understand that, but know that if you ever do want to, I’m more than willing to discuss it with you.

Protestants use ABC with no concerns of mortal sin. That’s what I meant about that.

Well, of course they don’t. When I was on the Pill for two years I certainly didn’t consider it mortal sin, but that’s because I was ignorant about the truth of Catholicism and also the truth about the history of Protestant and Catholic teaching on contraception.

Many Protestants abort their babies with no concerns of mortal sin, but that doesn’t make abortion okay either.

I’m still sure that Luther and Calvin didn’t go to Hell as my own personal opinion. There is no sin in that. It’s my opinion.

It’s also Church teaching, Serap. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. You fully agree with the Church in this regard, as Church teaches that we CAN’T be sure of anyone being in Hell (subjectively).

 

[Tigg]

No matter what the dissenters say, truth is still objective and they are entering the danger zone when they start speaking of “their own truth” according to their conscience. The primacy of conscience is now interpreted by the moral relativists to include emotion and opinion. Seems that the first thing those walking on the tight rope lose, is their ability to lay their will and intellect before God and admit that an institution, guided by the Spirit, could possibly differ from their individual conclusions.

 

[TMC]

This is a very heated topic and if you don’t like the heat, stay out of these threads

I usually know better and stay out of them b/c of my beliefs. Some call me a cafeteria Catholic. I guess, people could call me ignorant too.

There’s nothing wrong with being called ignorant though. It’s not the same as calling someone stupid.

Ignorant: Lacking in knowledge or training.

I don’t mind heated discussion (quite the contrary), but its hard to have a productive conversation when all you get from the other side is “you’re ignorant, you’re ignorant”. I disagree with the suggestion that there is no problem with using that term in a discussion. Its just a way to avoid the points the other side is making, and to make oneself feel superior to the ignorant guy across the table. I am happy to discuss the issues with anyone, but the discussion should be about the issues, not one’s perception of the other person’s education, background or abilities.

I’m definitely not lacking in knowledge, so many would say that I am in mortal sin. I know fully well what the church teaches.

I feel in communion with God. I don’t feel like I’ve turned my back on Him at all.

Here we are in total agreement, and I am in the same position.

 

[Serap]

We’ll see how things go over the next 40 years. The church has some updating to do.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

We’ll see how things go over the next 40 years. The church has some updating to do.

Or maybe, Her children have some obeying to do.

 

[wanner47]

I don’t mind heated discussion (quite the contrary), but its hard to have a productive conversation when all you get from the other side is “you’re ignorant, you’re ignorant”. I disagree with the suggestion that there is no problem with using that term in a discussion. Its just a way to avoid the points the other side is making, and to make oneself feel superior to the ignorant guy across the table. I am happy to discuss the issues with anyone, but the discussion should be about the issues, not one’s perception of the other person’s education, background or abilities.

You are ignorant of Church teaching. I said nothing about your education, background, or abilities, so please don’t commit libel against me.

Constantly insisting something is true isn’t discussion, either.

When I was a Protestant, and a new Catholic, I too was ignorant of Church teaching. I’m still learning, in fact, it’s a lifelong process.

However, when you say, “The Church can do X,” or “The Church may do X,” and I say, “No, it’s Church teaching that it cannot or may not do X,” and you keep insisting that no, you’re right, without any effort whatsoever to find out what the Church actually DOES teach on a specific topic… it’s ignorance.

Read this and it will help you become LESS ignorant about doctrines, disciplines, and customs, and how the latter two may change but the former may not: catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

 

[TMC]

What I said was,

One thing that ***most ***forget in this argument

There are a whole lot of people saying that the Church’s doctrine MUST change…or that the Church is wrong on Her doctrine and so it’s OK to ignore it (and openly dissent)…or something else along those lines. Bluntly, assuming that the doctrine was put in place by Paul VI and so could easily be changed by some future pope. That is the reason I wrote down the history.

OK, understood. Sorry if I misinterpreted. I agree that people that think this is a new innovation are mistaken. I think that both Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae introduced some new ways of looking at the issues, and EV in particular offers some new theological perspectives. But the Church’s ban on contraception is indeed longstanding. My contention that the doctrine could change is not in any way predicated on it being new or innovative.

 

[wanner47]

We’ll see how things go over the next 40 years. The church has some updating to do.

You know, all the Protestant churches “updated” in 1930, when the Anglicans caved, and I don’t think it’s really done our world a whole lot of good. Contraception was not the magic panacea all its supporters claimed it would be.

The fact that the Church has NOT bowed to the whims of secular society in matters of contraception just further proves to me that She does indeed teach the Truth.

 

[TMC]

You are ignorant of Church teaching. I said nothing about your education, background, or abilities, so please don’t commit libel against me.

Constantly insisting something is true isn’t discussion, either.

When I was a Protestant, and a new Catholic, I too was ignorant of Church teaching. I’m still learning, in fact, it’s a lifelong process.

However, when you say, “The Church can do X,” or “The Church may do X,” and I say, “No, it’s Church teaching that it cannot or may not do X,” and you keep insisting that no, you’re right, without any effort whatsoever to find out what the Church actually DOES teach on a specific topic… it’s ignorance.

Read this and it will help you become LESS ignorant about doctrines, disciplines, and customs, and how the latter two may change but the former may not: catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

How is saying that I am ignorant of Church teaching not a reflection of my background and education? Is there some way besides background and education that people learn about the Church’s teaching?

I have not merely constantly insisted on my viewpoint. I have pointed out that the fact that the Church needed six years and a commission to decide whether or not to change this doctrine shows that the Church must have believe that the doctrine could change. I have also posted other examples of changing doctrines in the Church. If you adressed any of those points I have missed it.

Not everything taught by the Church is taught infallibly, which is what you seem to be saying? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Serap]

Or maybe, Her children have some obeying to do.

that’s ok MG. Point taken whether I agree or not.

 

[Serap]

You know, all the Protestant churches “updated” in 1930, when the Anglicans caved, and I don’t think it’s really done our world a whole lot of good. Contraception was not the magic panacea all its supporters claimed it would be.

The fact that the Church has NOT bowed to the whims of secular society in matters of contraception just further proves to me that She does indeed teach the Truth.

Yes, I’m aware of this history.

 

[wanner47]

How is saying that I am ignorant of Church teaching not a reflection of my background and education?

… because one’s background and education don’t necessarily imply that one is an expert in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Is there some way besides background and education that people learn about the Church’s teaching?

I’ve never had any formal education in Catholic doctrine, unless you count RCIA, so you could say I’m entirely self-taught by reading books, articles, etc. and having discussions with other Catholics, especially apologists.

I have not merely constantly insisted on my viewpoint. I have pointed out that the fact that the Church needed six years and a commission to decide whether or not to change this doctrine shows that the Church must have believe that the doctrine could change.

You’re wrong about something. The commission was not to decide IF the Church should change the doctrine, but WHETHER OR NOT THE DOCTRINE COULD DEVELOP to the point of somehow reconciling contraception with past teachings. Even though the commission (wrongly) thought otherwise, the eventual decision of the Pope – in communion with the Magisterium, which makes it an infallible, binding teaching – was that no, it was not possible to reconcile past doctrine about the sanctity of life and the sacredness of the marital act with allowing contraception. I believe this was an act of the Holy Spirit since the commission was led to an erroneous conclusion.

I have also posted other examples of changing doctrines in the Church. If you adressed any of those points I have missed it.

You talked about usury and slavery, both of which are not examples of changed doctrine. Once again, ignorance. It takes five minutes on Catholic.com (less, really) to pull up articles on these subjects and read the truth.

Did the Church Change Its Stance on Usury?

Has the Church Ever Condoned Slavery?

Not everything taught by the Church is taught infallibly, which is what you seem to be saying? Is that what you are saying?

I’m saying that when the Pope, in communion with the Magesterium, teaches on an issue of faith and morals and states that such teaching is binding on all the faithful, then yes, it is infallible.

The teachings contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, are considered binding and infallible:

*The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. *

As the Catechism contains this teaching:

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.

It is considered a moral doctrine that cannot change.