Teaching infallible?

[DaMaDo]

There are actually many articles of the effects of overpopulation dealing with over-fishing and the effects on the environment (global warming for example). Notice also what’s going on with the supply of oil. It’s all due to the demands of industry which result from the demands of the population. There’s plenty of room in the Sahara or the amazon forest or in the rockies, but people don’t live there…they converge in cities and have demands on the industries.

I think it would be horrible if people used contraception to not have any kids at all. I think having kids is an absolute must. The only reason I would consider contraception a good thing is so that a married couple can continue enjoying the bonding of sexual relations without having 20 kids and not being able to afford to give them the life they all deserve.

But couples need sexual relations:
``‘Time, Sex and Money’’ is shorthand for the top three problem areas reported by survey respondents: balancing job and family, frequency of sexual relations, and debt brought into marriage."
–Creighton University Center for Marriage and Family

The one child policy in China is terrible and will have repercussions, but we’re going from one extreme to the other. I feel balance is proper, but complete elimination of contraceptive or total aggressive use it seems are both a bit extreme.

I read the article also from catholiceducation.org someone linked before but I see a lot of holes in the argument made there. They are using one variable to justify a general outcome with no real reference to the impact of other variables such as women’s rights/liberation. Nothing wrong with it, it’s just that women aren’t tolerating abusive husbands as before which is a positive step but unfortunately leads to more divorce. Of course there are other factors also such as being in an age of skepticism where religion is being pushed further away. I’m trying to fight my own skepticism as much as I can, but there are just a few points in the catholic faith I’m trying to wrap my brain/heart/soul around. I’m trying but it’s tough.

 

[Janet_S]

And whether or not OCP’s are abortifacient, they are still condemned by the Catholic Church.

Sorry, folks, that’s the way it is.

I’m sure we’ve all struggled with this teaching at some time or another.

I pray for all you who are still struggling.

 

[Janet_S]

There are actually many articles of the effects of overpopulation dealing with over-fishing and the effects on the environment (global warming for example). Notice also what’s going on with the supply of oil. It’s all due to the demands of industry which result from the demands of the population. There’s plenty of room in the Sahara or the amazon forest or in the rockies, but people don’t live there…they converge in cities and have demands on the industries.

I think it would be horrible if people used contraception to not have any kids at all. I think having kids is an absolute must. The only reason I would consider contraception a good thing is so that a married couple can continue enjoying the bonding of sexual relations without having 20 kids and not being able to afford to give them the life they all deserve.

But couples need sexual relations:
``‘Time, Sex and Money’’ is shorthand for the top three problem areas reported by survey respondents: balancing job and family, frequency of sexual relations, and debt brought into marriage."
–Creighton University Center for Marriage and Family

The one child policy in China is terrible and will have repercussions, but we’re going from one extreme to the other. I feel balance is proper, but complete elimination of contraceptive or total aggressive use it seems are both a bit extreme.

I read the article also from catholiceducation.org someone linked before but I see a lot of holes in the argument made there. They are using one variable to justify a general outcome with no real reference to the impact of other variables such as women’s rights/liberation. Nothing wrong with it, it’s just that women aren’t tolerating abusive husbands as before which is a positive step but unfortunately leads to more divorce. Of course there are other factors also such as being in an age of skepticism where religion is being pushed further away. I’m trying to fight my own skepticism as much as I can, but there are just a few points in the catholic faith I’m trying to wrap my brain/heart/soul around. I’m trying but it’s tough.

Regarding world population, here’s a website Population Research Institute:
pop.org/
The president of this organization is Stephen Mosher, a former atheist, Catholic convert. I saw him on the Journey Home.

Actually European countries are offering incentives for people to have children. Their populations are declining.

Keep studying and praying about the Church’s teaching on this issue and trust her wisdom. You bring up a lot of valid points. We live in a fallen world, but God has a better plan for us.

 

[astegallrnc]

**

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:

**

Hmmm, yes, I did. In fact, I have used the articles in other discussions (with the exception of the 3rd article). I presented articles to present both sides and to to support my statement re: direct evdidence.

**

You were the one who presented this information:

polycarp.org/how_does_the_pill_work.htm
**

Ok, so what is your point? I stated the articles discussed the debate.

**

What can we fairly say about the abortifacient action of OCP’s?

**

Based on my interpretation, it is a potential abortifacient.

**

Actually the progestin only OCP does not prevent ovulation at all.

**

This is contrary to what I have read.

**

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.

**

yes, but this is a valid point:However, in an ovulatory pill cycle, the estrogen and progesterone levels are, as discussed below, grossly increased for the seven days prior to implantation. The normal biologic response of endometrium to high levels of these hormones is growth of stroma, blood vessels, glands, and glandular secretions to help prepare the lining for implantation. Personally, I prefer to refer to the pill as a potential abortifacient… there is no evidence to prove it is not a potential abortifacient.
Just me preference.

**

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?

**

As I stated previously…
The pill is immoral whether it causes early abortion or not. Church teaching regarding contraception is clear.

With that said, I prefer accurate information. It is not an absolute fact that the pill is an abortifacient. If there is direct evidence, I am eager to read it.

The effects on the endometrium may prevent implantation; however, this may not occur and so no it would not contribute to the death of a child. Would this make the pill acceptable? No.

I am not sure why a potential abortifacient would be perceived less grave.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I think it would be horrible if people used contraception to not have any kids at all. I think having kids is an absolute must. The only reason I would consider contraception a good thing is so that a married couple can continue enjoying the bonding of sexual relations without having 20 kids and not being able to afford to give them the life they all deserve.

Do you understand the moral fallacy, “The ends justify the means.”? You are using the purposes of the act to justify something that is inherently immoral.

If you wish to justify Artificial Birth Control, you must demonstrate that the act of ABC is not immoral. Just because someone can use it with good intents does not make it moral. Dieting is an example. That is not necessarily a bad intention, or purpose to lose weight if someone is overweight. But is bulimia justifiable because the intention is good? No, we have licit means to lose weight. The same with child spacing. We have NFP.

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… The reason there is “no direct evidence” is that there have never been any studies designed to observe ovulatory pill cycles:

there you go in your own words

The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient.

Thanks again

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.

I think it is reasonable to assume these are opinions, mine is rather different given pill sales are about 12 million user per year there is certainly time and money. I have a suspicion there are people who either know the answer or a least have data; with some ability to draw an unbiased statistical inference. Mine you that would mean a lot to me and probably millions of others. That data should exist and stand on its own whether good, bad, or indifferent. I would never support abortion, and I would never support false accusations of such either. I know you have no intent to make a false accusation nor do most others. The logical which concludes an abortific effect may exist is sound logic. It needs to be proven.

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?**

Janet we have some direct evidence to the contrary which are called babies some like to call them miracle babies because they were born while their mother was on the pill. This evidence is as the other evidence inconclusive. I do not understand why collecting panty shields and napkins for latter analysis is such a difficult task. I only want to know what is really happening or at least a straight forward statement about what we know and do not know. Until then our moral judgment is frankly guess work. I have no problem with people choosing to error against use, that is their decision and I respect it. Thank you for your reply

 

[Janet_S]

---

The pill is immoral whether it causes early abortion or not. Church teaching regarding contraception is clear.

With that said, I prefer accurate information. It is not an absolute fact that the pill is an abortifacient. If there is direct evidence, I am eager to read it.

The effects on the endometrium may prevent implantation; however, this may not occur and so no it would not contribute to the death of a child. Would this make the pill acceptable? No.

I am not sure why a potential abortifacient would be perceived less grave.

Please don’t be offended by my typing in bold. I wasn’t trying to shout at you, just to differentiate what I was saying from the quotes from your articles.

As a health care professional, we should inform people of the pharmacology of OCP’s. Many non-Catholics (who are not opposed to ABC but who are opposed to abortion) would not take OCP’s if they knew of their mechanism of action.

For Catholics, OCP’s are unacceptable whatever the mechanism of action. I agree with you on this.

One of your articles showed how it would be impossible to set up a study to prove “direct evidence” of the abortifacient link to the pill. Do you agree?

If you don’t agree, can you think of a way to show “direct evidence”?

If it’s impossible to show “direct evidence”, why do people assert there is no “direct evidence”?

To me, when people on this forum claim “there is no direct evidence OCP’s are abortifacients,” it sounds like they are trying to “muddy the water.”

Life begins at conception, and one of the effects of OCP’s is that it may prevent a fertilized ovum (a living being) from implantating in the uterus. From what you said above, it looks like you agree.

 

[DaMaDo]

Do you understand the moral fallacy, “The ends justify the means.”? You are using the purposes of the act to justify something that is inherently immoral.

If you wish to justify Artificial Birth Control, you must demonstrate that the act of ABC is not immoral. Just because someone can use it with good intents does not make it moral. Dieting is an example. That is not necessarily a bad intention, or purpose to lose weight if someone is overweight. But is bulimia justifiable because the intention is good? No, we have licit means to lose weight. The same with child spacing. We have NFP.

Sincerely,

Dan

You make a good point. Although remember I’m not completely convinced yet that it is inherently immoral, although my posting here is an indication that I am trying to understand.

I guess I just need to get rid of the ideas in my head that: 1. The church says ABC is immoral just because it’s hanging on to an old view, and 2. ABC is blamed for an immoral world which is actually caused by a multitude of factors.

Understanding NFP better after reading JS’s article makes me much more willing to use it in place of ABC. I see how abstaining for the 7-12 days will make a couple appreciate more facets of each other and the sexual act itself more, and the example is shown well in the article. I think if more people understood NFP better, learned more self-control, and knew how much better something feels when they don’t have it all the time, they would be more likely to drop ABC and try NFP instead. I’ll be praying and pushing myself to work on those 3 things.

 

[astegallrnc]

Hi Janet ,

Please don’t be offended by my typing in bold. I wasn’t trying to shout at you, just to differentiate what I was saying from the quotes from your articles.

I’m not offended, so no apologies necessary.

As a health care professional, we should inform people of the pharmacology of OCP’s. Many non-Catholics (who are not opposed to ABC but who are opposed to abortion) would not take OCP’s if they knew of their mechanism of action.

I absolutely agree with you. When I was prescribing pills, I explained this. I know that I am in the minority.

One of your articles showed how it would be impossible to set up a study to prove “direct evidence” of the abortifacient link to the pill. Do you agree?

Based on the methods of data collection available at this time, I absolutely agree.

If it’s impossible to show “direct evidence”, why do people assert there is no “direct evidence”.

To me, when people on this forum claim “there is no direct evidence OCP’s are abortifacients,” it sounds like they are trying to “muddy the water.”

I believe they are just looking at the facts.

Life begins at conception, and one of the effects of OCP’s is that it may prevent a fertilized ovum (a living being) from implantating in the uterus. From what you said above, it looks like you agree.

Yes, I agree.

I have not given up on the IUD article… this is what happens when DH helps me organize. I’ll pm the information when I find it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

There are actually many articles of the effects of overpopulation dealing with over-fishing and the effects on the environment (global warming for example). Notice also what’s going on with the supply of oil. It’s all due to the demands of industry which result from the demands of the population. There’s plenty of room in the Sahara or the amazon forest or in the rockies, but people don’t live there…they converge in cities and have demands on the industries.

I think it would be horrible if people used contraception to not have any kids at all. I think having kids is an absolute must. The only reason I would consider contraception a good thing is so that a married couple can continue enjoying the bonding of sexual relations without having 20 kids and not being able to afford to give them the life they all deserve.

But couples need sexual relations:
``‘Time, Sex and Money’’ is shorthand for the top three problem areas reported by survey respondents: balancing job and family, frequency of sexual relations, and debt brought into marriage."
–Creighton University Center for Marriage and Family

The one child policy in China is terrible and will have repercussions, but we’re going from one extreme to the other. I feel balance is proper, but complete elimination of contraceptive or total aggressive use it seems are both a bit extreme.

I read the article also from catholiceducation.org someone linked before but I see a lot of holes in the argument made there. They are using one variable to justify a general outcome with no real reference to the impact of other variables such as women’s rights/liberation. Nothing wrong with it, it’s just that women aren’t tolerating abusive husbands as before which is a positive step but unfortunately leads to more divorce. Of course there are other factors also such as being in an age of skepticism where religion is being pushed further away. I’m trying to fight my own skepticism as much as I can, but there are just a few points in the catholic faith I’m trying to wrap my brain/heart/soul around. I’m trying but it’s tough.

Sound like you are in tune with the late PPVI. A study of the Church teaching show millions of Catholics are caught in the - It was not supposed to happen this way- whether “it” is an abusive spouse, a missing spouse, a serious shortage of income, over whelming bills, or simply too much emotional stress and strain. PPVI acknowledged responsible parenting allows married couples to actively avoid pregnancy. He addressed specific means which the Church allowed, and specific means the Church objected to. He acknowledged the object was the same by both sets of means. The good news is this may become moot. Several technologies available today may soon give us a daily reading of our vitals to include the chance of procreation. Such an advance would certainly help married couples.

 

[Janet_S]

there you go in your own words Thanks again I think it is reasonable to assume these are opinions, mine is rather different given pill sales are about 12 million user per year there is certainly time and money. I have a suspicion there are people who either know the answer or a least have data; with some ability to draw an unbiased statistical inference. Mine you that would mean a lot to me and probably millions of others. That data should exist and stand on its own whether good, bad, or indifferent. I would never support abortion, and I would never support false accusations of such either. I know you have no intent to make a false accusation nor do most others. The logical which concludes an abortific effect may exist is sound logic. It needs to be proven. Janet we have some direct evidence to the contrary which are called babies some like to call them miracle babies because they were born while their mother was on the pill. This evidence is as the other evidence inconclusive. I do not understand why collecting panty shields and napkins for latter analysis is such a difficult task. I only want to know what is really happening or at least a straight forward statement about what we know and do not know. Until then our moral judgment is frankly guess work. I have no problem with people choosing to error against use, that is their decision and I respect it. Thank you for your reply

Miracle babies, yes I’ve heard of them. I have a niece who is one. What does that prove? That no fertilized ova are ever prevented from implantation? How can you prove there are more miracle babies than discarded ova?

That reminds me of another topic that I won’t get into right now–the birth defects associated with the pill.

Anyway, a study to show direct evidence wouldn’t be simply a matter of collecting panty shields either, it would involve endometrial biopsy. Do you know of anyone who might volunteer?

I guess I’m still not clear. Do you have evidence the pill does not prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting? The drug companies are reporting the opposite.

People who believe life begins at conception do have cause for concern about OCP’s mechanism of action. There’s no getting around this. Anyone would realize this just by reading the PDR.

 

[boppaid]

Actually European countries are offering incentives for people to have children. Their populations are declining.

You know, I personally believe that everyone who says that our world isn’t over populated …just certain parts are…should really think about it. Would they take the necessary step, then, to move to these less-populated parts of the world? Would they leave their jobs and take their families across the world to live? If so, why haven’t they already. If not, then I think the entire “the world’s not overpopulated” argument is rather moot.

 

[Janet_S]

You know, I personally believe that everyone who says that our world isn’t over populated …just certain parts are…should really think about it. Would they take the necessary step, then, to move to these less-populated parts of the world? Would they leave their jobs and take their families across the world to live? If so, why haven’t they already. If not, then I think the entire “the world’s not overpopulated” argument is rather moot.

You have a point, but no one said to move to less populated areas.

The problem of the future is not overpopulation. European countries have declining population growth rates because of sub-replacement fertility.

Think of the impact this trend will have when the aged population outnumbers the young.

If you think this is just Catholic propaganda, investigate for yourself the population trends in the world today.

I have relatives in Germany where they are very concerned about the current trends. They are offering monetary incentives for people to have children.

 

[LittleDeb]

Not sure if I want to jump in here or not. But I found it interesting in reading the link from BillP to the press conference on HV. We read the very same article and yet drew opposite conclusions. What the Mons. seems to be saying is that while the document itself my lack ex-cathedra status, what it contains is clearly infallible. For those of us who learned it from old folks, “While it is not dogma, it is most certainly doctrine.”

Since the article was written a mere 2 weeks after HV was released any interpretation other than doctrinal makes no sense given the closing paragraph: (emphasis by me)

All those who have in recent years incautiously taught that it is lawful to rise artificial contraceptives to regulate births and have acted accordingly in their pastoral guidance and in the ministry of the confessional, must now change their attitude and set an example by their full acceptance of the teaching of the Encyclical. This is not a case of servility to be shunned, but rather one of essential loyalty and consistency in the profession of Catholic doctrine and in the practice of the Christian life…".

Taken from:
L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
8 August 1968, page 7

BTW, it was really cool watching a nurse and a pharmacist debate the confusing language of the medical field. I was wishing for an :eating popcorn: smiley. I was thinking, “when are they going to realize they actually agree with each other?”

 

[boppaid]

You have a point, but no one said to move to less populated areas.

The problem of the future is not overpopulation. European countries have declining population growth rates because of sub-replacement fertility.

Think of the impact this trend will have when the aged population outnumbers the young.

If you think this is just Catholic propaganda, investigate for yourself the population trends in the world today.

I have relatives in Germany where they are very concerned about the current trends. They are offering monetary incentives for people to have children.

Thanks for answering, Janet. I hope you don’t think I was “picking on you”. I guess what I see is that overpopulation is becoming a problem in certain parts of the world, not necessarily all over the world. (The US quickly becoming one of the overpopulated areas.) I, for one, do not plan to help the problem by moving to a less populated country for a number of reasons. (some selfish, some unselfish) However, I am not adamately opposed to ABC either. If I were, I would think that I should consider moving to a less populated part of the world to help the overpopulation problem here. I guess that was my point.

And I don’t necessarily think that this is Catholic propaganda. I am Catholic, and I believe that the Church has the best of intentions. I just sometimes feel that they don’t realize how difficult it is to live in a world where some of it is overpopulated and other areas are not, and the only way to help overpopulation from occuring is uprooting to another country. I think this is a very gray area, and I just can’t believe abc is mortal sin.

 

[astegallrnc]

BTW, it was really cool watching a nurse and a pharmacist debate the confusing language of the medical field. I was wishing for an :eating popcorn: smiley. I was thinking, “when are they going to realize they actually agree with each other?”

It was fun to discuss. I teach medical terminolgy ya know.
Ahhhh, we agree to an extent, but I am not sure we agree completely on the subject. It does seem others misunderstand me. I have been called a liar and invited to leave the forums with my presentation of the information… now that was a fun thread. This is a emotional topic.

 

[jmcrae]

I just sometimes feel that they don’t realize how difficult it is to live in a world where some of it is overpopulated and other areas are not, and the only way to help overpopulation from occuring is uprooting to another country. I think this is a very gray area, and I just can’t believe abc is mortal sin.

Uprooting to another country is not the only option. No Pope has ever said that it is a sin to have fewer children. The only thing that is a sin is to use artificial birth control to achieve that goal.

The problem with artificial birth control is not that it reduces the number of children, but rather, that it reduces the human dignity of the participants in the marriage (making them able to be viewed as sex toys instead of as human beings) it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marriage act, and, in so many cases, is actually dangerous to the health of the woman.

We have, on the other hand, a wide variety of techniques available through Natural Family Planning which are perfectly licit for those who have good reasons to keep their families small. There is also plain old self control, coupled with hard work, which increases one’s resources, and reduces the amount of one’s free time, thus creating a certain natural equilibrium.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

DaMaDo,

Thank you for your reply. I hope you had a good holiday weekend!

I guess I just need to get rid of the ideas in my head that: 1. The church says ABC is immoral just because it’s hanging on to an old view, and 2. ABC is blamed for an immoral world which is actually caused by a multitude of factors.

I understand. For number 1, the more that I read, the more that I see that so much has been invested by the Church to understand all the issues, and to find the truth. And the Church’s reasoning is just that. It is the result of a thorough examination of God’s revelations combined with contemplative reasoning. For number 2, I definitely see your point. ABC is not really the cause of immorality, much in the same way guns are not the cause of armed robbery. Both are just the tool that is used by those who have decided to embark on a path in which the tool is very useful. If you wish to rob a convenience store because you think you need the money, a plain old stick is of no help. But a gun will generally get you what you want (I know! I have had 2 pointed at me in these situations!) If a person is intent on separating the purpose of sex from the pleasure, artificical birth control is just the means they use to accomplish their intent. It is not the cause of the selfish desires, it is just a tool used to attain them.

Understanding NFP better after reading JS’s article makes me much more willing to use it in place of ABC. I see how abstaining for the 7-12 days will make a couple appreciate more facets of each other and the sexual act itself more, and the example is shown well in the article. I think if more people understood NFP better, learned more self-control, and knew how much better something feels when they don’t have it all the time, they would be more likely to drop ABC and try NFP instead. I’ll be praying and pushing myself to work on those 3 things.

My own experience is that you will! Thanks for your posts!

Sincerely,

Dan

 

[Janet_S]

It was fun to discuss. I teach medical terminolgy ya know.
Ahhhh, we agree to an extent, but I am not sure we agree completely on the subject. It does seem others misunderstand me. I have been called a liar and invited to leave the forums with my presentation of the information… now that was a fun thread. This is a emotional topic.

Why I disagreed with you is because in one of your posts you simply stated “there is no direct evidence that OCP’s have an abortifacient effect” without being clear that there has never been a study designed to determine this.

This statement taken by itself is misleading. There is a difference between saying 1) a direct cause has been thoroughly studied, and there is no evidence and saying 2) it has never been studied, thus there is no evidence.

In this case, a direct cause has never been studied.

With the indirect evidence we have that OCP’s have abortifacient action–that OCP’s do not suppress ovulation 100%, that OCP’s cause the endometrial lining to thin, and that thinning of the endometrial lining can prevent implantation–we as healthcare providers have the duty to tell our patients what we know, not what we don’t know.

We both agree that there is indirect evidence that OCP’s could prevent implantation. This is what the drug companies report as well.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Not sure if I want to jump in here or not. But I found it interesting in reading the link from BillP to the press conference on HV. We read the very same article and yet drew opposite conclusions. What the Mons. seems to be saying is that while the document itself my lack ex-cathedra status, what it contains is clearly infallible. For those of us who learned it from old folks, “While it is not dogma, it is most certainly doctrine.”

Since the article was written a mere 2 weeks after HV was released any interpretation other than doctrinal makes no sense given the closing paragraph: (emphasis by me)

BTW, it was really cool watching a nurse and a pharmacist debate the confusing language of the medical field. I was wishing for an :eating popcorn: smiley. I was thinking, “when are they going to realize they actually agree with each other?”

I think you got it correct, HV contains many things in addition to the primary purpose of addressing “the pill”. It actually never speaks specifically of the “the pill”. The Pope lays out the proper plan for man and woman which of coarse can not change. The Pope is reminding us of the plan for man (and marriage), to assert each phrase and all content are infallible seems a streach to me espically calling the Church and Jesus “sign of contradiction,”. You’ve done well Deb