Teaching infallible?

[Dan_Grelinger]

Bill,

Well, John XXIII must have thought it was changeable or he wouldn’t have empanelled the Papal Commisson on Birth Control.

Is it not possible that the John XXIII sensed the need for better communication of Church Doctrine? The challenges were building at that time to Church teaching. Why would this action be assumed as an intent to question the teaching, rather than to expound on it, at a time when there was no question it needed that emphasis.

And Paul VI certainly must have thought it was changeable, or he wouldn’t have confirmed and enlarged the Commission as he described in H.V.

Again, tenuous assumptions that deny the very definite possibility of the intent to expound on, instead of change. Heck, look at what Pope John Paul did with the commission’s work! Your logical error is taking you in circles. If he originally thought it could be changed with a Commisions recommendations, then why did he not change it?

And the 30 of 35 members of the Commision thought it was changeable or they wouldn’t have voted to change it.

More likely evidence that the Church is not a democracy, but guided by the truth of the Holy Spirit. Isn’t that the whole concept of infallibility? This would seem to suggest that it is alive and well and working in this particular case.

Additionally, at the Vatican Press Conference for Humanae Vitae the presenting Mgr. said " The decision has been given", said Mons. Lambruschini, “and it is not infallible.”

Wow, now we have an uninfallible statement that the teaching is not infallible. Or do you suggest the Msgr was infallible? More error in your suggestions.

These facts dispose of the notion that the teaching against ABC was infallibly defined in HV.

Now you call these facts? Wow, reading them three times they just seem to be tenuous assumptions! I am not inclined to trust one who turns his assumptions into facts in just a few paragraphs.

As to the “infallibility by Ordinary Magisterium” argument, that requires a degree of consensus aong the Church that is clearly lacking when 80% of Catholic couples are contracepting.

And, now the ultimate justification! Yes, my 11 year old daughter is brilliant after all! She just told me last week “Dad, it must be OK to wear these clothes to Mass. Everybody else is doing it!”

The Church is made up of sinners, would you not agree? So, do we then accept all sin as good? I understand that at least 70% of Catholics don’t go to Mass. Your logic would suggest then that going to Mass is optional.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[Janet_S]

Several Popes have said ABC is “intrinsically evil”–that means it is universally and for all times evil. “Intrinsically evil” by its very definition means its nature cannot change. Has the Church ever changed her position on an action deemed “intrinsically evil.”?

It seems the only defense of ABC (by dissident Catholics) is “everybody’s doing it, so it can’t be wrong.” That’s really no defense at all.

When the Church changes her position on ABC, then we’ll have something to talk about. Until that time, any speculation about whether and when the Church will change her teaching is just that–speculation.

 

[otjm]

No, the current teaching on contraceptive techniques has never been proclaimed ex cathedra. There is still room for personal conscience in the matter.

Matthew

Almost all of the Church’s teachings have not been proclaimed ex cathedra. By your reasoning, alsmost all of the Church’s teachings are therefore a matter of personal conscience.

As a matter of fact, only twice has the Church declared anything ex cathedra; and that was the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

That, however, does not elave everything else up to personal conscience.

The Church also speaks infallibly when the bishops in union with the Pope make a declaration.

And further, the Church speaks infallibly when it is repeating a constantly held teaching. Birth control is one of those constantly held teachings.

I would suspect that the priest is older, and that he was taught (as many priests were after Vatican 2) that birth control (specifically, the Pill) would one day be accepted openly by the Church. So blaming him is a no-win game.

 

[Rosalinda]

Bill in post #39 cited Catholics for Free Choice as his source of authority.

Catholics for Free Choice are anything but Catholic.

During Pope John Paul II’s recent visit to this country, programs about dissent in the Catholic Church often included a spokesperson for a group calling itself “Catholics for a Free Choice” (CFFC). Both before and since World Youth Day, because of the attention the media have paid to the group, many people, including Catholics, may be led to believe that it is an authentic Catholic organization. It is not. It has no affiliation, formal or otherwise, with the Catholic Church.
In fact Catholics for a Free Choice is associated with the pro-abortion lobby in Washington, D.C. It attracts public attention by its denunciations of basic principles of Catholic morality and teaching–denunciations given enhanced visibility by media outlets that portray CFFC as a reputable voice of Catholic dissent.
CFFC can in no way speak for the Catholic Church and its 59 million members in the United States. Most of CFFC’s funding is from secular foundations supporting legal abortion in this country and abroad. It shares an address and funding sources with the National Abortion Federation, a trade association which seeks to advance the financial and professional interests of abortionists.

priestsforlife.org/blog/index.php?paged=4

Contraception and abortion are inextricably bound one to another and as such both are intrinsically evil. Any clear thinking person understands this; Catholic or not, he doesn’t need the Pope to declare it infallibly.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Bill in post #39 cited Catholics for Free Choice as his source of authority.

Catholics for Free Choice are anything but Catholic.

priestsforlife.org/blog/index.php?paged=4

Contraception and abortion are inextricably bound one to another and as such both are intrinsically evil. Any clear thinking person understands this; Catholic or not, he doesn’t need the Pope to declare it infallibly.

I see no reason abortion and contraception are “inextricably bound” outside the church NFP is a contraceptive method, yet I see no reason to call them abortionist. Same for condom users and several other groups. Please remember that thing about bearing false witness. Over and over I see these links which always have fine print, the fine print is always the same in summary it says no supporting facts exist for the statement.

 

[jmcrae]

I see no reason abortion and contraception are “inextricably bound” outside the church NFP is a contraceptive method, yet I see no reason to call them abortionist. Same for condom users and several other groups. Please remember that thing about bearing false witness. Over and over I see these links which always have fine print, the fine print is always the same in summary it says no supporting facts exist for the statement.

If abortion were made illegal, the majority of contraceptive pills out there would also become illegal, since part of how they work is by creating an acid bath to kill the newly conceived human embryo or zygote.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If abortion were made illegal, the majority of contraceptive pills out there would also become illegal, since part of how they work is by creating an acid bath to kill the newly conceived human embryo or zygote.

Sounds like you for got to read the fine print. There is no proof the common pill causes abortions, none, I spent considerable time looking for it. I saw the labels read the articles and like the old doctors said, please place your data on the table. The table is bear always has been.

 

[jmcrae]

Sounds like you for got to read the fine print. There is no proof the common pill causes abortions, none, I spent considerable time looking for it. I saw the labels read the articles and like the old doctors said, please place your data on the table. The table is bear always has been.

Maybe you don’t know what progesterone is?

Progesterone is the acid bath that kills the zygote (8 day old human being) if it makes it as far as the uterus. They couch it in euphemistic language - “the uterus becomes hostile to the egg” makes it sound like the egg isn’t fertilized yet, but if you know anything about biology, you know that an unfertilized egg will never go into the uterus - they are speaking about the fertilized egg; aka the zygote, aka the 8 days old human child.

This information is on the packaging of every box of birth control pills. It’s also on line at Planned Parenthood.

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s a great article on the infallibility of Humanae Vitae:

rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

 

[astegallrnc]

Maybe you don’t know what progesterone is?

Progesterone is the acid bath that kills the zygote (8 day old human being) if it makes it as far as the uterus. They couch it in euphemistic language - “the uterus becomes hostile to the egg” makes it sound like the egg isn’t fertilized yet, but if you know anything about biology, you know that an unfertilized egg will never go into the uterus - they are speaking about the fertilized egg; aka the zygote, aka the 8 days old human child.

This information is on the packaging of every box of birth control pills. It’s also on line at Planned Parenthood.

BCPs do not contain progesterone, they contain progestin. I’m not sure I would describe the action of progestin as an acid bath.
Progesterone is produced by the corpus luteum and is necessary for pregnancy.

Texas Roofer is correct that there is no direct evidence that BCPs prevent implantation.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I see no reason abortion and contraception are “inextricably bound” outside the church NFP is a contraceptive method, yet I see no reason to call them abortionist. Same for condom users and several other groups. Please remember that thing about bearing false witness. Over and over I see these links which always have fine print, the fine print is always the same in summary it says no supporting facts exist for the statement.

Your definition of contraception and the Church’s are not the same. There is your confusion.

NFP is contraception in the same way that abstinence is contraception. You can’t get pregnant if you don’t have sex. So yes, it is ridiculous to say that NFP proponents are linked to abortion. You’d have to say that all of mankind is linked to abortion, for we all abstain (contracept?) at some time.

If you want to talk to Catholics in such a way that you don’t look like you’ve been on a roof in the Texas sun for too long, please use the definition of contraception that the Catholic Church does.

The only reason you would have not to, is to confuse, or to justify the unjustifiable.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Your definition of contraception and the Church’s are not the same. There is your confusion.

NFP is contraception in the same way that abstinence is contraception. You can’t get pregnant if you don’t have sex. So yes, it is ridiculous to say that NFP proponents are linked to abortion. You’d have to say that all of mankind is linked to abortion, for we all abstain (contracept?) at some time.

If you want to talk to Catholics in such a way that you don’t look like you’ve been on a roof in the Texas sun for too long, please use the definition of contraception that the Catholic Church does.

The only reason you would have not to, is to confuse, or to justify the unjustifiable.

Sincerely,

Dan

or to display the TRUTH the plan unbiased truth which many hide from. You need not parrott the talking points to me, I am capable of thought. Careful about brainwashing, brainwashing is not Catholic never has been.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

or to display the TRUTH the plan unbiased truth which many hide from. You need not parrott the talking points to me, I am capable of thought. Careful about brainwashing, brainwashing is not Catholic never has been.

And what is the truth about contraception that you must keep the many from hiding from? And I will use your definition of contraception, which appears to be anything that prevents pregnancy, including abstinence.

Dan

 

[Janet_S]

Sounds like you for got to read the fine print. There is no proof the common pill causes abortions, none, I spent considerable time looking for it. I saw the labels read the articles and like the old doctors said, please place your data on the table. The table is bear always has been.

I’m a pharmacist and I learned about artificial contraception methods in pharmacology class (in a state university). Jmcae talked about the “acid bath” which is not accurate.

The combined (estrogen and progesterone) pill works in 3 ways: by suppression of ovulation, changing the viscosity of the cervical mucus, and creating a hostile endometrium–which does prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum.

IUD’s work by creating a hostile endometrium (preventing implantation) and also causing the inflammatory destruction of the zygote or blastocyst.

Life begins at conception. The pill and IUD destroy life after conception.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m a pharmacist and I learned about artificial contraception methods in pharmacology class (in a state university). Jmcae talked about the “acid bath” which is not accurate.

The combined (estrogen and progesterone) pill works in 3 ways: by suppression of ovulation, changing the viscosity of the cervical mucus, and creating a hostile endometrium–which does prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum.

IUD’s work by creating a hostile endometrium (preventing implantation) and also causing the inflammatory destruction of the zygote or blastocyst.

Life begins at conception. The pill and IUD destroy life after conception.

Please place your data on the table prior to leaving, thank you

 

[Janet_S]

Please place your data on the table prior to leaving, thank you

What data do you want? Look up the prescribing information for any oral contraceptive pill (OCP). The drug companies freely admit this. This is the information for Ortho-Tri-Cyclen Lo:

thepill.com/active/janus/en_US/assets/common/company/pi/Tri-Cyclen_Lo_PI.pdf#zoom=100

Look under the section Clinical Pharmacology:

"Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)."

The OCP’s available now contain estrogen in doses 50 mcg or less because of the estrogenic health hazards (cancer, blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes).

However, with estrogen doses 50 mcg or less in a combination estrogen/progestin OCP, ovulation is not always suppressed. This type of OCP is probably only 95-98% effective in suppressing ovulation (when taken as directed) and its close to 100 % effectiveness in interfering with pregnancy is due to the effects of the progestin component on the cervix and uterine endometrium. The effect on the uterine endometrium is to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum.

Some OCP’s contain no estrogen, only progestin. The primary mechanism of these preparations is the effect on cervical mucus and uterine endometrium (prevention of implantation). Ovulation is not inhibited.

Here are some references from my old college notes. Sorry, they’re old (I graduated in 1991). I am giving only a few references–2 about OCP’s and 2 about IUD’s. I have a total of 284 references, so let me know if you want more.

References (about OCP):

Murad, F. and Haynes, R.C.: In The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 7th edition (L. S. Goodman and A. Gilman, Eds.), pp. 1430-1436, Macmillan, New York, 1985.

Hatcher RA, Guest F, Stewart F, Stewart GK, Trussel J, Bowen SC, Cates W: Contraceptive Technology 1988-1989, 14th edition, Irvington Publ., N.Y., 1988

References (about IUD’s):

Goldberg, V.J. and Ramwell, P.W.: Physiol. Rev. 55: 325, 1975.

Ortiz ME, Croxatto HB: Contraception 36:37, 1987

 

[astegallrnc]

What data do you want? Look up the prescribing information for any oral contraceptive pill (OCP). The drug companies freely admit this. This is the information for Ortho-Tri-Cyclen Lo:

thepill.com/active/janus/en_US/assets/common/company/pi/Tri-Cyclen_Lo_PI.pdf#zoom=100

Look under the section Clinical Pharmacology:

"Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)."

The OCP’s available now contain estrogen in doses less than 50 mcg because of the estrogenic health hazards (cancer, blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes).

However, with estrogen doses less than 50 mcg in a combination estrogen/progestin OCP, ovulation is not always suppressed. This type of OCP is probably only 95-98% effective in suppressing ovulation (when taken as directed) and its close to 100 % effectiveness in interfering with pregnancy is due to the effects of the progestin component on the cervix and uterine endometrium. The effect on the uterine endometrium is to prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum.

Here are some references from my old college notes. Sorry, they’re old (I graduated in 1991). I am giving only a few references–2 about OCP’s and 2 about IUD’s. I have a total of 284 references, so let me know if you want more.

References (about OCP):

Murad, F. and Haynes, R.C.: In The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 7th edition (L. S. Goodman and A. Gilman, Eds.), pp. 1430-1436, Macmillan, New York, 1985.

Hatcher RA, Guest F, Stewart F, Stewart GK, Trussel J, Bowen SC, Cates W: Contraceptive Technology 1988-1989, 14th edition, Irvington Publ., N.Y., 1988

References (about IUD’s):

Goldberg, V.J. and Ramwell, P.W.: Physiol. Rev. 55: 325, 1975.

Ortiz ME, Croxatto HB: Contraception 36:37, 1987

The changes in the endometrium may prevent implantation. I understand the the changes in the endometrium are well documented, but Texas Roofer is correct that no direct evidence exists demonstrating this prevents implantation in ovulatory pill cycles. There is little information on the lining of the endometrium in ovulatory pill cycles. Here are some articles discussing the debate:

Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications
Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive
polycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm

There is current research on the IUD that suggests the primary mechanism of action is preventing conception. I have been searching for the article but have not found it.

ETA: I am still searching for the article on the IUD. This is from Speroff, Glass, & Kase (1999), “It is currently believed that the mechanism of action of IUDs is the production of an intrauterine environment that is spermicidal”.

 

[DaMaDo]

Contraception is another one of the subjects that makes being a fully devout catholic very difficult.

The infallible fallible argument itself is also very hard to follow esp. knowing the church’s history like the whole Gallileo thing. Even though I don’t agree with the event, the whole protestant thing didn’t just happen on a whim. The church doesn’t have a perfect track record so it’s hard for me to know when infallibility is or isn’t there.

From the beginning of human civilization until a few hundred years ago, bearing children was the most important thing you could do. You needed children to replace those lost in wars, to disease, etc. You also needed children to work the farm etc. If a tribe/state/country didn’t have enough children, it couldn’t defend itself or make do. Also the world needed to be populated. There weren’t that many people, esp after the series of plagues.

Now however we have the opposite problem. The world is getting overpopulated. There aren’t as many deaths per capita due to the aforementioned factors and most families don’t need the support of a large number of children to be productive or defend their territory. One of Hitler’s reasons for invading countries was actually for “lebensraum” (living space) because they needed more space for all the people.

I’m just making the point that times have changed and looking at it that way; it’s just hard for me personally understand why the church still bans contraception. Although I would think it might be because if they did allow it, it might seem like it would be just one step closer to allowing pre-marital sex which of course is banned by scripture.

I dunno, those are the thoughts I’m struggling with.

 

[jmcrae]

Now however we have the opposite problem. The world is getting overpopulated.

Actually, that’s not true. We have the resources to provide for at least six times the population that we have right now - what is missing is the will to do that. We are very lucky in North America that the work of our hands puts food on the table, but there are many people around the world working very hard to make other people rich rather than themselves.

If every person were given the product of the work of their hands (ie: paid according to the amount of value that they have added to the economy), they would be able to support themselves, and all their relatives as well.

It’s also a myth that we’re running out of space. A statistic I read recently is that the entire population of the world can fit quite comfortably into all the cars in Texas.

Another consideration: if we contracept this generation, there will be no one to give birth to the next generation. We are always one generation away from annihilation - if we look at what is happening in China with their “one child” policy, we can see how real that is.

In theory, a one child policy should have cut the population in half.

Instead, because they preferred boys, there will be less than one tenth of the original population in the next generation - if every girl gets married, and if every girl is fertile - which is by no means guaranteed. Many Chinese girls are marrying white men and leaving China, so that they can have as many children as they want.

If they continue with the one-child policy, there will be no full-blooded Chinese people on the earth within 100 years, even if all Chinese girls remain in China, and marry Chinese men.

As it stands, the present generation may well be the last full-blooded generation, since so many Chinese women are leaving China to seek their freedom, and so many Chinese men are being forced to leave China in order to find any wife at all.

 

[Janet_S]

The changes in the endometrium may

prevent implantation. I understand the the changes in the endometrium are well documented, but Texas Roofer is correct that no direct evidence exists demonstrating this prevents implantation in ovulatory pill cycles. There is little information on the lining of the endometrium in ovulatory pill cycles. Here are some articles discussing the debate:
Did you read the articles you gave me? You say “no direct evidence exists demonstrating this prevents implantation in ovulatory pill cycles.” The reason there is “no direct evidence” is that there have never been any studies designed to observe ovulatory pill cycles:
aaplog.org/collition.htm
The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient. They are correct. The reason is that such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo. No one has the time, money or motivation for such an undertaking. In addition, would such a study be morally permissible? We think not. Attempting to prove that any mechanism causes the death of an innocent human individual is an assault on the fifth commandment.

We know there have been studies showing that implantation is prevented by thinning of the endometrial lining. You were the one who presented this information:polycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm
*G) But is there really any evidence that a thinner endometrium makes it more difficult for implantation to occur? *
*Yes. A number of different research papers have studied this issue and it has been widely described in the medical literature concerning in vitro fertilization where it has been noted that the newly conceived child is much less likely to implant on a thinner uterine lining than a thicker one. Originally an older smaller study (Fleisher et al 9, 1985) did not find that the thickness of the endometrium played an important role in in vitro implantation rates, however, other studies have found a positive trend
(Rabinowitz et al 10(1986); Ueno et al 11 {1991}) or a statistically significant effect (Glissant et al 12, 1985) of the decreasing thickness of the endometrium in relationship to a decreased **likelihood of implantation. Larger and more recent studies (Abdalla et al 13(1994); Dickey et al 14(1993); Gonen et al 15(1989); Schwartz et al 16 (1997); Shoham et al 17{1991}) have reaffirmed this important connection. Most studies have found that a decrease of even one millimeter in thickness yields a substantial decrease in the rate of implantation. In two studies, when the endometrial lining became too thin, no implantations occurred (Abdalla 13; Dickey 14). *

**What can we fairly say about the abortifacient action of OCP’s? We know the combination OCP does not prevent ovulation 100%. Actually the progestin only OCP does not prevent ovulation at all. Part of the OCP’s pharmacology is to alter the uterine endometrial lining–which we know does inhibit the chance of implantation of a fertilized ovum.

We could never show “direct evidence” that altered endometrial lining prevents implantation in ovulatory pill cycles because a study like this would be unethical as well as impossible (see above).

Since we know OCP’s have the possibility to prevent implantation, shouldn’t we error on the side of life rather than the side of death?**