Vatican Bishop: ‘Humanae Vitae’ Foresaw Today’s Technological Dangers

[Alan55]

You may wish to reconsider your assertions as to whose statements are “Ignorant”

Researchers described ways to promote pregnancy and later to avoid pregnancy through knowledge of the birth cycle in the 1930s. An understanding of the hormonal basis of the reproductive cycle was not achieved until the 1950s. This understanding led to the development of the first birth control pills in 1950s and the first FDA approval of a birth control pill in 1960.

As for your comments about the effect of the media on moral behavior, that does not address my statement that homosexuality is not chosen but has a genetic basis. No matter how much TV you watch, doing so does not make you homosexual, although it may affect your attitudes toward homosexual behavior.

 

[Holly3278]

Venerable Pope Paul VI please pray for us! Amen.

 

[Glad2behome]

Well, when I went to weekday Mass during Natural Family Planing week, a young and newly ordained Priest spoke during his homily about contraceptives. He did not only call them “not okay” but “evil” and a “shame on you” for married couples that partake in it

How about you guys/gals?

 

[Suudy]

The translation of Humanae Vitae from the Vatican website uses the term “serious” reasons, not “grave” reasons.

You are correct. I was mistaken in my choice of words.

Most couples are thinking about more than convenience when they decide to limit their family size. Humanae Vitae itself referred to “physical, economic, psychological and social conditions” that may prompt the decision to not have additional children:

I don’t think so. I know many Catholics with one or two children who have plainly stated that they didn’t want too many children despite their obvious means to do so. Two couples I know directly expressed shock to me at having more than 2 children because it would impact their ability to travel and pay for college. Yet in both of these families, both work at high paying jobs (one couple both are doctors, the other is a high level executive at a big internet retailer and his wife is a software engineer), live in large, expensive homes and drive expensive cars (Lexus and Mercedes). There are also obvious examples of families within the parish that have the means to have more children, yet have one or two school age children (granted in these cases I don’t know if there are other reasons, but I doubt all of them do).

Further, I’ve had discussions with a friend of ours with 5 children where only the husband works (well paid as an engineer), and they too have heard direct reports from other expressing disdain for them being so “irresponsible” as to have more children than they can afford. When he confronted their notion of what they “can afford,” the couples talked about “How can you go on vacation? How will you afford college? How can you send them all to camp? How can you afford to buy new clothes for school each year?” (And don’t even get me started on the sniffs and sneers of our other friends with 8 children where only the husband works at a jobs that pays about $50k/year.)

None of these are “serious” objections to having children. These are all reasons on convenience.

Now, I do understand that these are anecdotal. But at least in the 2 parishes I’ve been a part of for the last 10 years, these are very common objections to having more than one or two children, despite them having the means to do so.

“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.” Humanae Vitae n. 10.

Right. And the couples I know that have intentionally limited their family size, have not done so due to physical or economic conditions. There may be psychological in some cases (I know of one couple where the wife was deathly afraid of pregnancy after her second resulted in an emergency C section, and her son was a month premature). And in the US, I’m not aware of any social conditions that would be serious enough to justify the spacing of children.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

The so-called “critique” you linked to seems to be from an organization committed to the status quo. The website I linked to tends to think forward a bit more. From his actions and words, Pope Francis isn’t pleased with the status quo either.

No Pope maintains the status quo completely. They have unique identities. Yet none of them would read that borderline heretical garbage. Why not link to Islam Today or High Times as well?

 

[prodigalson2011]

I strongly disagree. First, parents do not think of their child as a mere “product” simply because the choose to limit the size of their family through the use of contraceptives. Where does such an idea come from?

The bishop was referring to reproductive technologies such as IVF, surrogate motherhood, etc.; not contraception.

Popes have permitted Catholic families to choose to have fewer children since the 1950s, when, for the first time, we understood the reproductive cycle. According to the teaching of the Church, limiting family size is not only the right of Catholics, but is their responsibility and a moral good.

This has been permitted since the beginning of Christianity, not the 1950s. We now simply know how to do so more effectively.

The first written reference to periodic abstinence in Christian literature came from St. Paul himself.

I also disagree with the notion that technology has led people to believe that homosexuality is a “social role that we choose for ourselves.” To the contrary, science has helped us understand that homosexuality is primarily determined by our genetic make up, not a social role that people choose. Even with greater societal acceptance of homosexuals, few people would choose to be homosexual as a “lifestyle choice.”

The statement you cite was not referring to homosexuality, per se. It was talking about gender identity and transsexualism/gender reassignment surgery.

Nevertheless, while the desires are not, engaging in any kind of sexual behavior is a choice.

Such ignorant statements, whether by the Pope or by an influential bishop, do nothing to promote Catholic teaching on sexuality. Catholic teaching must be grounded in the truth if it is to be persuasive. Church leaders lose all credibility when they appear so grossly uninformed.

Per my comments, I think this is just a case of misinterpretation. The bishop was perfectly in line with Catholic teaching.