Most Catholic women use birth control banned by church

[wanner47]

Yes, I’m aware of this history.

Do you believe that contraception has led to a society where no children are abused and “every child is a wanted child”?

 

[Chris_Rendall]

Thank God for all of you who are defending the Church’s teaching on this matter, I pray that you never give up. The amount of relativism, and dissent and distrust of Church teaching that has seeped into so many Catholics, including a few who have posted on this thread, is sad and disturbing. Even more disturbing are those who seem to be waiting for the Church to change, rather than trying to understand the teachings they struggle with.

Nobody ever said Church teaching is easy to accept, but as Catholics we cannot pick and choose what teachings we like and do not like, and still call ourselves Catholic. Those who hear the Church, hear Christ.

 

[TMC]

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

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.

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 don’t see the distinction. The Pope asked the commission to look into whether the doctrine should “develop” (which is merely another word for change), and it took six years to get to “no”, so obviously the Pope thought change was a possibilty.

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?

As I said, I am familar with the rather strained arguments that the teaching on usury and slavery have not changed. I find them unconvincing. The fact is that the Church used to teach that charging interest is a sin, and no longer teaches that. Catholic.com calls this a “development”. So if you prefer, any future changes to the teaching on birth control could also be called “development”. But it seems to me that the reality is that development means change, and the Church changed the rules on usury.

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:

It is considered a moral doctrine that cannot change.

Here I disagree with you. All Catholics are required to give assent to all of the Church’s teachings, infallible or not. Those that do not are in dissent. I agree with you that far. But there is a big difference between doctrinal teaching that requires assent and doctrinal teaching that is infallible. None of the Church’s teaching is optional - but not all of it is infallible.

One last thing - I think I have been a bit cranky and touchy here. Not sure why - been a long week. I will try to be nicer.

 

[wanner47]

I don’t see the distinction. The Pope asked the commission to look into whether the doctrine should “develop” (which is merely another word for change), and it took six years to get to “no”, so obviously the Pope thought change was a possibilty.

Develop is NOT a synonym for change, especially within the context of Catholic doctrine.

See here: catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

*It’s important to understand that the Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it “invent” new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been “once for all delivered to the saints.” New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.

Vatican II explained, “The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” (Dei Verbum 8). *

As I said, I am familar with the rather strained arguments that the teaching on usury and slavery have not changed. I find them unconvincing. The fact is that the Church used to teach that charging interest is a sin, and no longer teaches that. Catholic.com calls this a “development”. So if you prefer, any future changes to the teaching on birth control could also be called “development”. But it seems to me that the reality is that development means change, and the Church changed the rules on usury.

Google both “usury” and “slavery” in this forum and you’ll find a plethora of threads explaining why your understanding is not correct. Or start new threads, if you prefer. The long and short of it is that you find the arguments “unconvincing” because they don’t serve to support your already preconceived opinions. The financial markets of the modern world are not the same as those in the middle ages, therefore the doctrine of usury has developed along with our financial systems.

Here I disagree with you. All Catholics are required to give assent to all of the Church’s teachings, infallible or not. Those that do not are in dissent. I agree with you that far. But there is a big difference between doctrinal teaching that requires assent and doctrinal teaching that is infallible. None of the Church’s teaching is optional - but not all of it is infallible.

I agree. But all teachings contained within the Catechism are considered infallible, as I showed by JPII’s apostolic letter stating such.

One last thing - I think I have been a bit cranky and touchy here. Not sure why - been a long week. I will try to be nicer.

Me too. I have early pregnancy hormones to blame.

 

[TMC]

Develop is NOT a synonym for change, especially within the context of Catholic doctrine.

See here: catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

*It’s important to understand that the Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it “invent” new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been “once for all delivered to the saints.” New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.

Vatican II explained, “The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” (Dei Verbum 8). *

Google both “usury” and “slavery” in this forum and you’ll find a plethora of threads explaining why your understanding is not correct. Or start new threads, if you prefer. The long and short of it is that you find the arguments “unconvincing” because they don’t serve to support your already preconceived opinions. The financial markets of the modern world are not the same as those in the middle ages, therefore the doctrine of usury has developed along with our financial systems.

I agree. But all teachings contained within the Catechism are considered infallible, as I showed by JPII’s apostolic letter stating such.

Me too. I have early pregnancy hormones to blame.

To be blunt, Catholic.com is big on explaining away “changes” as “development” and simply asserting there is some difference between the two. I think they do it mostly to discourage folks like me from hoping for more changes. I just don’t see it. If the Church once taught that charging interest is a sin, and now teaches that it is not, I don’t see how that is not a change.

For what its worth, I am not expecting a change on this or any particular doctrine any time soon, or even in my lifetime. The history of the Church is that -]change/-] development is slow and incremental. The Church has thought about this just 40 years ago and probably won’t want to revisit it for a few more decades.

I think we simply disagree on the question of whether the Catechism is infallible. I absolutely agree that the Catechism is a sure norm for teaching the Faith and that none of it is optional. But I respectfully submit that it is wrong to equate that with infallibilty. In 2000 years, the Church has applied the label “infallible” to only a handful of teachings.

 

[wanner47]

To be blunt, Catholic.com is big on explaining away “changes” as “development” and simply asserting there is some difference between the two.

And you know better than 2,000 years of Catholic teaching, and theologians who have studied same? Really? You honestly believe that all the Popes, all the theologians who have studied Catholic teaching, are simply in denial that doctrine changes?

That seems a *tad *arrogant, in my opinion.

I think they do it mostly to discourage folks like me from hoping for more changes. I just don’t see it.

Or maybe they do it because it’s the truth, and teachings really *do *develop instead of change.

If the Church once taught that charging interest is a sin, and now teaches that it is not, I don’t see how that is not a change.

The teaching on usury was and is *much *more nuanced than “charging interest is always a sin.” Like I said, there are probably numerous threads about it. Call Catholic Answers Live on Tuesday and I bet the apologist can explain the difference.

Heck, there have been several CAL shows about doctrinal development, the most recent being this one from about a year ago.

For what its worth, I am not expecting a change on this or any particular doctrine any time soon, or even in my lifetime. The history of the Church is that -]change/-] development is slow and incremental. The Church has thought about this just 40 years ago and probably won’t want to revisit it for a few more decades.

Once again, change =/= development. Once is an instantaneous thing, one is a process that happens over time as our understanding develops.

An example of this concept: Nancy Pelosi claims that the Church used to teach that abortion was okay. But if you look at what the Church actually taught, it was that abortion was ALWAYS wrong, and it was murder from the moment life began – but the early fathers were unsure at what point in pregnancy abortion became murder, because they simply did not have the scientific knowledge necessary to know when life began and ensoulment happened. They still, however, taught that abortion was wrong because a pregnancy was a gift and blessing from God, and the being was a living being even if it did not yet have a soul (i.e., was spiritually alive).

Now that modern science does have this knowledge, our doctrine regarding abortion has developed to specify that abortion is wrong from the moment of conception onwards.

I think we simply disagree on the question of whether the Catechism is infallible. I absolutely agree that the Catechism is a sure norm for teaching the Faith and that none of it is optional. But I respectfully submit that it is wrong to equate that with infallibilty. In 2000 years, the Church has applied the label “infallible” to only a handful of teachings.

If the Pope says “I declare that…” – which he does in that letter – and he’s teaching about faith and morals in communion with the Magesterium, the statement that follows is infallible.

 

[TMC]

And you know better than 2,000 years of Catholic teaching, and theologians who have studied same? Really? You honestly believe that all the Popes, all the theologians who have studied Catholic teaching, are simply in denial that doctrine changes?

That seems a *tad *arrogant, in my opinion.

LOL. All the Popes and all the theologians have not said that doctrine doesn’t change. Its Catholic.com that said that doctrine doesn’t change, and even they admit it “develops.”

Or maybe they do it because it’s the truth, and teachings really *do *develop instead of change.

OK, I am happy to switch to the word “develop” if that is a more comfortable word.

The teaching on usury was and is *much *more nuanced than “charging interest is always a sin.” Like I said, there are probably numerous threads about it. Call Catholic Answers Live on Tuesday and I bet the apologist can explain the difference.

I agree completely - it was and is much more nuanced than the shorthand I used. And the underlying moral teaching hasn’t changed. But the application of that moral teaching results in a pretty big change in the “rules” for Catholics. In the past the application of the nuanced teaching led to a ban on all interest. Today that application has developed to the point that applying the same nuanced moral teaching does not ban interest.

That is what I am saying may happen with reproductive issues. The Church’s teaching on sexuality is equally complex and nuanced. The current application of that teaching leads to a ban on the so-called “artificial” forms of birth control but not the so-called “natural” forms. The application of the underlying moral teaching may continue to develop such that more forms of contraception are allowed to be used, just as the “natural” forms are allowed now. I see that as an exact parallel to the development of the doctrine of usury. If you had told a 10th century Catholic that usury would develop to the point that charging interest on a loan of cash would be acceptable he would have said such a development would be impossible and would destroy the whole idea of usury. The same kind of development is possible for reproductive issues.

Heck, there have been several CAL shows about doctrinal development, the most recent being this one from about a year ago.

Once again, change =/= development. Once is an instantaneous thing, one is a process that happens over time as our understanding develops.

I certainly agree that the CA folks are all together on the change vs development talking point.

An example of this concept: Nancy Pelosi claims that the Church used to teach that abortion was okay. But if you look at what the Church actually taught, it was that abortion was ALWAYS wrong, and it was murder from the moment life began – but the early fathers were unsure at what point in pregnancy abortion became murder, because they simply did not have the scientific knowledge necessary to know when life began and ensoulment happened. They still, however, taught that abortion was wrong because a pregnancy was a gift and blessing from God.

Now that modern science does have this knowledge, our doctrine regarding abortion has developed to specify that abortion is wrong from the moment of conception onwards.

If the Pope says “I declare that…” – which he does in that letter – and he’s teaching about faith and morals in communion with the Magesterium, the statement that follows is infallible.

I agree that Pelosi was wrong, but it is a bit more complex than you make it out to be. The Church has always taught that abortion was wrong, but there have been times when the Church believed that ensoulment did not occur until quickening, which arguably mitigated the seriousness of early abortions. I am not agreeing with Pelosi so please don’t suggest I am. But that nuance in the past history of Church teaching is what Pelosi was misinterpreting in her statements.

 

[Brendan]

In 2000 years, the Church has applied the label “infallible” to only a handful of teachings.

That’s not quite true. Perhaps you are thinking of papal ex cathedra statements. Those are indeed few, but that is the least common way for the Church to declare a doctrine to be infallable.

The infallibility of the Magisterium is both Ordinary and Extraoridary.

The Extraordinary means are the Eccumenical Councils and Ex Cathedra statements.

The Ordinary Universal means are the consistant teaching of the Church ( what the Church has held to be true from the time of the Apostles).

Both are infallible teachings.

The majority of them have been complied in a book known as Denzingers’ “Source of Catholci Dogma”. It listes each teaching of the Church by it’s classification. De Certa (Certain )and De Fide ( as a matter of our Faith) denote teachings that are infallible and thus irreformable.

The majority of the Church’s teachings are in fact infallable via the means of the Ordinary Universal Magisterim.

catholicplanet.com/TSM/ordinary-magisterium.htm

 

[TMC]

That’s not quite true. Perhaps you are thinking of papal ex cathedra statements. Those are indeed few, but that is the least common way for the Church to declare a doctrine to be infallable.

The infallibility of the Magisterium is both Ordinary and Extraoridary.

The Extraordinary means are the Eccumenical Councils and Ex Cathedra statements.

The Ordinary Universal means are the consistant teaching of the Church ( what the Church has held to be true from the time of the Apostles).

Both are infallible teachings.

The majority of them have been complied in a book known as Denzingers’ “Source of Catholci Dogma”. It listes each teaching of the Church by it’s classification. De Certa (Certain )and De Fide ( as a matter of our Faith) denote teachings that are infallible and thus irreformable.

The majority of the Church’s teachings are in fact infallable via the means of the Ordinary Universal Magisterim.

catholicplanet.com/TSM/ordinary-magisterium.htm

I think you are mostly right except that I would object to one point and clarify another.

The clarificiation is that Denzigers is a good and interesting resource, but it is not an official publication of the Church and the Church has consistently declined to provide any kind of list of what is infallible and what is not.

The objection is that I don’t agree that most of what the Church teaches is infallibly proclaimed, depending on how what you consider the universe of Church teachings to be. Certainly I don’t believe that the entire catechism is infallible. But I don’t want to drift the thread into a discussion of infalliblity. Infallible or not, everything in the catechsim is the teaching of the Church, and none of it is optional.

 

[wanner47]

OK, I am happy to switch to the word “develop” if that is a more comfortable word.

See, this is what is frustrating. I have told you, several times, that “develop” and “change” are not synonyms.

For example, we say a baby develops in the womb; we don’t say s/he changes instantaneously from blastocyst to newborn.

But you simply refuse to even consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, those two words aren’t synonyms. It doesn’t fit your preconceived worldview so you dismiss it as untrue without even *thinking *about it.

I agree completely - it was and is much more nuanced than the shorthand I used. And the underlying moral teaching hasn’t changed.

DING DING DING DING! We have a winner!

But the application of that moral teaching results in a pretty big change in the “rules” for Catholics.

In other words - the doctrine has developed in reflection of the development of society’s financial markets. But the underlying moral teaching remains the same.

In the past the application of the nuanced teaching led to a ban on all interest. Today that application has developed to the point that applying the same nuanced moral teaching does not ban interest.

Probably because in the past there was no regulation to ensure that the interest being charged was fair or acceptable, as there is today.

That is what I am saying may happen with reproductive issues. The Church’s teaching on sexuality is equally complex and nuanced. The current application of that teaching leads to a ban on the so-called “artificial” forms of birth control but not the so-called “natural” forms.

Why “so-called”? Do you think that condoms, the pill, the IUD, et al are “natural”? Can you tell me where they are found in nature, or how a woman’s body “naturally” implements them?

The application of the underlying moral teaching may continue to develop such that more forms of contraception are allowed to be used, just as the “natural” forms are allowed now.

Given current moral teaching, I can’t think of how the Church could decide that artificial contraception DOESN’T deliberately frustrate the marital act (e.g., prevent ejaculated sperm from reaching an egg).

Given current teaching, in that artificial forms work by deliberately dis I see that as an exact parallel to the development of the doctrine of usury. If you had told a 10th century Catholic that usury would develop to the point that charging interest on a loan of cash would be acceptable he would have said such a development would be impossible and would destroy the whole idea of usury. The same kind of development is possible for reproductive issues.

Wrong. What you would do is tell a 10th century Catholic that some day financial markets would be such that governments would have regulations and watchdogs in place to ensure that interest charged wasn’t unreasonable, nor imposed upon the loan-ee without his/her consent and agreement, and thus the teaching of usury would develop over time to reflect these changes.

I certainly agree that the CA folks are all together on the change vs development talking point.

Do you believe that CAL (and by extension, Catholic.com) does not accurately reflect or represent the teachings of the Church? What proof do you have of this?

I agree that Pelosi was wrong, but it is a bit more complex than you make it out to be. The Church has always taught that abortion was wrong, but there have been times when the Church believed that ensoulment did not occur until quickening, which arguably mitigated the seriousness of early abortions.

Yes, that’s exactly what I said. But the early fathers all considered abortion wrong, even if they didn’t always consider it murder.

I am not agreeing with Pelosi so please don’t suggest I am. But that nuance in the past history of Church teaching is what Pelosi was misinterpreting in her statements.

I never suggested you were. However, your confusing regarding usury (and slavery) is exactly the same as Pelosi’s confusion regarding abortion.

 

[1holycatholic]

LOL. All the Popes and all the theologians have not said that doctrine doesn’t change. Its Catholic.com that said that doctrine doesn’t change, and even they admit it “develops.”

:ehh:
Decrees of the First Vatican Council
Chapter 4. On faith and reason

…
3. If anyone says that
it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.
…​

 

[joannazenobia]

Unless you center your whole faith on Christ and the Eucharist, unless he possess your every thought, every minute of every day , unless your heart and body burn and ache for your God then nothing the Church teaches makes sense. When God said “Let us make man in OUR image” he was referring to the Holy Trinity, which the family model imitates. God the Father loves his son, until it hurt to see his children on earth suffer so he let his son go for us. Jesus loved Father until it hurt to see his brothrs and sisters blind from the same relationship we could have with the Father. Jesus totally emptied himself for the church and the church submits to him perfectly. This is what Marriage is. we imitate the Holy Trinity, and the commitment God made to us in his son Jesus, who totally emptied himself fro us. He didn’t hold anything back. In conjugal love a husband and wife imitate that filial commitment God made with his people. In perfect conjugal love, you become one with God. God manifests his glory and mystery through the marital act. Think the wedding at Cana, Jesus turns your marriage from water into wine. But If you put a physical barrier between the husband and wife then you give in to Satans temptation to become like God yourself. It is you taking control over your own fertility instead of giving your fertility over to God. Instead of trusting in the Lord you love so much.

Also, it seems many people forget that ABC methods like the pill are actually forms of abortion. The pill prevents the egg from implanting. Well according to Church teaching life begins at the moment of conception. Conception happens long before the egg ever revues the uterus. By the time the egg reaches the uterus it’s called a “zygote” , a.k.a. baby.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Unless you center your whole faith on Christ and the Eucharist, unless he possess your every thought, every minute of every day , unless your heart and body burn and ache for your God then nothing the Church teaches makes sense. When God said “Let us make man in OUR image” he was referring to the Holy Trinity, which the family model imitates. God the Father loves his son, until it hurt to see his children on earth suffer so he let his son go for us. Jesus loved Father until it hurt to see his brothrs and sisters blind from the same relationship we could have with the Father. Jesus totally emptied himself for the church and the church submits to him perfectly. This is what Marriage is. we imitate the Holy Trinity, and the commitment God made to us in his son Jesus, who totally emptied himself fro us. He didn’t hold anything back. In conjugal love a husband and wife imitate that filial commitment God made with his people. In perfect conjugal love, you become one with God. God manifests his glory and mystery through the marital act. Think the wedding at Cana, Jesus turns your marriage from water into wine. But If you put a physical barrier between the husband and wife then you give in to Satans temptation to become like God yourself. It is you taking control over your own fertility instead of giving your fertility over to God. Instead of trusting in the Lord you love so much.

Also, it seems many people forget that ABC methods like the pill are actually forms of abortion. The pill prevents the egg from implanting. Well according to Church teaching life begins at the moment of conception. Conception happens long before the egg ever revues the uterus. By the time the egg reaches the uterus it’s called a “zygote” , a.k.a. baby.

Beautifully written and so true. Thank you and God bless.

 

[paperwight66]

See, this is what is frustrating. I have told you, several times, that “develop” and “change” are not synonyms.

For example, we say a baby develops in the womb; we don’t say s/he changes instantaneously from blastocyst to newborn. QUOTE

No, we don’t say that a baby changes instaneously. But we could very well say that she ‘changes gradually’.

You are confusing ‘change gradually’, a perfectly valid synonym for ‘develop’, with ‘change suddenly’.

I have quite possibly changed over the years into a crabby pedant. It definitely didn’t happen overnight. See the difference?

 

[Chris_Rendall]

Unless you center your whole faith on Christ and the Eucharist, unless he possess your every thought, every minute of every day , unless your heart and body burn and ache for your God then nothing the Church teaches makes sense. When God said “Let us make man in OUR image” he was referring to the Holy Trinity, which the family model imitates. God the Father loves his son, until it hurt to see his children on earth suffer so he let his son go for us. Jesus loved Father until it hurt to see his brothrs and sisters blind from the same relationship we could have with the Father. Jesus totally emptied himself for the church and the church submits to him perfectly. This is what Marriage is. we imitate the Holy Trinity, and the commitment God made to us in his son Jesus, who totally emptied himself fro us. He didn’t hold anything back. In conjugal love a husband and wife imitate that filial commitment God made with his people. In perfect conjugal love, you become one with God. God manifests his glory and mystery through the marital act. Think the wedding at Cana, Jesus turns your marriage from water into wine. But If you put a physical barrier between the husband and wife then you give in to Satans temptation to become like God yourself. It is you taking control over your own fertility instead of giving your fertility over to God. Instead of trusting in the Lord you love so much.

Also, it seems many people forget that ABC methods like the pill are actually forms of abortion. The pill prevents the egg from implanting. Well according to Church teaching life begins at the moment of conception. Conception happens long before the egg ever revues the uterus. By the time the egg reaches the uterus it’s called a “zygote” , a.k.a. baby.

Amen! Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[1holycatholic]

wanner47;7764951:

See, this is what is frustrating. I have told you, several times, that “develop” and “change” are not synonyms.

For example, we say a baby develops in the womb; we don’t say s/he changes instantaneously from blastocyst to newborn.

No, we don’t say that a baby changes instaneously. But we could very well say that she ‘changes gradually’.

You are confusing ‘change gradually’, a perfectly valid synonym for ‘develop’, with ‘change suddenly’.

I have quite possibly changed over the years into a crabby pedant. It definitely didn’t happen overnight. See the difference?

At every stage of life from conception to death we are speaking of a human being. That can’t change. This is perpetually frustrating fact for the pro-abortion crowd who claim, in contravention to the science, that a human being doesn’t exist until some arbitrarily chosen point in time, as if a wizard came and waved a magic wand transmogrifying it into a human being.

 

[paperwight66]

wanner47;7764951:

See, this is what is frustrating. I have told you, several times, that “develop” and “change” are not synonyms.

For example, we say a baby develops in the womb; we don’t say s/he changes instantaneously from blastocyst to newborn. QUOTE

No, we don’t say that a baby changes instaneously. But we could very well say that she ‘changes gradually’.

Sorry, that should be ‘instantaneously’, of course.

 

[wanner47]

paperwight66;7766971:

Sorry, that should be ‘instantaneously’, of course.

That *can *be a definition of change. However, the change that most non-Catholics or CINOs mean when they say, “The Church has changed its doctrine,” is something more along the lines of, “To completely reverse position so that it is the opposite of what it once was.”

edit - and 1holycatholic is absolutely right. Babies develop in the womb but they don’t change from a non-human to a human some point along the way. They are human at the outset and remain human even if they undergo significant development.

Another analogy I’ve heard is an acorn and an oak tree. The two are very different from one another, and at first glance look like they are complete opposites, but they are technically the same tree – one is just much more developed than the other.

 

[Serap]

Also, it seems many people forget that ABC methods like the pill are actually forms of abortion. The pill prevents the egg from implanting. Well according to Church teaching life begins at the moment of conception. Conception happens long before the egg ever revues the uterus. By the time the egg reaches the uterus it’s called a “zygote” , a.k.a. baby.

It’s my understanding that not every type of birth control pill causes an abortion. This is misleading.

Most birth control pills prevent ovulation, so that no fertilization can take place.

No I’m not on the pill (if you are getting that impression).

 

[wanner47]

It’s my understanding that not every type of birth control pill causes an abortion. This is misleading.

Most birth control pills prevent ovulation, so that no fertilization can take place.

No I’m not on the pill (if you are getting that impression).

**All **birth control pills have two mechanisms (just read the packaging inserts for any brand of Pill; most are available on the website of the manufacturer):

1. Inhibit ovulation
2. Change the nature of the uterine lining so that a zygote can’t implant
3. is the primary mechanism, 2. is the secondary mechanism. If ovulation and conception DO occur on the Pill, then they’re betting on 2. “preventing pregnancy” by causing abortion. There’s no way to tell if this does happen or how often it happens, but the fact remains that it is a possibility.

For me, just the possibility of a potential abortion is enough for me. I’m very saddened by my two years on the Pill, and I very much hope that I didn’t inadvertently abort any of my children during that time.